Bay 12 Games Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 7

Author Topic: Alternative (RAW-defined) Reproduction  (Read 14360 times)

Glitch(TMG)

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Alternative (RAW-defined) Reproduction
« on: January 30, 2013, 01:30:22 pm »

Original post:
Spoiler (click to show/hide)


New And Improved Stated Objective;
In short, the root suggestion of this thread is to: Remove the 'reproducing by spores' effect that encompasses every non-dwarf creature in the game, remove the hardcoded "female" and "male" caste RAWs, and implement a new set of basic-rule RAW tags for RAW-defined castes, reproductive requirements, reproductive products, and possibly even the ability to add 'transformations' based on age (or better yet, RAW-defined as well) to simulate multistage lifecycles.

Page 1: Starting out the discussion primarily focused on asexual reproduction, beginnings of branching out to more generalized reproduction.
Page 2: Discussion shifted to the societal side of breeding.
Page 3: Defining more possibilities for RAW tags, slight detour into multiracial forts, mini-essays on real-world genes (with focus on giraffes), attempts to classify a fantasy creature from DF.
Page 4: More on giraffes, more attempts at RAW definitions.
Page 5: Some mention of mechanics of the RNG and lifecycles, mostly swallowed up by irrelevant argument on taxonomy.
Page 6: Brainstorming of societal implications and mechanics of sentient reproduction ("marriage"), occasional injection of continued irrelevant taxonomy argument.




Vote for this topic on the Eternal Suggestion Voter! (ctrl+F for "reproduction")

EDITS:
2013/02/04; Glitch(TMG): changed title to be more encompassing and general, hopefully to keep the topic active longer.
2013/02/07; Glitch(TMG): Slight change to the title again, added a better summary of the thread goal and discussions, linked to eternal suggestion voter.
« Last Edit: February 20, 2013, 02:01:21 pm by Glitch(TMG) »
Logged

NW_Kohaku

  • Bay Watcher
  • [ETHIC:SCIENCE_FOR_FUN: REQUIRED]
    • View Profile

I would, and I know that it's been talked about before... it just may have been in those other threads like the homosexuality ones.

But in any event, I'll just add again that many creatures use methods like parthenogenesis to reproduce. 

Many creatures also do not have standard XX/XY gendered chromosomes.

Queen bees, for example, use drones to fertilize themselves sexually (creating XX female worker bees), but in the absence of a drone, will fertilize their own eggs (creating an X gene - no Y chromosome exists) that results in drones being born. (Yes, this means the drones are her sons.)

Plants, especially, are prone to unusual sexual ratios - farmers prefer all-hermaphrodite species of plants that can self-pollinate, but different species of plants can be any of male/female, female/hermaphrodite, male/hermaphrodite, or male/female/hermaphrodite species. 
Logged
Personally, I like [DF] because after climbing the damned learning cliff, I'm too elitist to consider not liking it.
"And no Frankenstein-esque body part stitching?"
"Not yet"

Improved Farming
Class Warfare

wierd

  • Bay Watcher
  • I like to eat small children.
    • View Profile

That's not even getting into the weirdness of gastropods like mollusks and pals.

Those go from being male, to being female, as they grow older.
Logged

Di

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile

Yeah, a bunch of non-standard breeding schemes would be nice.
For example: hermaphrodites, hermaphrodites capable of self impregnating, spouse converters that aren't night creatures.
It'd also be nice to be able to determine the caste of children depending on which castes parents belong to.
Might open a lot of possibilities for more variable races.
Logged
Quote from: Creamcorn
Dwarf Fortress: Where you meet the limit of your imagination, moral compass, sanity and CPU processor.
http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=103080.0 Fix sober vampires!
http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=91442.0 Dwarven Cognitive Science

NW_Kohaku

  • Bay Watcher
  • [ETHIC:SCIENCE_FOR_FUN: REQUIRED]
    • View Profile

There's also a whole area of courtship rituals. 

Many species have females that do not ovulate until after a courtship takes place.

The asexually-reproducing Whiptail lizard is an all-female species that reproduces solely through parthenogenesis, but where they still will not begin ovulation until after a courtship ritual takes place... which obviously has to happen between two females of the same species.  In spite of the fact that they merely pair up, and no actual sex takes place, it's mandatory for the courtship to actually take place before eggs can be produced.

Courtship rituals are also, as Jared Diamond pointed out in Guns, Germs, and Steel, part of the reason why many species were never domesticated, such as the cheetah.  Cheetahs have a courtship ritual that involves the male giving chase to the female in a flat-out sprint across the plains... and that made keeping tamed cheetahs that could breed with one another inside enclosures impossible. 

It's only creatures that either don't have courtship rituals, or where the rituals are capable of taking place in captivity that can be domesticated.  (See the problem with getting pandas to mate in captivity...)

Obviously, it's something more complex than just throwing a token on (unless you just want to have a "no breeding in captivity" token) but it really does change the way domestication works out.
Logged
Personally, I like [DF] because after climbing the damned learning cliff, I'm too elitist to consider not liking it.
"And no Frankenstein-esque body part stitching?"
"Not yet"

Improved Farming
Class Warfare

penguinofhonor

  • Bay Watcher
  • Minister of Love
    • View Profile
Re: Asexual (and perhaps otherwise non-two-gender) reproduction for creatures?
« Reply #5 on: February 01, 2013, 03:49:06 am »

The small troop of dwarven soldiers stood at the edge of the fields and looked across them. A steel gate towered behind them, open for the last time. The closest to the gate as he heard a noise beyond it.

Lolok spoke first. "Footsteps." Either a civilian hadn't made it to safety or they were about to die. They had been told in advance to expect a message of victory, telling them they would not be needed, but they knew better than to believe it. They were the most experienced soldiers in the entire fortress and even they didn't have hope against that... thing.

The scout stumbled into the room, as expected. "Snarlshed, the King's Guard." He unraveled a letter, his hands shaking. "Commander Tumut wants to congratulate you on your upcoming victory." He began to stutter out the next sentence but a mace knocked the scroll form his hands.

"We all know why we're down here." The mace belonged to Urist, the most scarred member of Snarlshed. "To die. Now die with dignity, beside us."

"Die?" The scout's face whitened. "But the emergency tunnel..."

Lolok coughed out a laugh. "There isn't one. This thing can't be allowed to get out." She reached for the scout but he stepped back.

Wordlessly, he fled from the room, turned up the stairs, and froze in place as a pseudopod wrapped around him before engulfing him. The giant amoeba slithered around the corner and reached at the gate, taking in anything small enough to be wrapped around. The members of Snarlshed got in formation.

--- twenty years later ---

The citizens of Snarlshed were merry despite their circumstances. Their fort once trapped the mightiest beast to terrorize the land and had proven completely impervious in the two decades since then. The fort was being sieged by goblins now, but not one dwarf feared them. Half the military was at the opening ceremony while the other half were drunk at their posts.

"Citizens!" the mayor shouted above the commotion. "Twenty years ago on this day, our fort was named after its saviors. And now we shall reclaim what they gave up to protect us. Not even the longest dragon-sleep would allow a beast to live through this. Despite this, we have our military here to destroy it if it survives in some withered, weakened state." The crowd cheered.

The gate groaned and a caking of dirt flaked off it. A light shuffling could be heard past it but the source was not discernable. The gate rose a meter and dwarves began to peek under it. A semitransparent glob extended towards them.

"It lives!" the mayor shouted. "Put it out of its misery."

The first row of soldiers ducked under the gate, then screamed as they were dragged in. A mass of pseudopods stretched out from the gate as if the whole passage was filled with them.

The goblins left the fort when the soldiers began leaping from the walls. They were not around to see giant amoebae pour from the ramparts after them.
Logged

Mechatronic

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Asexual (and perhaps otherwise non-two-gender) reproduction for creatures?
« Reply #6 on: February 01, 2013, 04:34:28 am »

Queen bees, for example, use drones to fertilize themselves sexually (creating XX female worker bees), but in the absence of a drone, will fertilize their own eggs (creating an X gene - no Y chromosome exists) that results in drones being born. (Yes, this means the drones are her sons.)
Last I read bees are haplodiploid, like wasps and ants. Male bees are haploid, that is they have one set of chromosomes, while female bees are diploid, they have two sets. Male bees thus come from unfertilised eggs while female bees come from fertilised eggs. With bees any female bee, including the workers, can produce male offspring asexually. However other female worker bees will generally punish a worker bee for reproducing this way. Only queen bees have the anatomy to sexually reproduce and produce female offspring.

Logged

NW_Kohaku

  • Bay Watcher
  • [ETHIC:SCIENCE_FOR_FUN: REQUIRED]
    • View Profile
Re: Asexual (and perhaps otherwise non-two-gender) reproduction for creatures?
« Reply #7 on: February 01, 2013, 12:40:49 pm »

Last I read bees are haplodiploid, like wasps and ants. Male bees are haploid, that is they have one set of chromosomes, while female bees are diploid, they have two sets. Male bees thus come from unfertilised eggs while female bees come from fertilised eggs. With bees any female bee, including the workers, can produce male offspring asexually. However other female worker bees will generally punish a worker bee for reproducing this way. Only queen bees have the anatomy to sexually reproduce and produce female offspring.

Yes, that's what royal jelly is for - unlike ants that have special castes, all female bees are basically the same as a queen, except they are put into stunted cells and not fed enough to fully develop.  Thus malnourished, they never turn into queens.  Queens-to-be(e haha! *shot*) are given special larger cells and royal jelly, which is full of hormones that trigger sexual development.



*vignette*

Even giant amoebas should need to eat at some point...

The whole starvation thing is kind of why this isn't Planet of the Bacteria, what with their obscene geometric reproductive rates.
« Last Edit: February 01, 2013, 12:42:34 pm by NW_Kohaku »
Logged
Personally, I like [DF] because after climbing the damned learning cliff, I'm too elitist to consider not liking it.
"And no Frankenstein-esque body part stitching?"
"Not yet"

Improved Farming
Class Warfare

penguinofhonor

  • Bay Watcher
  • Minister of Love
    • View Profile
Re: Asexual (and perhaps otherwise non-two-gender) reproduction for creatures?
« Reply #8 on: February 01, 2013, 02:12:58 pm »

I've concluded that dramatizing asexual reproduction is difficult.
Logged

NW_Kohaku

  • Bay Watcher
  • [ETHIC:SCIENCE_FOR_FUN: REQUIRED]
    • View Profile
Re: Asexual (and perhaps otherwise non-two-gender) reproduction for creatures?
« Reply #9 on: February 01, 2013, 05:09:51 pm »

I've concluded that dramatizing asexual reproduction is difficult.

You could try a more intelligent species.

I remember some sci-fi short stories that included concepts like aliens that have only one gender or change genders during different portions of their life cycle/periods of the day or something coming into contact, and being confused with the whole notion of gender and gender inequality as a topic.  (Written during/commenting on feminism in particular.)
Logged
Personally, I like [DF] because after climbing the damned learning cliff, I'm too elitist to consider not liking it.
"And no Frankenstein-esque body part stitching?"
"Not yet"

Improved Farming
Class Warfare

GreatWyrmGold

  • Bay Watcher
  • Sane, by the local standards.
    • View Profile
Re: Asexual (and perhaps otherwise non-two-gender) reproduction for creatures?
« Reply #10 on: February 02, 2013, 08:20:56 am »

That's not even getting into the weirdness of gastropods like mollusks and pals.
gastropods like mollusks and pals.
implication that mollusks are a subclade of gastropods
...
That's just wrong. It's the other way around.

I've concluded that dramatizing asexual reproduction is difficult.
Then why try?

-----

This is a good, probably-planned suggestion that I imagine has been suggested somewhere before, but kudos to Glitch for failing to find something searching before posting.
Logged
Sig
Are you a GM with players who haven't posted? TheDelinquent Players Help will have Bay12 give you an action!
[GreatWyrmGold] gets a little crown. May it forever be his mark of Cain; let no one argue pointless subjects with him lest they receive the same.

weenog

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Asexual (and perhaps otherwise non-two-gender) reproduction for creatures?
« Reply #11 on: February 03, 2013, 02:23:05 am »

I've concluded that dramatizing asexual reproduction is difficult.

I don't think it is.  I think you just need to focus less on the squishy action and more on the implications and results of the reproduction. An example of one dramatic possibility which is (or was) rather popular in speculative sci-fi.
Logged
Listen up: making a thing a ‼thing‼ doesn't make it more awesome or extreme.  It simply indicates the thing is on fire.  Get it right or look like a silly poser.

It's useful to keep a ‼torch‼ handy.

javierpwn

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Asexual (and perhaps otherwise non-two-gender) reproduction for creatures?
« Reply #12 on: February 03, 2013, 02:41:38 am »

I can only imagine a giant sponge turning into several more sponges over time, until your river is completely filled, and overrun with sponges

And fisher dwarves leave the rotting fish outside, where they will constantly spam the message of a hostile unit
Logged

Glitch(TMG)

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Alternative Reproduction
« Reply #13 on: February 04, 2013, 02:07:18 am »

Oh! Glad there's been some interest in this idea.  :)

Some of the brought-up very specific real-world animals might be a little over-complex for Dwarf Fortress (hahahaha, but no, seriously now), and not worth it in Toady's eyes to model, so if there's going to be any chance of this idea being a genuinely viable suggestion to add onto Dwarf Fortress, then two criteria will need to be kept in mind, methinks;

1)It has to add some valuable functionality to the game
2)It has to be simple enough, programming-wise

The first objective was part of what got me to suggest this idea in the first place; over in the modding board, it was mentioned how things like cave floaters, floating guts, etc, make excellent punching bags but don't breed, even if you capture multiples of them. While it's not difficult at all to simply mod a female and male version of all such creatures, that's a somewhat crude solution to a more wide-affecting issue. It was even brought up that, because such things don't actually reproduce at all, someone said they don't do so during worldgen and it's theoretically possible that, like finite forgotten beasts and other megabeasts, they can eventually go extinct if the world history is run for long enough. But, I suppose on the other hand, if they were to actually reproduce during worldgen (or is that even simulated at all for wild populations? I dunno. SOmething to ask about further some other time, probably to start another topic about later as well) that may or may not cause issues with population dispersal and density and whatnot.

On a more significant topic and relevant to DF from all the mentions of various breeding schemes, being able to populate a DF world with creatures with more fantastical creatures, perhaps some with breeding schemes that don't exist in the real world, would help go a ways towards DF's stated goal of not being a generic fantasy game, but a generic fantasy world generator (if I am quoting that correctly). In one of the threads I tried to search for on this topic previously (the "new races" one), there was talk of something like a tribal race of lizard-people that worked with one alpha male and a harem of females, but also an entourage of beta males that don't reproduce.


But as for the second criteria, keeping things simple, this is where I can only hope someone with programming logic experience and familiarity with the tokening system in DF comes along to perhaps come up with a skeleton framework of tokens to suggest for use. But, with what little experience I have, what I mean by keeping things simple is we can't have tokens for every unique form of breeding there is, or even make any tokens specific to any -kind- of breeding. Rather, what we need is a bottom-up approach; a collection of small, simple rules that can be combined, mixed, and matched to form much more complex structures.

One approach I can think of for this is perhaps, in regards to reproduction, is to structure it in terms of "Input" and "Output"; what is required to breed, and what results from that breeding. Possible requirements could be [NEEDS_<something>_RESOURCES] (for things like, maybe algae-like life that only needs to eat something before growing and splitting off), [NEEDS_<other>_CREATURES] for various kinds of parasitic lifeforms that need hosts to breed (Xenomorphs and facehuggers, anyone?), and then [NEEDS_<something>_CASTE], for requiring another version of their own species (which is applicable to male-female standard reproduction schemes). There also might need to be some basic rules determining, perhaps, what kind of breeding takes place under what circumstances (some animals/creatures will produce more, or more more of a certain gender, if the population suffers some kind of it,), as well as for sentient races, societal considerations like "needs relationship of some kind", though with also sometimes some possibility of those societal considerations being less hard-set than the more biological ones (wedlock, anyone?). Something like hermaphrodites, I'm thinking would be too specific to program in on their own, and could just use a more general basic rule "just needs any one other of same species", with no separate castes.

Then there would need to be rules for what kind of offspring is produced, some of which I think is already present, like laying eggs, and how many are laid. But there also needs to be things like binary fission/mitosis, and things resulting from aformentioned parasitic breeding, as well as determining exactly what caste might result (sometimes influenced by the 'emergency breeding' conditions some animals have, like say, need more males/females/warriors/workers/other, both for dual-gender and multigender creatures) and what the chances are if there is chance involved.

On top of all this, there might also have to be an expansion to the 'transformation' system which, if I am not mistaken, has only just gotten some basics in with werecreatures. Some more control over what something can transform into, and when/under what conditions, would go a long way towards helping this system, like some transformations based on age (tadpole becomes a frog, maggot becomes an antman), and some transformations based on necessity (some animals will change their gender in response to a population hit, or change overtime).



Anyone good with programming logic feel like taking a crack at brainstorming up with a list of rules/tokens like that?

EDIT: Oh, and completely forgot the obvious; if Night Creatures could be brought under the umbrella of a general basic-rules reproduction system, that would be a major plus. I imagine that the primary way they "breed" wouldn't be related to reproduction at all; the part where they capture humanoids of the opposite gender of them and then transform that humanoid into a opposite-version of themselves would probably just be something like a very selective syndrome that has a transformation effect (maybe it doesn't even need to be modeled in-game at all), and they otherwise reproduce normally; "needs caste", which is applied to only females (whether that's the original Night Creature, or a male Night Creature's spouses), and where the needed caste is just males.
« Last Edit: February 04, 2013, 02:31:44 am by Glitch(TMG) »
Logged

wierd

  • Bay Watcher
  • I like to eat small children.
    • View Profile
Re: Asexual (and perhaps otherwise non-two-gender) reproduction for creatures?
« Reply #14 on: February 04, 2013, 02:29:24 am »

That's not even getting into the weirdness of gastropods like mollusks and pals.
gastropods like mollusks and pals.
implication that mollusks are a subclade of gastropods
...
That's just wrong. It's the other way around.


lulwut?

I was referring to the meaning of what gastropod means-- StomachFoot, EG-- things that move around with muscles on their abdomens. (Slugs, Snails, Clams, etc.) In the world of DF, we shouldn't make assumptions about the phylogenic categorization of fantastical organisms. Instead, I was referring to the body plan description-- gastropods.  In the DF universe, this would include things like Fleshballs. Those are NOT mollusks, but still gastropoid. :D (Fleshball has no nervous tissue, has no openings for consumption or defecation, and does not secrete a shell, nor have any noteworthy internal structure.  It is therefor, not diagnostically a member of the phylum mollusca, despite being clearly a gastropod.)



Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 7