Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Shonai_Dweller]

I dont see the concern for this. If someone wants to cheat as they play solitaire then who cares. Conversly, if someone wants to cut up their cards as they play solitaire, then who cares.  They can get nother pack of cards.

The problem is temptation.

If it were really so important to me to not get attacked by goblin hordes right now, I'd be far more tempted to take 2 minutes to switch off goblin siege triggers or set sieger cap to zero than faffing about with retiring, starting a daemon adventurer, killing myself, unretiring.

Never understood what's so appealing about a story which ends "and then the daemon king died and we all lived happily ever after" anyhow. And if that's the story you want, why should you be denied it?

[KittyTac]

I'm kind of with Shonai here. No points should be the default. But it should be settable for those who WANT it.

[GoblinCookie]

If it were really so important to me to not get attacked by goblin hordes right now, I'd be far more tempted to take 2 minutes to switch off goblin siege triggers or set sieger cap to zero than faffing about with retiring, starting a daemon adventurer, killing myself, unretiring.

Never understood what's so appealing about a story which ends "and then the daemon king died and we all lived happily ever after" anyhow. And if that's the story you want, why should you be denied it?

In most game you can activate cheats to much the same effect.

But in this case unlike editing the ini files, retiring and choosing a character to play is a basic and unavoidable part of the game mechanics.  We can't turn off our ability to play a character, so we have to control what characters we can play as, or else we will be tempted to do stuff that will ruin our story.  A key part of every decent game is the player must be forced to accept that he can't do anything without consequences, we can't rely on the average player to voluntarily accept defeat. 

Once we have taken over the demon overlord and had him throw himself off a cliff, there really is no way to go back.

[Shonai_Dweller]

If it were really so important to me to not get attacked by goblin hordes right now, I'd be far more tempted to take 2 minutes to switch off goblin siege triggers or set sieger cap to zero than faffing about with retiring, starting a daemon adventurer, killing myself, unretiring.

Never understood what's so appealing about a story which ends "and then the daemon king died and we all lived happily ever after" anyhow. And if that's the story you want, why should you be denied it?

In most game you can activate cheats to much the same effect.

But in this case unlike editing the ini files, retiring and choosing a character to play is a basic and unavoidable part of the game mechanics.  We can't turn off our ability to play a character, so we have to control what characters we can play as, or else we will be tempted to do stuff that will ruin our story.  A key part of every decent game is the player must be forced to accept that he can't do anything without consequences, we can't rely on the average player to voluntarily accept defeat. 

Once we have taken over the demon overlord and had him throw himself off a cliff, there really is no way to go back.

Well, it depends on your definition of "defeat". After being "defeated", my world still exists so I might just choose a goblin site to continue playing in this world.
I also don't think there's any tempting reason for someone to "ruin" their story. But I guess you're speaking from personal experience and it's likely that you're not unique.

How about what a lot of other games do in this situation and have an "Iron Man" option? This would, just off the top of my head and not thought out properly like your points system, allow you to play in a world as much as you like, but only as one civilization. You'd be forced to try to ensure the survival of the civ, perhaps "lose" a site if there was a rebellion. Each adventurer you play would be free to do what they like, but to feel like you're making progress players would be encouraged to work for the good of the civ.

You'd then get to play as you like in all the ver 1.0 playstyles; king for some whole-civ action, army generals for army fun, sites, mercs, bards, etc. Thus keeping the free playstyle feel that we all love about Dwarf Fortress.

[KittyTac]

If it were really so important to me to not get attacked by goblin hordes right now, I'd be far more tempted to take 2 minutes to switch off goblin siege triggers or set sieger cap to zero than faffing about with retiring, starting a daemon adventurer, killing myself, unretiring.

Never understood what's so appealing about a story which ends "and then the daemon king died and we all lived happily ever after" anyhow. And if that's the story you want, why should you be denied it?

In most game you can activate cheats to much the same effect.

But in this case unlike editing the ini files, retiring and choosing a character to play is a basic and unavoidable part of the game mechanics.  We can't turn off our ability to play a character, so we have to control what characters we can play as, or else we will be tempted to do stuff that will ruin our story.  A key part of every decent game is the player must be forced to accept that he can't do anything without consequences, we can't rely on the average player to voluntarily accept defeat. 

Once we have taken over the demon overlord and had him throw himself off a cliff, there really is no way to go back.

Well, it depends on your definition of "defeat". After being "defeated", my world still exists so I might just choose a goblin site to continue playing in this world.
I also don't think there's any tempting reason for someone to "ruin" their story. But I guess you're speaking from personal experience and it's likely that you're not unique.

How about what a lot of other games do in this situation and have an "Iron Man" option? This would, just off the top of my head and not thought out properly like your points system, allow you to play in a world as much as you like, but only as one civilization. You'd be forced to try to ensure the survival of the civ, perhaps "lose" a site if there was a rebellion. Each adventurer you play would be free to do what they like, but to feel like you're making progress players would be encouraged to work for the good of the civ.

You'd then get to play as you like in all the ver 1.0 playstyles; king for some whole-civ action, army generals for army fun, sites, mercs, bards, etc. Thus keeping the free playstyle feel that we all love about Dwarf Fortress.

+1.

[IndigoFenix]

I dont see the concern for this. If someone wants to cheat as they play solitaire then who cares. Conversly, if someone wants to cut up their cards as they play solitaire, then who cares.  They can get nother pack of cards.

The problem is temptation.

If it were really so important to me to not get attacked by goblin hordes right now, I'd be far more tempted to take 2 minutes to switch off goblin siege triggers or set sieger cap to zero than faffing about with retiring, starting a daemon adventurer, killing myself, unretiring.

Never understood what's so appealing about a story which ends "and then the daemon king died and we all lived happily ever after" anyhow. And if that's the story you want, why should you be denied it?

The issue is ultimately tied to one big question: is DF a simulator or a game?

If it's a simulator, players are free to mess around with it as much as they like.  But if it's a game, there needs to be some form of challenge intrinsic to the game itself.

Of course, in a game as easily modded as DF, the opportunity to cheat is ever-present.  But cheating should feel like cheating.  If you want to mod in a playable Bronze Colossus, then that's your choice, but you're clearly not playing the game as it was meant to be played.  (Not that I have an issue with modding in general - quite the opposite - but when you play a mod you are essentially playing a game reimagined by the modder, whether they intend it to be a balanced game or simply a mess-around mod.)

If switching over to play as your enemy is left in as an optional part of the game's menu, then it becomes part of the game.  If there is an in-game element that removes the challenge unless the player decides not to use it, this is a sign of poor game design.  Therefore there should be some limitation on who the player can switch to (with maybe an option to turn it off if the player prefers to play in "creative mode").

It's the same reason Toady has left out basic amenities such as a quit button.  Sure, savescumming is easy enough, but the fact that you need to use an external utility to do so sends a very clear message that you are not supposed to be playing this way.

Sometimes players take on extra challenges, because DF played safely is far too easy.  It is easy to seal yourself into a fort and survive indefinitely.  But that's only because the game is still incomplete; the fact that you can do this is a flaw in the game's current design and should not be regarded as its ultimate vision.  There is already a built-in "difficulty setting" based on the hostility of the local environment and presence of nearby enemies; ideally this should be the main determining factor of how hard the game is (with appropriate reward for taking the hard path), not how much the player decides to restrict themselves.

[KittyTac]

DF is officially a fantasy world simulator. It's not a game in the traditional sense of the word.

[IndigoFenix]

DF is officially a fantasy world simulator. It's not a game in the traditional sense of the word.

I would argue that it could be best described as a story generator.  The game aspects are designed mainly to encourage the player to create a good story.

For example, save-scumming.  Forbidding save-scumming forces the player to play realistically, only accepting reasonable challenges and not taking unnecessary risks.    An unskilled peasant should not be walking into bandit camps alone.  Challenging a megabeast should feel risky.  Save-scumming allows the player to create absurd stories where multiple vastly improbable events inevitably go their way just because they are the hero, where there is no risk involved in taking risks that no sane person should ever take.  In a regular story (not counting a comedy) this would be seen as poor writing.  And so the game discourages it.

Similarly, "and then the goblin general inexplicably committed suicide and the kingdom was saved" is a poor ending to a story.  So there should be no button that allows the player to make this happen.

[Egan_BW]

Yes, but wouldn't you want to be able to jump from your fortress to the goblin leader, and send a siege after your own fortress? Get revenge on your own dwarves, and have your minions carry back the artifacts you witnessed the creation of, so that you can display them all around the dark fortress?

[IndigoFenix]

Yes, but wouldn't you want to be able to jump from your fortress to the goblin leader, and send a siege after your own fortress? Get revenge on your own dwarves, and have your minions carry back the artifacts you witnessed the creation of, so that you can display them all around the dark fortress?

Hence OP's idea: how to make it possible to play as multiple roles, while minimizing the opportunity for blatant exploitation.  If control of high-ranking, influential members of a civilization is basically a "reward" for investing your time in playing as that civilization (through whichever exact means) then the enemy goblin is no longer just an obstacle to be possessed and thrown away - he is a part of your story as a player, and someone you're not going to want to kill off, or at the very least make sure they have a good death.

"Unlocking" high-ranking members on both sides of a conflict would technically allow you to decide which one came out on top - but since you would have "investment" in both sides, your chances of exploiting this to simply kill one side off unceremoniously would be much lower.  Players generally want their previous adventurers to have a good death, or not die at all, encouraging them to play sensibly.

If killing off a high-ranking member that you have control over "punishes" you by reducing your ability to control that civ in the future, this can be used to further discourage the player from killing them.

[Shonai_Dweller]

It's a simulator / story generator until Toady defines some kind of hard coded 'win' situation. Which is possible, I guess, but probably only on a single character/site level. Or perhaps multiple plays linked in some kind of clever procedurally generated campaign with specific restrictions on how you have to play it.

But vanilla play, in my opinion, shouldn't restrict you playing whoever, whenever you like. As a story generator, that's the type of control I expect.

[KittyTac]

It's a simulator / story generator until Toady defines some kind of hard coded 'win' situation. Which is possible, I guess, but probably only on a single character/site level. Or perhaps multiple plays linked in some kind of clever procedurally generated campaign with specific restrictions on how you have to play it.

But vanilla play, in my opinion, shouldn't restrict you playing whoever, whenever you like. As a story generator, that's the type of control I expect.

Exactly. If you want to make a bad story where all the baddies jump off cliffs, so be it. It won't be very satisfying anyway.

[JesterHell696]

As someone who see DF as a simulator first and a game second I don't like this restriction.

I just prefer a "true" sandbox where the player can do what ever they want within the "laws" of the setting and not have arcade style challenges added in just to challenge the player, the way I see it either the player can take control of other characters (history figures) or they can't, having a point limit to stop munchkin's doesn't appeal to me.

Personally my preference goes like this.

• No limit
• Certain important characters are protected by the gods and unselectable, leaders, high priests, army leaders ect.
• No selecting history figs at all
• Point system

I suppose I could accept it more if its done like embark points where you can set higher numbers in Advanced World Gen, maybe setting it to 0 is unlimited?

I also think a "GOD" incarnate option with unlimited attribute/skill points for adv mode would be good.

[KittyTac]

As someone who see DF as a simulator first and a game second I don't like this restriction.

I just prefer a "true" sandbox where the player can do what ever they want within the "laws" of the setting and not have arcade style challenges added in just to challenge the player, the way I see it either the player can take control of other characters (history figures) or they can't, having a point limit to stop munchkin's doesn't appeal to me.

Personally my preference goes like this.

• No limit
• Certain important characters are protected by the gods and unselectable, leaders, high priests, army leaders ect.
• No selecting history figs at all
• Point system

I suppose I could accept it more if its done like embark points where you can set higher numbers in Advanced World Gen, maybe setting it to 0 is unlimited?

I also think a "GOD" incarnate option with unlimited attribute/skill points for adv mode would be good.

Exactly. But you can type "adv-max-skills" in DFHack for something like the "GOD" incarnate option. It sets all stats to superior and skills to legendary. Then you can select yourself after you spawn in and type "make-legendary all" for legendary +5 skills.

[GoblinCookie]

Well, it depends on your definition of "defeat". After being "defeated", my world still exists so I might just choose a goblin site to continue playing in this world.
I also don't think there's any tempting reason for someone to "ruin" their story. But I guess you're speaking from personal experience and it's likely that you're not unique.

How about what a lot of other games do in this situation and have an "Iron Man" option? This would, just off the top of my head and not thought out properly like your points system, allow you to play in a world as much as you like, but only as one civilization. You'd be forced to try to ensure the survival of the civ, perhaps "lose" a site if there was a rebellion. Each adventurer you play would be free to do what they like, but to feel like you're making progress players would be encouraged to work for the good of the civ.

You'd then get to play as you like in all the ver 1.0 playstyles; king for some whole-civ action, army generals for army fun, sites, mercs, bards, etc. Thus keeping the free playstyle feel that we all love about Dwarf Fortress.

The game is already iron man, roguelikes are supposed to be iron man.  But speaking from experience I have been known to on occasion rage-crash the game and start again from an earlier save in order to get another shot at something.  That is kind of what I mean by temptation, if you have an investment in something it is hard to just let that investment die.

Most games on the other hand allow you to load and reload.  Since the stories are generally linear and the perspective is singular, this in effect turns the game into a series of puzzles to be solved, which at least incentivizes the player to learn to play the game better.  Once we add in possessing historical characters however, we have in effect the worst situation possible, we can get out of our failures and defeats without learning anything by using our ability to possess characters strategically.  The worse thing about this is that there is no clear illegality established, you can play as anybody you wish, that is the basic rule of the game; so why not use it as a weapon?

As someone who see DF as a simulator first and a game second I don't like this restriction.

I just prefer a "true" sandbox where the player can do what ever they want within the "laws" of the setting and not have arcade style challenges added in just to challenge the player, the way I see it either the player can take control of other characters (history figures) or they can't, having a point limit to stop munchkin's doesn't appeal to me.

Personally my preference goes like this.

• No limit
• Certain important characters are protected by the gods and unselectable, leaders, high priests, army leaders ect.
• No selecting history figs at all
• Point system

I suppose I could accept it more if its done like embark points where you can set higher numbers in Advanced World Gen, maybe setting it to 0 is unlimited?

I also think a "GOD" incarnate option with unlimited attribute/skill points for adv mode would be good.

A simulation is a situation where there is no player, if there is a player then it is a game.  You are tampering with the experiment at that point, invalidating the results as it were.  If you want to play god mode, you just have to modify the raws of all civilizations to set all characters values to 0.

As IndigoFenix has already explained, the point of this idea is not to keep you from playing historical characters that are important.  It is to keep you from playing as important characters unless you have sufficient emotional investment in their civilization that the story of those civilizations matters to you and you make a sacrifice if you write their story against their own interests.