Bay 12 Games Forum
Dwarf Fortress => DF Suggestions => Topic started by: Iä! RIAKTOR! on November 06, 2020, 01:39:07 am
-
When I get goblin mercenary who wear something like dwarven nail ring or elf tooth crown, I want read more. If notable (named) creature was turn into trophy, this trophy may have name in description.
-
When I get goblin mercenary who wear something like dwarven nail ring or elf tooth crown, I want read more. If notable (named) creature was turn into trophy, this trophy may have name in description.
In Legends mode sure. Not in Fortress. How would you know?
I mean, sure, you might ask how you would know that a Legendary slab has been used to kill 1000 elves. Meh, not everything has to be consistent...
-
This is similar to the <name> skeleton problem.
What is this?
It's a skeleton.
Yeah but of what?
It's a skeleton.
A bit more detail, cause of death, and accessible history would be great. I'm satisfied if it ends up in Legends, but would like it to be visible in Fort/Adventure
-
When I get goblin mercenary who wear something like dwarven nail ring or elf tooth crown, I want read more. If notable (named) creature was turn into trophy, this trophy may have name in description.
In Legends mode sure. Not in Fortress. How would you know?
Maybe not your character, but it reminds me about the scene in the Hobbit (I think?) where the elf identifies the weapons they found. Information could be found in old books or people that lived during that time can remember it.
-
The amount of information could depend on your scholar's skills or if you had had contact with the area the item comes from.
So if you have a goblin neclase it just says goblin bone neclace, but if you then get a visitor from where ever the item is from the information changes to neclace mady ouf of the bones of the goblin named McGoblin who was murdered by O'Goblin.
I'd like if you could create a job for the scholars to research the history of the item.
-
When I get goblin mercenary who wear something like dwarven nail ring or elf tooth crown, I want read more. If notable (named) creature was turn into trophy, this trophy may have name in description.
In Legends mode sure. Not in Fortress. How would you know?
I mean, sure, you might ask how you would know that a Legendary slab has been used to kill 1000 elves. Meh, not everything has to be consistent...
In fortress mode I embarked on lair of named troll. She get some more names before I captured her. Then one DFhack mod help me to enslave her (she was a jewel of my zoo for entire month before her will was broken). I shear her fur, white due to her age. Piles of her fur WAS NAMED PROPERLY! But thread, cloth and robe was just 'troll fur'.
Also, artifacts. When dwarf make artifact from dwarf, description may contain name of victim.
-
In Legends mode sure. Not in Fortress. How would you know?
I mean, sure, you might ask how you would know that a Legendary slab has been used to kill 1000 elves. Meh, not everything has to be consistent...
I don't really see the difference, if one makes sense then the other does too. Everything doesn't have to be consistent but that doesn't mean that inconsistency is in some way better.
Seems like a good suggestion to me, it should at least be in Legends for the item and creature.
-
In Legends mode sure. Not in Fortress. How would you know?
I mean, sure, you might ask how you would know that a Legendary slab has been used to kill 1000 elves. Meh, not everything has to be consistent...
I don't really see the difference, if one makes sense then the other does too. Everything doesn't have to be consistent but that doesn't mean that inconsistency is in some way better.
Seems like a good suggestion to me, it should at least be in Legends for the item and creature.
Neither make sense. I was saying just because one is already in the game giving you knowledge of things you or your dwarves couldn't possibly know, doesn't mean we should add more just to be consistent.
For Legends mode, sure. The more info the better.
-
And does it matter if you dwarves couldn't know the history of kills on a sword? Is that at all to do with the dwarves or is this the developer giving the player information he thinks they would like to know? Does it in some way hurt the game to have more information available to the player than is available to the dwarves?
There are lots of things in the game now the dwarves couldn't know, but the player can, I don't see that as an issue.
-
I was saying just because one is already in the game giving you knowledge of things you or your dwarves couldn't possibly know, doesn't mean we should add more just to be consistent.
Agreed. It's plain silly that I can look at some random smear of blood, and instantly know which dwarf it came out of. If some item is an artifact or similarly well-known, it should be possible for a well-informed individual to be able to recognize it on sight, but otherwise knowledge of the item should be concealed from the player/dwarf until/unless someone more knowledgeable (presumably the one who had the item first) conveys that knowledge.
Similarly, discovered skeletons & other corpses should be identified by race, nothing more--unless they happen to have obvious defining characteristics like buck teeth or an unusual belt buckle or whatnot, or can be positively identified by an acquaintance. I'd like to see the "horrified at seeing a dead body" mechanic reworked so that it's to the fort's collective psychological benefit to bring friends/family members out to identify the dead before they decay beyond recognition.
-
I was saying just because one is already in the game giving you knowledge of things you or your dwarves couldn't possibly know, doesn't mean we should add more just to be consistent.
Agreed. It's plain silly that I can look at some random smear of blood, and instantly know which dwarf it came out of. If some item is an artifact or similarly well-known, it should be possible for a well-informed individual to be able to recognize it on sight, but otherwise knowledge of the item should be concealed from the player/dwarf until/unless someone more knowledgeable (presumably the one who had the item first) conveys that knowledge.
Similarly, discovered skeletons & other corpses should be identified by race, nothing more--unless they happen to have obvious defining characteristics like buck teeth or an unusual belt buckle or whatnot, or can be positively identified by an acquaintance. I'd like to see the "horrified at seeing a dead body" mechanic reworked so that it's to the fort's collective psychological benefit to bring friends/family members out to identify the dead before they decay beyond recognition.
at the very least it might spark some kind of weird/amusing "stupid dwarf trick" to create a pipeline of craftdwarf-oriented smiths to pump out a fortress wide set of dogtags.
speaking of which we need to be able to have word/name engravings on things.. even if that might lead to "Urist Wuz Here" decorating the floors and walls of a room
-
I mean that wouldnt be much worse than what dwarves already do. In a save file tucked away somewhere the mountain home is almost entirely covered in engravings of the same random ass goblin traveling. Seems like the first image your fort ever produces often turns into the ONLY one you ever see, probably because it's constantly getting refreshed in their memories and taught to new dwarves since they keep seeing it all over the place.
-
In order to preserve performance, only artifacts or objects used in a notable manner (such as a sword used to kill a historical figure) should be accounted for.
-
but otherwise knowledge of the item should be concealed from the player
I thought whole point of Fort Mode is that your basically some sort of omnipotent presence? Why should the player be excluded from having more information? This is what Fort Mode is for to add to the branching story of the game, every little detail is made to give interesting tidbits for the player to catch. Its a story generator. The only time knowledge should be concealed at greater lengths in my opinion is Adventure Mode, where your specifically playing as character rather than some mysterious force. Depending on what info your character has or analytical skill, more things would be referenced to you; kinda how certain aspects of Adv. mode are (tracking, smelling odors, learning parts of the map from asking questions in settlements, etc).
So I agree with OP that Fort and Legends mode should have more bits information to peruse on.
-
but otherwise knowledge of the item should be concealed from the player
I thought whole point of Fort Mode is that your basically some sort of omnipotent presence? Why should the player be excluded from having more information? This is what Fort Mode is for to add to the branching story of the game, every little detail is made to give interesting tidbits for the player to catch. Its a story generator. The only time knowledge should be concealed at greater lengths in my opinion is Adventure Mode, where your specifically playing as character rather than some mysterious force. Depending on what info your character has or analytical skill, more things would be referenced to you; kinda how certain aspects of Adv. mode are (tracking, smelling odors, learning parts of the map from asking questions in settlements, etc).
So I agree with OP that Fort and Legends mode should have more bits information to peruse on.
That's now. And even then, while very, very loose, you're more like the "top noble" or perhaps "collected wisdom of the government" rather than completely omnipotent. That's why dwarves go missing and vampires roam your halls. When the embark scenarios arc comes your role will possibly be even more defined. Part of Villains stretch goals are to have dwarves unhappy with your leadership begin to rebel against you.
So, no, knowing who's fingernails the secret vampire plucked to make his fancy earrings is not necessary in Fortress Mode.
Being able to investigate and eventually find out this information is, yes of course, a great thing that one day we'll be able to do naturally through playing the various modes. But not just thrown at you as part of the item description.
-
Eh, I don't know, what you say seems kinda stretched. Only a few sqaunt things (as you mention with it being "loose") suggests in Fort Mode that your the "top noble" or "collective wisdom of the government," it mostly frames it that your some sort of preternatural force guiding the Fortress. If all your dwarves die and only a child is left, is that really a "collective" wisdom of government? No, not really. Every embark starts with an expedition leader, but are *you* that character? No. When you play a character, that's Adv. Mode. The incoming embark arc of development when we'll finally get a more defined site theme to go by will be just that; scenario. It still doesn't mean your a specific character within Fort Mode.
And yes despite the exact "force" the player in Fort Mode is, it doesn't account for everything such as going missing or vampires- but even then when such things are discovered, the entire fort knows instantly while you ALSO know the new information instantly. Something I'd want is that info would be straggled from unit to unit as it goes down the network of general information to add to mechanical roleplay and watching it go around in a "stream" pattern, that'd be awesome. But for the player? No, not really.
Part of the fiat of Fort Mode is that your some near-omniscient (key word near) force that influences Dwarves behind the scenes and catches every interesting detail of what goes on the fort. Limiting fun little minutiae information in a simulationist game in DF makes no sense, at least for the mode we're talking about (Adv. is the inverse where you want to be immersed as possible in a SINGLE character).
-
Yes, it's not correctly defined yet but it's the way Toady wants it to be and somewhere along the next 30 years of development it may becone more so. The intent is not an omnipotent force, even if that's what we have right now.
How would rebelling against the "omnipotent force" for incompetent managenent (an actual stated goal, not something I made up) make any sense at all?
Anyway. The suggestion is what it is. I'm just remarking on reasons why it might not be implemented exactly as the op suggests so won't add any more here.
-
Easy. The units rebel and just change the power structure. The game carries on; however though it certainly will be interesting when Toady does put in a real system for rebellions than the pseudo ones we have in the form of loyalty cascades. Though I could be wrong on this and MAYBE that goal you brought up could be a new "game" over than the singular that is current in the game where the trigger is everyone dying. Though with how DF is really- its a storyteller generator and simulation game. It wouldn't be fun and it'll be "gamey" for a game over for a mere rebellion.
I also sincerely doubt new features will clammer or lessen complexity, I'm of the thought it'll add more. To say the future features in the development page will crack down or give little narrative in the long-run is.. again.. pretty iffy when we take in the contexts of the modes we're speaking about.
Fort Mode is very much about observational-omniscience as a PLAYER influencing things an OOC peternormal fashion. We're overseeing 100+ units at once and viewing every tidbit or their lives and fun information in the background. That's the main appeal of Fort Mode. Adv is about being immersed in a SINGULAR character who is IC and the facet that you discover and unearth things through exploration- hence Adventure Mode as the namesake suggests. Certain stuff will be unknown or non-doable for your character because he or she doesn't have the right skills or attributes to warrant it. In Fort Mode, you don't have this facet or need because its exploring a whole different dynamic as I said earlier.
Fort and Legends Mode would do for some more narrative stuff if possible as OP suggests.
-
It seems to me like just increasing the frequency/expanding the scope of named "non-artifacts" would be a good step that would satisfy both people who want as much info as possible and people who want some lore consistency, as well as not requiring the game to track every useless sock. Maybe also letting fortress players designate items to be named like you can in adventure mode. (kinda silly how the axe my dwarf used to singlehandedly fight off over 30 necro experiments is just treated as a normal axe because he died of his wounds before he could name it).
Honestly though I feel like a lot of this could be improved a lot without actually changing anything but the interface. Making the rumors screen in fort mode more like it is in ADV (well, ok, better than in adv. probably more like the tell story menu) and just letting the player examine tracked/legendary items through it. As it is there's plenty of knowledge that the player in fort mode is not privy too despite even the mason in making blocks down in the mines supposedly knowing it as common knowledge in adv mode.
-
How would rebelling against the "omnipotent force" for incompetent managenent (an actual stated goal, not something I made up) make any sense at all?
How does it make sense at all that an incompetent "top noble" has access to every thought, emotion and opinion of every citizen updated in real time? Or that they can examine the inventory and skills of invading goblins? Or the wounds on a magma crab in a volcano? Or read hundreds of pages of battle logs for a Forgotten Beast in walled off caverns?
The fort mode depends on the player having access to information they couldn't have as a citizen. Story telling doesn't improve with less information.
-
Not only that since Fort Mode is player driven, it goes by the experience of the player not a specific character in the Fort itself. This mode is going by the fiat that the player is an OOC director of Fort events. Wouldn't it be weird that this "noble" is highly competent all the time with little to no mistakes that seems near-omnipotent and has facts and details on a drop of a hat? An experienced DF player save some variables will always have a good running Fort almost no matter what.
This also doesn't even account for as your Fort progresses, the IC leadership shifts to different units as it gets recognized status from the monarch and changes leaders (and also when said units also die in some way). Then to begin with as I referenced before, you as the player aren't even any single unit to begin with; rather a force managing multiple units at once subliminally by peternatural OOC means. Why should information in this mode be lessened when that's contrary to what its trying to achieve? Doesn't make sense to me at all.
-
This bard is wearing earrings made from the bones of a dwarf he killed and feasted on last month while masquerading as a bard at the mountainhome.
Do you suppose he's the vampire? Sorry, where is the "improved storytelling" in telling someone the secret vampire is a vampire? Don't forget to clearly label all the Villains "person who wants to take over your fortress". After all what's the sense in withholding information.
-
I guess at the helm of this discussion is that there certainty can be a balance between having more information to read-on, while some still things are withholden to the conceit that the player is only near-omniscient, but not enough to know almost anything for things such as agents or vampires. This I admit is a problem in the current update where Intelligent Undead that are sent to infiltrate your fortress are clearly identifiable or Necromancers themselves who come to visit already have it known they can raise undead- those could definitely use some tinkering.
The bard analogy though is something that'd an observant player who finds it will suspect such a person to a Vampire anyway in the base-game already even with the increased information stuff OP is asking for; since having a dwarf bone earring alone is a big tell of something being off. Though this should be considered an award for players who pay attention to specific details than anything negative.
-
I suppose this feature would be interesting if it was tied to some gameplay element in a way that makes sense. Say, if you could appoint something like a chronicler or a chief historian whose job would be to find out more about particular items (or people) by collecting information from visitors or by sending out spies or what have you. Or maybe have the new dungeon master do it since they are already supposed to be responsible for counter-espionage I think.
That might also make it feel less like the player gaining more information than he should, because it would be the dwarves themselves discovering it and they could react to it without player intervention, for instance by organising a witch hunt if they find out that someone is a vampire.
-
I suppose this feature would be interesting if it was tied to some gameplay element in a way that makes sense. Say, if you could appoint something like a chronicler or a chief historian whose job would be to find out more about particular items (or people) by collecting information from visitors or by sending out spies or what have you. Or maybe have the new dungeon master do it since they are already supposed to be responsible for counter-espionage I think.
That might also make it feel less like the player gaining more information than he should, because it would be the dwarves themselves discovering it and they could react to it without player intervention, for instance by organising a witch hunt if they find out that someone is a vampire.
This idea is perfect!
-
This bard is wearing earrings made from the bones of a dwarf he killed and feasted on last month while masquerading as a bard at the mountainhome.
Do you suppose he's the vampire? Sorry, where is the "improved storytelling" in telling someone the secret vampire is a vampire? Don't forget to clearly label all the Villains "person who wants to take over your fortress". After all what's the sense in withholding information.
You've made a straw man argument- you're arguing against revealing creature secrets when this suggestion is about adding to item information. It no more reveals a creature is a vampire if he's wearing a "dwarf bone earring" or an "earring made from the bones of dwarven thresher Urist McDurist."
This suggestion is even more relevant when considering the items made in your fort from named creatures. If my dwarves made a totem out of a FB skull then the name of the beast should at least be in the description, instead it just says "This is a forgotten beast skull totem". I've never had a fell mood but I'd guess it's the same thing, where you can't see who the artifact was made from.
-
Seems to me that historical information about an item should be transmitted as rumors ("The legendary sword Evilhammer struck down the ettin Wandersthroat in the year 602"), and one kind of rumor could be a "description of the item" that allows you to identify the item on sight, once you have the rumor. (Logically you should be able to piece the information together once you have enough knowledge, but that sounds a lot harder to code.)
You can get the "item identity" rumor verbally, or read about it in a book. A character may also identify an item they are holding to those present ("This is the legendary sword Evilhammer"), giving them access to the rumor.
If your character knows the "item identity" rumor, then the item should be identified automatically when you see it. If you see the item but don't have the rumor, you can only see its physical description - you might be able to tell it is an artifact ("This is a steel longsword of masterful quality.") but you wouldn't be able to identify it.
As with the personal alias system, it would also be possible to lie about the identity of an item to people, which could fool people who knew things about the item but couldn't identify the item itself.
-
Seems to me that historical information about an item should be transmitted as rumors ("The legendary sword Evilhammer struck down the ettin Wandersthroat in the year 602"), and one kind of rumor could be a "description of the item" that allows you to identify the item on sight, once you have the rumor. (Logically you should be able to piece the information together once you have enough knowledge, but that sounds a lot harder to code.)
There's the Sourcing subdivision in topics about history; maybe historians might be able to discernate worthy and worthless rumors.