Bay 12 Games Forum

Six hunt, with the axes, hardened spears, and spears.
Nine put up more shelter.
One tries to get a fire started.
One gathers wood.
The heavily pregnant women rest, teaching the child. The hypothermic man makes sure they're comfortable and, if those numbers mean what I think they mean, acts as a mid...husband?

The second point explains the first.
But, seriously. Think about it. You won in a fight where you are outnumbered by beings strong enough to rip a single, well-armed dwarf to shreds in seconds, without their abilities. You literally drove off the forces of Hell. What else is there?

What do you suggest we build? Don't we have enough houses?

It's beatable, but it's supposed to be the end.

Quote from: GreatWyrmGold on November 21, 2012, 07:08:16 pm

Why couldn't the other dwarves also pack up and leave?
A. Toady isn't a lazy jerk.
B. There is little that differentiates an adventurer from an NPC.

Now that you put it like that, I think I can see the underlying reason for limiting player controlled adventuring to prior adventures - they were initially under player's control, unlike all the other dwarves in the fortress. Allowing the player to control fortress dwarves directly would break convention.

I'm not saying I wouldn't enjoy the option. We could take control of random historical figure migrants and try to continue their (historical) lives, make a military fortress that is an adventurer training camp, pick an ancient vampire as our adventurer (or spot vamps as dwarves we can't pick), maybe get rid of useless dwarves this way as well. And that's just few of the possibilities.

But generalizing the possibility would force Toady to deal with all of the exceptions(dwarf about to go berserk? strange mood?) , exploits and other unwanted stuff that wouldn't be a problem if leaving the fortress as an adventurer would be a special case.

Well, for starters there would be ,imitations on whp could be controlled. Anyways, being able to control existing historical figures is planned. To an extent, at least. Controlling your own dwarves more directly is also planned to be possible. No reason not to bring these two together.

Quote from: GreatWyrmGold on November 21, 2012, 06:32:48 pm

You explained everything except how it would be more fun than annoying. You're the aff, you figure it out.

Then you have to wait.
Someday (perhaps many years later) I'll find a way to explain it to you without aff.

"Aff" is NFL-speak for "affirmative."

Yeah, DF has enough UI issues at the moment. Adding another one intentionally is bound for disaster.

Amen.

Quote from: GreatWyrmGold on November 21, 2012, 06:25:59 pm

Other than "blowing up" buildings, that sounds reasonable.

A dorf trowing a tantrum can destroy an object. Sometimes this can be very bad if the object destroyed is a lever controlling something important.

The problem I had was confined by quotes. Dwarves don't have explosives, and they should never have explosives stable enough for a tantruming dwarf to destroy a building with. Maybe they'd blow THEMSELVES up, though.

Quote from: Timeless Bob on November 14, 2012, 01:35:38 am

One easy fix would squash this bug and make forts less likely to kill one squad of goblins, then 80 citizens because a couple soldiers died.

Not that easy a fix, I'm guessing Toady has most reactions like that linked to a function, if the he had to change something like this he would have to make and change a bunch of his functions. While simple in thoery it would still be hard with just how complicated dwarf fortress is.

It's also planned, although as an alternative rather than a replacement to tantrums.