Bay 12 Games Forum

My thoughts about realism vs. simulation -- which I know you weren't addressing in this thread -- mainly involve the non-interface part of "Dwarf Fortress": you need to manage lots and lots of stuff, with stone as just one example. Like, you don't just have to decide where you want to put it, but also how much of it can be in bins, and who can haul it there, and which subdivisions of material can go to that spot, and then suddenly you discover that a sick dwarf died because everybody was so focused on moving stuff around.

If stone just disappeared, or if it magically teleported from place to place, that would free me up to worry about other things...but it would take such a huge bite out of the realism of the game that it would annoy me.

So my post -- addressed to only one aspect of the larger question ("what makes the game enjoyable") and which only addresses the concerns of those who view "Dwarf Fortress" as an insanely detailed simulation (such as me) -- is pretty much a rumination about how the issue could be a lose-lose one.

I understand that your point is a completely different one (regarding the user interface).

It's at:
http://dangermuffy.blogspot.com

But hopefully nobody minds my posting the entry here, as I think it relates to the whole idea of "what people expect from a simulation such as Dwarf Fortress":

------

"Simulation" computer games grab me and they refuse to let me go. There's something about my personality that loves playing god with small collections of simulated humans, even if the simulated humans are just washing their dishes.

Along comes "Dwarf Fortress," which is not only an elaborate social sim but also caters to my OTHER game obsession: procedurally-generated worlds in which I can build and populate elaborate environments. This sort of game is the best drug ever for me. It goes straight through my eyes and into the pleasure centers of my brain. It's so good it's like mainlining breakfast, without the annoying waitress and the babies crapping on the highchairs.

But fortunately there seems to be an unavoidable flaw in all simulations. This flaw ultimately dulls the thrill and returns me to my pre-addicted, regularly-blogging self: sims are fun as long as there are more "real-world" details waiting to be exposed to the player...

...but the more detailed a game becomes, the more monotonous the gameplay ends up being, because the real-world is actually horribly dull.

For instance, I really enjoyed "The Sims" until I realized it was essentially an endless routine of getting my simulated people off to work on time, which is so realistic that it actually sucks. Likewise a game like "Alpha Centauri" where the problems boil down to getting your simulated units from one part of the world to the other; in my REAL life I finally bought a car to reduce that sort of monotony. Why should I put up with such things in a piece of escapist entertainment?

It's typical that, when I started actually having dreams about "Dwarf Fortress," my dreams were always about moving rocks from one place to another. I'd wake up in the morning feeling as though I'd worked all night in a warehouse, moving junk around from one place to another, then moving it back again later on. Most of the gameplay in "Dwarf Fortress" really comes down to that...

...and it's terribly dull and the exact opposite of entertainment...

...but that's the limitation of an accurate simulation: everyday life REALLY IS about moving stuff around all day, whether it's money or food or your body. The only reason we stay sane is because we forget the number of times we've washed our hands and the number of socks we've picked up (and believe me, the Dwarves in "Dwarf Fortress" are ALWAYS leaving their socks around).

So, my sim-hungry brain craves the most accurate "real life" simulation possible...but my brain is simultaneously uninterested in the mundane tasks that are 95% of real life. "Dwarf Fortress" could only sustain my interest if it got even more ridiculously detailed, but by doing so it would only become more tedious as a result.

I suspect this applies to the high-end modern simulations as well, games like Grand Theft Auto 4 and The Sims 2. I'm sure there's a point in the "fun sim" equation when the lines of "tedium" and "realism" meet, where the player cannot cross.

For my own social future that's surely a good thing.

So I've started what other people here have suggested: make-work projects. A huge tomb full of glass and precious metals. Well-protected roads going everywhere. If I really want some excitement, I turn on Stone Hauling and watch children get snatched when they try to follow their parents too far from the defenses.

I also enjoy playing fast-and-loose with miners, giving them broad instructions which sometimes result in cave-ins.

Sadly, many building projects require pausing the interface for a long period of time -- especially the painful one-by-one wall/floor placement -- which just delays interesting events even longer.

If you're worried about game lag, search each level thoroughly before you go down to the next; apparently each new level you dig into exposes a new bunch of data to the engine and therefore slows the game down. So avoid "exploratory shafts."

As for cloth production, check out the "plants" page in the Dwarf Fortress Wiki. It explains which standard plants can be:

1. Processed at a Farmer's Workshop into thread.
2. Threads turned into cloth at a Loom.
3. Cloth dyed at Dyer's shop if you wish to increase the value (then you'll need to process certain plants into dye -- or buy dye from traders -- see the "dye" page for information).
4. Cloth made into clothing at the Clothier's Shop.

The process for silk is similar (if you have cave spiders leaving silk all over the place).

So, basically, you'll want to plant Pig Tails or Rope Reed in order to make plants that you can process and turn into clothes.

Myself, I just buy cheap bins of cloth from traders, to cut out that somewhat tedious first step.

As for managing dwarves, you need to do a bit of micromanaging whenever new ones arrive or old ones dye -- to make sure their skills don't overlap and that enough skills are represented -- but after each "tweak" you can let them run wild.

If I want a particular job done, I just focus on a particular workshop for a while and wait to see if a dwarf is doing it in a reasonable amount of time. If not, I look in the "u" dwarf list and either

a) Pick out a dwarf that SHOULD be doing the job, then change its allowed skills to stop it doing whatever's distracting it, or

b) Pick a dwarf with "no job" and change its allowed skills so that it can do the neglected job.

Hope this helps!

Why this happened between those two occupations so frequently, I have no idea. Maybe they had to share a seat on the wagon.