Bay 12 Games Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 29

Author Topic: Parallel Fortresses Succession Game. | Finished  (Read 49343 times)

origamiscienceguy

  • Bay Watcher
  • WELL! OK THEN!... That was fun.
    • View Profile
Parallel Fortresses Succession Game. | Finished
« on: October 17, 2015, 05:09:21 pm »

Parallel Fortress Succession Game!

DanielTheFinlander has taken over this succession game.
Click the link to be redirected to the new OP.
« Last Edit: August 24, 2016, 12:40:01 pm by origamiscienceguy »
Logged
"'...It represents the world. They [the dwarves] plan to destroy it.' 'WITH SOAP?!'" -legend of zoro (with some strange interperetation)

Immortal-D

  • Bay Watcher
  • [Not_A_Tree]
    • View Profile

There was a moderately successful game of Masterwork mod which used the same premise.  There are a few things I recommend you do in order to keep things orderly;

1. Link journals and other character posts in the OP.  Sorting through even a few pages without a glossary is quite cumbersome.

2. When a turn is complete, kindly send a PM to the next in line.

3. A friendly competition between the Fortresses would be entertaining.  Should you choose to do this, you would be tasked with keeping track of kills per year, wealth, etc.  An amusing write-up comparing the Fortresses per year would be quite a chore for you, but ultimately rewarding for reading.

4. In order to ensure that each Fortress is kept at relatively the same time line, a Fortress shouldn't be allowed to advance more than 2 years ahead of its' twin.  To that end, Dorfing and turn requests should be assigned evenly between them.

I feel like forum activity has slowed down quite a bit leading up to the new release this year, so don't be disheartened if this peters out.  Is a fun idea to be sure, but as you say would require a significant playerbase.

De

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile

Yeah I was just thinking about something like this. It came from wanting to see a Icehold/Murderfloods crossover but that's beside the point. Everything Immortal-D said stands. My idea was that players should play the fort down the list then switch forts to create a kind of parallel dimensions feel. The biggest obstacle is the inactivity in the forum.

You could try reworking the plan. Do it with only three or four people and have them switch between forts. Each fort could have a different goal which might keep them from becoming too much alike. They'd have to be really diverging goals though. Like one could have the goal of colonizing hell and the other could have the goal of building an above ground tower. Those are just the first two that come to mind. Someone else might have better ideas.
Logged
Don't pay attention to the body piles in every fort I play, I swear I'm competent at this game.

origamiscienceguy

  • Bay Watcher
  • WELL! OK THEN!... That was fun.
    • View Profile

thanks for the advice and feedback. I think that I will wait until Toady updates the game before starting this, then the inactivity would be less of a problem.
Logged
"'...It represents the world. They [the dwarves] plan to destroy it.' 'WITH SOAP?!'" -legend of zoro (with some strange interperetation)

De

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile

When you do I'd definitely like to give it a go.

I don't know if I'm looking forward to the version update or not... My computer might not even be able to run it. It barely runs 40.
Logged
Don't pay attention to the body piles in every fort I play, I swear I'm competent at this game.

Shonai_Dweller

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile

Just a suggestion, but if you're going for an alternate dimension you could generate two worlds with the same seed which would (I think) give you the same geographic location to found the fortresses in, but a different history for each. Meaning slightly different neighbors, rulers and other background for people to base their inevitable background rp stories on. Fun? Maybe? Feel free to ignore...
Logged

Gwolfski

  • Bay Watcher
  • Strawberries!
    • View Profile
    • ignore pls!

interested
Logged
why kill elves if you could torture them, make them betray their friends, denounce their "force", make them watch trees being chopped down, feed them meat and throw them in magma as a sacrifice for almighty Armok?

Eventually when you go far enough the insane start becoming the sane

Immortal-D

  • Bay Watcher
  • [Not_A_Tree]
    • View Profile

I'll definitely be keeping my eye on this :)

Timeless Bob

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile

As a suggestion: Each time someone plays a 1 year turn, they then have until the end of the following week to upload their write-up of that game, so that each person who receives a save file will always be in the dark about what has happened for the past in-game year. 

You may even make the turns 5 in-game years long or however much of those 5 years can be done in 1 week before posting the save file.  This way, the various histories will be even more inscrutable to the person who gets the saved game.

A further modification to this idea might be that at the end of the 1 week or 5 in-game years, that the fortress must be abandoned before saving the game.  The next person then will have to start out "recovering" the site, and will get to rediscover all of the stuff that happened there in the last turn with all of the population marrying, having kids and so on during that two (in game) week between Overseers.

One further expansion on this idea is that there are two fortresses in 1x1 adjacent plots, but run by different dwarven civs.  Each one takes a turn building for a year or five, trying to outdo their neighbor in a kind of "Keeping up with the Urists" type of contest.  They take turns back and forth, attempting to have a more valuable fortress, or to have the highest towers, or to have the most skilled craftsperson/warrior, ect...  Anyway, each fortress is retired before the game is saved and the other fortress is then unretired for their turn.  If ever the game crashes do to a "nemesis unit" error, then another adjacent site can be embarked on by that civ and the old one is retired for good instead.

All of these could be a lot of fun for a parallel fortress game.
Logged
L33tsp34k does to English what Picasso did to faces.

Dwarfopoly
The Luckiest Tourist EVER
Bloodlines of the Forii

Shonai_Dweller

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile

A further modification to this idea might be that at the end of the 1 week or 5 in-game years, that the fortress must be abandoned before saving the game.  The next person then will have to start out "recovering" the site, and will get to rediscover all of the stuff that happened there in the last turn with all of the population marrying, having kids and so on during that two (in game) week between Overseers.
You mean 'retired', right? Abandon and all you'll leave the next overseer is a scattering of socks and one lost merchant.
Logged

DDDragoni

  • Bay Watcher
  • More than just an average drunken axe-crazy nutjob
    • View Profile

I'd be interested in giving this a shot.

But Bob, I don't think the goal is to make the fort inscrutable to the person who picks it up- that would just over complicate things.
Logged
Stuff I run:
Icehold(Second Thread)
Stuff I was/am involved with:
The Succession Tower, ConstructIvory
Bonepillar                    Thunderdoom
Parallel Fortresses

Zuglarkun

  • Bay Watcher
  • [ETHIC:MAKE_MEGA CONSTRUCTION:REQUIRED]
    • View Profile

Might be interested in this further down the line. How about using the same embark, same starting seven (basically embark then copy the save), same named dwarves for both forts? Not only would it be interesting to compare the differences in the fortress layouts, but also the fate of the named dwarves. Obviously this will conflict with Shonai_Dweller's suggestion, but its another approach to consider.

origamiscienceguy

  • Bay Watcher
  • WELL! OK THEN!... That was fun.
    • View Profile

Might be interested in this further down the line. How about using the same embark, same starting seven (basically embark then copy the save), same named dwarves for both forts? Not only would it be interesting to compare the differences in the fortress layouts, but also the fate of the named dwarves. Obviously this will conflict with Shonai_Dweller's suggestion, but its another approach to consider.
That is exactly what I meant. Same world, same embark. I would embark once, save, than copy the world folder and rename it.
Logged
"'...It represents the world. They [the dwarves] plan to destroy it.' 'WITH SOAP?!'" -legend of zoro (with some strange interperetation)

QuQuasar

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile

This has happened a few times in Breadbowl, and I can confirm it's interesting to see a dwarf alive and well in one copy of the game despite having watched them have their head caved in by an Ettin in the parallel one.
 
I would recommend starting the divergence after the first year, once a very basic fortress has made and the first two migrations have arrived. Otherwise the only thing the parallel worlds will have in common will be the starting 7 and the map.

DDDragoni

  • Bay Watcher
  • More than just an average drunken axe-crazy nutjob
    • View Profile

This has happened a few times in Breadbowl, and I can confirm it's interesting to see a dwarf alive and well in one copy of the game despite having watched them have their head caved in by an Ettin in the parallel one.
 
I would recommend starting the divergence after the first year, once a very basic fortress has made and the first two migrations have arrived. Otherwise the only thing the parallel worlds will have in common will be the starting 7 and the map.
I think this is a good idea. A bit more in common would be nice for comparison's sake.
Logged
Stuff I run:
Icehold(Second Thread)
Stuff I was/am involved with:
The Succession Tower, ConstructIvory
Bonepillar                    Thunderdoom
Parallel Fortresses
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 29