940
« on: July 22, 2011, 11:26:39 pm »
I keep to a single, broadly-interpreted rule that can make the game rather challenging depending: No Meta-Gaming. Basically, I try to approach design, defenses, etc. from the mindset of what my dwarves would do if they were in charge.
I do usually have a bridge (since IRL drawbridges were frequently used to keep out invaders), but few if any weapon traps (I had a few friendly dwarves get caught in the crossfire once, and felt real dwarves would deem them too risky, and too cowardly for handling invaders), and few cage traps (I felt it made sense for dwarves to take captives, but it's TOO easy to catch things, so I limit my cage traps out of fairness).
You'll quickly be amazed how this rule can really alter how you play the game; anything I can't dismiss as a simplification/extrapolation for the sake of gameplay is considered too "gamey" or "exploity" and forbidden. So, no atom-smashers, perpetual motion machines, wells that magically desalinate sea water, etc.
It can even affect your approach to certain projects (maybe the dwarves would consider an expanded farm, better defense system, or nicer jail more important than a magma-works or massive deathtrap). Granted, this may not be the answer you're looking for, but it DOES make for nice storytelling and forts that can be significantly more complicated to run than one where the lives of your dwarves revolves around seeing your vision through to completion, danger and costs be damned!