Bay 12 Games Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

Author Topic: Response to FoTF post Oct 1st 2018  (Read 2417 times)

Eric Blank

  • Bay Watcher
  • *Remain calm*
    • View Profile
Response to FoTF post Oct 1st 2018
« on: October 29, 2018, 05:21:19 pm »


Also, as there are no customs to control things, I didn't add any placeholder tags here, but I'm open to suggestions if people want to tweak it a bit before those years pass.

Theres the idea of bastard children, born out of wedlock. The game knows innately who the father is but more realistically a woman with multiple partners immediately before a pregnancy doesnt really to find out which ones the daddy during the time period we simulate in game (short of magical divination which we also dont have)

So basically, custody laws. A child born out of wedlock cant have any "legitimate" argument for inheritance of family heirlooms from their fathers side or noble position inheritance. Just a simple entity tag that says "nope" in those situations, and instead gives ownership of the item to the entity itself and allows claims by other nobles besides the "bastard." The child can start a "villainous" plot to retrieve their heirlooms unnoticed or install thenselves in noble positions they feel cheated out of by birthright. Its a common enough plot in history and fiction.

Other than that, i wanted two/three weird entity level tags:
One that makee marriages/matchmaking the role of government entities, where the entity can force unions on couples that otherwise have no interest in each other, or deny marriages sometimes which were formed by mutual interest. Like that would be handled by religious leaders if the civ has them or site/civ level positions if not.

And the ability to restrict marriage by caste, say a tag that says caste x cannot legally marry...
And/or one that says caste x isnt allowed to marry caste y

These shouldnt prevent relationships directly, but just marriages and maybe childbearing.

The reason is i have a civ/creature that is supposed to be divided into three castes; lower, middle and high. In this civ marriages arent supposed to be unions of love, but forced on individuals by divine right. Lower caste isnt supposed to be allowed to marry/procreate at all, the middle and upper castes only by divine selection, and the upper caste should not marry into the middle caste regularly.

Ideally i would also want a creature tag that restricts what castes a female of a particular caste can give birth to. Like as a list format that uses numbers to make a ratio like the body descriptors for color probabilities so: [caste_birth_possibilities:female_elf:90:male_elf:90:female_goblin:25...]

Then we can also have multi-race species that give birth to only their own races, which people have been wanting to do for a long time, and possibly also solves the hybrid creatures problem later. You can literally merge the playable races that are supposed to be able to interbreed as castes of the same creature w/hybrid castes and define them such that they cannot give birth to members of other castes unless partner is x then replace with possibilities list: [...:female_elf_human_hybrid:1:male_elf_human_hybrid:1]

And another thing weve all been hoping for, for a long, long time, was just to define and describe unique deities that should always appear for a civ.
« Last Edit: October 29, 2018, 06:00:38 pm by Eric Blank »
Logged
I make Spellcrafts!
I have no idea where anything is. I have no idea what anything does. This is not merely a madhouse designed by a madman, but a madhouse designed by many madmen, each with an intense hatred for the previous madman's unique flavour of madness.

Putnam

  • Bay Watcher
  • DAT WIZARD
    • View Profile
Re: Response to FoTF post Oct 1st 2018
« Reply #1 on: October 29, 2018, 07:16:32 pm »

ideally i'd like a system which doesn't have marriage as a necessary part of it at all

Dorsidwarf

  • Bay Watcher
  • [INTERSTELLAR]
    • View Profile
Re: Response to FoTF post Oct 1st 2018
« Reply #2 on: October 30, 2018, 07:44:44 pm »

I guess you'd have tags and then subtag systems dependent on the tags like
Code: [Select]

[PARTNERSHIP:OPEN:2:X]
    [Polygamous_group]
    [Outside_relations:FALSE]
 

[Marriage:2]
    [Monogamous]

or whatecver
Logged
Quote from: Rodney Ootkins
Everything is going to be alright

SixOfSpades

  • Bay Watcher
  • likes flesh balls for their calming roundness
    • View Profile
Re: Response to FoTF post Oct 1st 2018
« Reply #3 on: November 01, 2018, 02:46:56 am »

Theres the idea of bastard children, born out of wedlock. The game knows innately who the father is but more realistically a woman with multiple partners immediately before a pregnancy doesnt really . . . So basically, custody laws.
Your choice of words in "custody laws" suggested another possible option: An authority figure (most likely the ranking noble or current mayor, but possibly also a priest or the head of the mother's family) flat-out declares who the father is, at least in the eyes of the law/society. Ideally, this would take into account both actual evidence (the baby has similar coloration as the "father") and rumors (a few people saw the mother and "father" flirting about nine months ago). Depending on social mores, the "father" might be forced to marry the mother, or at the very least acknowledge the bastard as his own, as well as pay some form of child support and/or formally authorize the child to inherit. Refusal would almost certainly be considered a crime, as well as cause a Grudge between all members of both families.

Quote
. . . One that makee marriages/matchmaking the role of government entities, where the entity can force unions on couples that otherwise have no interest in each other, or deny marriages sometimes which were formed by mutual interest.
People really don't seem to be interested in matchmakers. I suggested one about a year ago, and got a whopping ONE reply.

Quote
And the ability to restrict marriage by caste, say a tag that says caste x cannot legally marry...
And/or one that says caste x isnt allowed to marry caste y
Okay, do you mean "caste" as in social caste, defined by what a person does for a living, which (in particular with Overseer-managed dwarves) can change at the drop of a hat? Or are you speaking of traits defined at birth, such as gender, which are more or less immutable?

Also, beware of adding further complexity. There are already 2 x 3 x 4 x 4 - 16 = 80 possible types of relationship, even without considering nobility or social caste:
2 [Heterosexual][Homosexual]
3 [Romantic][Sexual][Reproductive]
4 [Marital][Nonmarital][Premarital][Extramarital]
4 [Monogamous][Polygamous][Polyandrous][Polygynous]
Factor in just 5 different levels of how society might feel about each of these (Forbidden, Discouraged, Neutral, Encouraged, Mandated) and that's 400 different relationships (at least, before you subtract some conflicts). Now, I agree, the landscape could still benefit from being made richer; Different social ranks, and genders, being constrained by different rules would not only be flavorful, but absolutely flush with historical precedent. But considering that this is all being coded by one guy, I would advocate for baby steps.

Quote
And another thing weve all been hoping for, for a long, long time, was just to define and describe unique deities that should always appear for a civ.
Don't speak for the group. I for one have never wanted a deity that would always appear in the pantheon of every civ--I consider even some of the more ubiquitous spheres (most notably Fortresses) to be a rather glaring lack of variety. Sure, some ability to define/edit a civ's gods would be nice, but don't assume that everyone wants what you want.
Logged
Dwarf Fortress -- kind of like Minecraft, but for people who hate themselves.

Eric Blank

  • Bay Watcher
  • *Remain calm*
    • View Profile
Re: Response to FoTF post Oct 1st 2018
« Reply #4 on: November 01, 2018, 06:25:09 pm »

In this case caste actually referred to creature caste, the game doesnt seem to have social status checks beyond nobles, criminals/enemies, and everyone else until at least this next release.

And creating specific deities persistent between worlds (for specific civs/entities, mind) has come up before, like in long term community games like battlefailed, or that time folks thought about an creating ancient greece game but couldnt incorporate the greek pantheon in any sensible way. Just because nt everybody wants it explicitly, doesnt mean im going to correct my grammar.
« Last Edit: November 01, 2018, 06:35:17 pm by Eric Blank »
Logged
I make Spellcrafts!
I have no idea where anything is. I have no idea what anything does. This is not merely a madhouse designed by a madman, but a madhouse designed by many madmen, each with an intense hatred for the previous madman's unique flavour of madness.

Demonic Gophers

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
    • The Tunnels
Re: Response to FoTF post Oct 1st 2018
« Reply #5 on: November 03, 2018, 02:08:45 am »

When it comes to simple placeholder tags regarding relationships, there are a few things I'd like to see while we wait for major work on relationships.

UNMARRIED_REPRODUCTION_CHANCE:(percent) - modifies the base chance or rate of reproduction to represent any attempts people in that entity make to avoid having children with someone they haven't married.  0 would mean society strictly rejects reproductive sex outside of marriage, while 100 would mean they take no precautions at all.
LOVER_CHANCE:(percent) - modifies the base chance that a pair of potential lovers will begin a romantic relationship.
MARRIAGE_CHANCE:(percent) - modifies the base chance that a pair of lovers will get married.
DIVORCE_CHANCE:percent) - modifies the base chance that a married couple will split up.  0 percent means 'until death do us part'; 100 means they will separate over any conflict or discontent.
AFFAIR_CHANCE:(percent) - modifies chance that someone will start a new romantic relationship while currently married.
MULTIPLE_LOVER_CHANCE:(modifier) - determines how quickly the chances of taking on additional lovers is reduced.

I would imagine that goblins, with their anything-goes philosophy, might be very casual about starting romantic relationships but rarely bother getting married.  Elves might marry quickly and divorce often, expecting to go through many marriages over their centuries of life.  I would expect dwarves to take marriage vows seriously and be more reluctant than other civilizations to get divorced, although probably not forbidding it completely.  For added flexibility, any of these could also take VARIABLE:(min):(max) in place of (percent), or just make them variable by default and take min and max values.

If extending the memory limits isn't too much of a pain, the maximum relationship numbers could also have tags in the entity raws.
LOVER_CAP - determines maximum number of lovers.
SPOUSE_CAP - determines if multiple-partner marriages are possible.  This would require working out how to handle multiple-partner marriages, of course.
AFFAIR_CAP - replaces LOVER_CAP for married individuals, in case a society allows casual relationships but not cheating on a spouse.

If interspecies relationships get added (and I'll note that I'm looking forward to this), they could also use an entity tag modifying the chance.  Goblins probably don't care at all, but some societies might discourage them.
Logged
*Digs tunnel under thread.*
I also answer to Gophers and DG.
Quote from: Shades of Gray
*Says something inspiring and quote worthy.*
Opinions are great, they're like onions with pi.