Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Pranz]

Rules are wellwritten, i like the idea of controlling different civs other than dwarven.

[TomIrony]

I see no problem with other controllable races.

Ideally, we shouldn't limit people's intentions/creativity arbitrarily, and if someone is confident they can make something really awesome for the rest of us to explore with gobbos, then I say let's allow it!

As far as adventuring goes, I'm just excited to see threads where people record their exploration and react to the various fortresses. It'd be interesting to have a few people exploring the same fortress in parallel (not in cannon) and seeing who finds what and who's killed by which.

[Oliolli]

Other civ control poll: Yes

[Loud Whispers]

Other civ control poll: Yes

+1

Dwarf fortress reclaimed by Humans. And vice versa.

[Veetor]

Yes, I vote for Other civ control as well.

One thing we should do, after all turns are complete, make people that did not participate in this play our world as adventurers, it would be awesome.

[Pranz]

Yes, I vote for Other civ control as well.

One thing we should do, after all turns are complete, make people that did not participate in this play our world as adventurers, it would be awesome.

that is kind of the point of this project

[Veetor]

Yes, I vote for Other civ control as well.

One thing we should do, after all turns are complete, make people that did not participate in this play our world as adventurers, it would be awesome.

that is kind of the point of this project

Scrap that. What I meant is to record it, not to just tell people to play it.

[DS]

It seems like there's plenty of support for non-dwarf sites, so I'll add that in (rule 2-d).

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Rule #1: A single turn lasts 10 days, beginning the day after the previous save has been made available.
   a) A participant must publicly announce that they have downloaded the save within two days of the beginning of their turn, or their turn is delayed. The participant has the opportunity to take their turn one place later in line, but if they fail to check-in for their delayed turn, they are skipped.
   b) A participant must upload the save and submit a completed turn survey (see Rule #5) within two days of the end of their turn, or they are skipped. The participant goes to the end of the line, unless they produce the save before the next participant in line announces they have begun.
   c) If a participant is experiencing extenuating circumstances which render them unable to begin or complete their turn, they may be eligible to have their turn delayed, so long as the situation is addressed in advance, and not during their turn.

Rule #2: A participant must add to the world 1 fortress.
   a) Becoming the Mountainhome is prohibited.
   b) Killing of generals, necromancers, titans, civilization leaders, and other notable historical figures is discouraged.
   c) A participant must publicly announce when the fortress crumbles or is otherwise "complete."
   d) If the participant so chooses, they may add to the world an elven forest retreat, a goblin tower, or a human town instead of a dwarf fortress. All the rules apply normally to these sites.

Rule #3: A participant may add to the world 1 adventurer.
   a) A participant may only create an adventurer if the participant's fortress has been legitimately completed a day or more before the end of their turn. A participant may not abandon a fort for the purpose of creating an adventurer.
   b) An adventurer may not enter fortresses that are marked by their creator as forbidden (see Rule #5).
   c) An adventurer may not kill more than three quest targets, and slaying of necromancers, vampires, civilization leaders is discouraged.
   d) The Succession World project's ultimate goal is to create a world for the purpose of being explored by a non-participant adventurer. The ability to create a "canon" adventurer should therefore be seen as another opportunity to enrich the world - not as a chance to kill as many creatures as possible.

Rule #4: Altering the raws and use of third-party utilities (Dfhack, Runesmith, etc.) is restricted.
   a) Certain changes to the raws may be made prior to the commencement of the project, and are to be kept throughout the entire project. (We need to finalize these - more on this later.)
   b) Altering the raws or use of third-party utilities may be allowed in certain situations, all of which are to be discussed and decided upon prior to the turn in which they are implemented.
   c) Use of Dwarf Therapist is, of course, allowed.

Rule #5: Upon completion of their turn, a participant must complete and submit a short survey of their turn, consisting of:
   a) Name and location of fortress (ideally via a screenshot of the embark screen).
   b) Status (open/restricted/forbidden). If the fortress is "open," then any subsequent participant may attempt to reclaim the site, or explore it with an adventurer. If the fortress is "restricted," then any subsequent participant may explore the site as an adventurer, but may not attempt a reclaim. If the fortress is "forbidden," then no participant is allowed to interact with the site in any way.
   c) Any further information is optional. Participants are strongly encouraged to submit creative elements (anecdotes, original fiction, maps, a journal, etc.) that can be made available to the community, although such information is ultimately optional. A participant may wish to cultivate an aura of mystery surrounding their fortress, in which case minimal information (or none at all) would be appropriate.
   d) The name, location, and status of the fortress should be provided in the same post in which the save is uploaded (see Rule #1), but the subsequent optional information may be submitted at the participant's leisure.

As far as adventuring goes, I'm just excited to see threads where people record their exploration and react to the various fortresses. It'd be interesting to have a few people exploring the same fortress in parallel (not in cannon) and seeing who finds what and who's killed by which.

However, I would rather not have adventurers saved in the world as a rule.  They can take the save and adventure in it AFTER submitting the final save, but adding them in as part of the world would, I feel, limit the possibilities for later adventurers. Unless in the next version new quests pop up periodically, so that by the time the final compendium is put out the quests have re-gened back to full capacity.

It seems that having adventurers incorporated into the world is the more controversial issue here.

On one hand, allowing participants to create an adventurer might detract from the experience of non-participant adventurers. Unless strictly controlled, participant adventurers would take quest opportunities that will probably not be renewed as the game continues. Adventurers can't really add sites for other to explore either, which we can all agree is kind of the point of the project.

On the other hand, canon adventurers might enrich the world in another way by creating more colorful NPCs for characters to deal with - both friendly and hostile (consider demigod goblin adventurers) - who might also migrate to fortresses and other sites and make the game more interesting on many levels. As well, canon adventurers provide alternate characters for newcomers to play as (a dwarf character starting in an inhabited fortress!?), instead of creating a brand new adventurer.

There seem to be people on both sides of this issue, so it might be best if we could come up with some kind of common ground (restricting adventurers from finishing any quests, for example). Otherwise, we will have to have a vote.

[Veetor]

It seems that having adventurers incorporated into the world is the more controversial issue here.

On one hand, allowing participants to create an adventurer might detract from the experience of non-participant adventurers. Unless strictly controlled, participant adventurers would take quest opportunities that will probably not be renewed as the game continues. Adventurers can't really add sites for other to explore either, which we can all agree is kind of the point of the project.

On the other hand, canon adventurers might enrich the world in another way by creating more colorful NPCs for characters to deal with - both friendly and hostile (consider demigod goblin adventurers) - who might also migrate to fortresses and other sites and make the game more interesting on many levels. As well, canon adventurers provide alternate characters for newcomers to play as (a dwarf character starting in an inhabited fortress!?), instead of creating a brand new adventurer.

There seem to be people on both sides of this issue, so it might be best if we could come up with some kind of common ground (restricting adventurers from finishing any quests, for example). Otherwise, we will have to have a vote.

Yes, I think there should be a limit on what an adventurer can do.

[Poindexterity]

However, I would rather not have adventurers saved in the world as a rule.  They can take the save and adventure in it AFTER submitting the final save, but adding them in as part of the world would, I feel, limit the possibilities for later adventurers. Unless in the next version new quests pop up periodically, so that by the time the final compendium is put out the quests have re-gened back to full capacity.

i feel the same way.
im the type to wait until christmas morning to open all the presents. I don't dig the whole "open ONE on christmas eve" thing.

[Poindexterity]

i vote "yes" on the whole non-dwarf adventurer AND non-dwarf fort idea.
i WILL vote "yes" on the play an adventurer before its all done thing IF we can find a way to make CERTAIN that it doesn't fuck things up.

[A Spoony Bard]

I have a question, If I do finish early, may I do multiple canon adventurers? My main plan for doing this was to start them have them punch the nearest person in order to become a criminal, and then flee to the fort I made. Not only would this add quite a bit of atmosphere to the fort itself, but it would also make additional quest targets (NPCs will send Adventurers to fight criminals, right?)

[Monkeyfacedprickleback]

With canon adventurers I want them to not finish quest but add flavor to completed/Abandoned/ruined forts.For exapmle if I finish my fort in 8 years then abandon I can have a canon adventurer go into the fort to die horribly adding it into legends. In legend after a fort is abandoned or completed it's history stops, UNLESS you visit as an adventurer or reclaim.
 So I figure having a canon adventurer go into the fort or (multiple adventurers) would add flavor, Sort of a
"yes the mighty demi god heard tales from the masons who worked on the the great deathmaze of tombtome and went there in search of riches. He was never heard from again. Surely this is a place of great danger." 

Whatever happens there will be more rumours and entry's in old forts. Which I feel is benificial. It give more of a this fort was abandoned 20 years ago and nothing ever happens there now, and less of this fort was attacked by a minotaur, or this dwarf settled in this fort.

But it would be good to have a more concrete Idea of What the adventurer is allowed to do. For example your adventurer Can only go into a fort you made, OR a fort Soe one else made with the permission of the creator. Plus the adventurer has to have a set goal, it could be Go into fort and die or grab an adamantine sword then retire to become badass immigrant, OR in some cases the adventurer could be instantly retired after creation, so they become High stat warrior migrants. Another issue to adress is companions, and slabs.

Companions are tricky business. I don't know how rumors are tacked in game, But I think it could have to do with witnesses or civilisation or possibly location. If rumors are tracked by civ or witness then having a companion witness your demise and go report it to his civ may be of benifit but i doubt this. Honestly I can't see much use for canon adventurer companions other then to scare off bogeymen.

IF Slabs are reusable and available  it would be cool if canon adventurers could learn necromancy (or become werecreature) and then go to an old for and claim it as their own. Though I don't know if they will be able to do this in a way that beinfits the world. It would be cool if you could be a necromancer/vampire hiding in your own fort when you retire so you become another nightcreature to be slain. I think it may need dwarfhack or whatever to turn your fort into a site for you to be able to retire though. Otherwise you'll probably get the "give in to starvation" option.

I have a question, If I do finish early, may I do multiple canon adventurers? My main plan for doing this was to start them have them punch the nearest person in order to become a criminal, and then flee to the fort I made. Not only would this add quite a bit of atmosphere to the fort itself, but it would also make additional quest targets (NPCs will send Adventurers to fight criminals, right?)

That seems sorta reasonable to me, I like the Idea that 20 or so year after world gen we can still make new night creatures and quest kills, By say attacking a villager or two the hiding in the hills. But a big problem with with that is that you may not be able to Retire in an old fort. You might have to retreat to a differnt civilisation and that may cause some problems, like you could run into a unique enemy like a bandit master, or dragon by accident, things we would much rather keep intact for variety. Plus if you get killed, It means you killed a villager for no good reason, which is rather detrimantal in overtly large quantities.

THis kind of thing plus ideas I mentioned above need some peer review.

[Eric Blank]

I'd also feel much better about allowing adventurers if they aren't permitted to kill any quest targets. Assaulting wildlife wouldn't necessarily be bad, though. Especially if the wildlife kills them in a humorous manner and subsequently becomes a quest target!

I like the concept of trying to make quest targets of adventurers too. Not exactly sure how to accomplish it, though...

I guess I can do some testing to figure out how to make it happen.



Also, can-do on making the other civs playable.

[DS]

I like the concept of trying to make quest targets of adventurers too. Not exactly sure how to accomplish it, though...

I guess I can do some testing to figure out how to make it happen.

Theoretically, if someone created a goblin settlement and retired it using Dfhack, subsequent goblin adventurers could retire at the site.

Although, in order to become quest objects themselves, an adventurer would have to kill a named creature, then retire somewhere safe. Otherwise, they simply add to the challenge for other adventurers.