Print

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

[GoblinCookie]

I'm failing to see the problem here. Why shouldn't character death be a negative for a cult started by them?

I think another resolution to this problem would be to allow people to play as historical characters. So, you play as the child of the cult leader or second in command who naturally inherits the movement. There must be something I'm missing here, because I really can't see how technological ascendency resolves this.

As an aside, can we really have mind control devices in a no-magic setting? There's no evidence such a thing is possible (well, not something you could carry around with you anyway).

It's science fiction not magic, so it fits in the no-magic setting; it fudges the Post-1400 tech rule though (science fiction does not have to be presently possible, that is the fiction part).  Nobody is carrying anything around, you are outside of the game world mind-controlling controlling a character that has only ordinary tech and does not look like anything special, the device might well be the size of a planet; it's not in the game.  Initially nobody believes that you are actually a technological ascendancy in a non-magic world when you initially declare yourself to be one (truthfully or otherwise), you have to convince them by that your specialness that you are but it is easier than convincing them you are a god in a no-magic world. 

Playing as historical characters is a whole can of worms in itself that deserves it own thread.  Playing as historical characters solves the control problem, but it does not however solve the competition problem.  However much you control your cult through it's clergy, you are still competing with your past self whenever you try to start a new character worship profile, while if you play as a god you are able to use successive characters to build up the status of the same being without the characters competings. 

The idea of the technological ascendancy is to have a being which is god-like but is entirely sci fi and uses no actual magic.  Like a god the technological ascendancy can build up his relationship with the inhabitants of the world through multiple characters, but he is not magical so can both exist in a non-magical world and believing in him does not promote the supernatural.  The technological ascendancy is not a character that controls another character in the game, it is an option for you to select in all worlds when you select both for *what I really am* and *what I am claiming to be* during the creation of your worship profile. 

[Bumber]

DF isn't a sci-fi game. You can make up your own explanations, but it's not going in the game.

[GoblinCookie]

DF isn't a sci-fi game. You can make up your own explanations, but it's not going in the game.

You are so enthralled to genre conventions Bumber.

Let's take a no-magic world.  This world has no magic and no supernatural elements, which means it is not a fantasy world at all, in fact I think the magic slider is to be called the fantasy slider.

At the same time it is not really a sci fi world either, because it has no advanced post present-day tech; but equally it is not a depiction of real-life, what we have done here is create something that fits in neither box.  However given it does not fit in the fantasy box, there is no inherent problem genre integrity wise in having minor sci fi elements in such a world; the world is not part of the fantasy genre.

There are strong reason to add those elements in, because they enable certain stories to exist, otherwise the non-magicalness of the world acts as a constraint on the player as already described.  The no-magical world violates the integrity of the fantasy genre anyway, so what are we trying to accomplish by keeping the player from voluntarily adding a minimal amount of sci fi?

[Bumber]

Well, you can always mod. The issue is that it breaks Toady's 1400s convention without really enhancing the game.

DF:     "This is a game where you can control multiple characters in a living, evolving world."
Player: "Cool."
DF:     "The reason you can control multiple characters is because you have mind-control tech."
Player: "Okaaay..."
Player: "Do I have a spaceship I can fly around in?"
DF:     "No."
Player: "..."

[SixOfSpades]

Let's take a no-magic world.  This world has no magic and no supernatural elements, which means it is not a fantasy world at all

So, according to you, The Hobbit is largely not a fantasy tale, because the only outright magic it contains is the ring and Gandalf's one casting of Fire Seeds.

As for "supernatural elements", if you're going to support your point you're going to have to either
a) argue why some of the creatures in the story (stone giants, trolls, giant eagles, lycanthropes, giant spiders, talking ravens, talking thrushes, and dragons) do meet your definition of "magical" or "supernatural", while those that constitute the core of Dwarf Fortress (dwarves, elves, goblins) do not--which is a veerrry slippery slope, or
b) say that dwarves, elves, & goblins are themselves magical/supernatural, and that therefore a "no-magic world" would, by definition, have humans as the only sentient race.

[Egan_BW]

I believe that minimum magic worlds will indeed be humans only.

[SixOfSpades]

I believe that minimum magic worlds will indeed be humans only.

That sounds pretty boring to me, considering the alternative. Still, whatever floats one's boat.

[KittyTac]

I believe that minimum magic worlds will indeed be humans only.

Yeah, AFAIK it's been mentioned by Toady somewhere.

[GoblinCookie]

Well, you can always mod. The issue is that it breaks Toady's 1400s convention without really enhancing the game.

DF:     "This is a game where you can control multiple characters in a living, evolving world."
Player: "Cool."
DF:     "The reason you can control multiple characters is because you have mind-control tech."
Player: "Okaaay..."
Player: "Do I have a spaceship I can fly around in?"
DF:     "No."
Player: "..."

I have already explained how it enhances the game, it does so because it allows a player and the world to mantain an honest relationship that does not end when the player's character dies. 

So, according to you, The Hobbit is largely not a fantasy tale, because the only outright magic it contains is the ring and Gandalf's one casting of Fire Seeds.

As for "supernatural elements", if you're going to support your point you're going to have to either
a) argue why some of the creatures in the story (stone giants, trolls, giant eagles, lycanthropes, giant spiders, talking ravens, talking thrushes, and dragons) do meet your definition of "magical" or "supernatural", while those that constitute the core of Dwarf Fortress (dwarves, elves, goblins) do not--which is a veerrry slippery slope, or
b) say that dwarves, elves, & goblins are themselves magical/supernatural, and that therefore a "no-magic world" would, by definition, have humans as the only sentient race.

The trolls turn to stone in the sunlight and Smaug can breathe fire, so two more magical elements in the story, plus Gandalf himself is a supernatural being so arguably a third.  But yes the majority of fantasy tales are generally largely not mostly fantasy tales because they don't rely heavily on magical stuff for their mundane everyday events; it is more a few drops of magic makes it fantasy.

The position of B is already held by the devs, though it does not really make sense in my opinion because a lot of fantasy creatures, particularly dwarves do not require magic to exist as they are depicted.  The devs definition seems to be that no-magical equals real-life, except it is still not real-life so it does not work.  Imaginary human cultures are no more real than imaginary cultures of goblins, dwarves and elves; they are just more human. 

The slippery slope you are mentioned is into sci-fi.  We can quite easily redefine elves, goblins and dragons as aliens living on an alien planet if there is no magic or supernatural involved in such creatures.