Print

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

[nenjin]

Right now, dwarf children are "just there", to paraphrase Toady. Their appearance and some attributes are carried over from their parents, but by and large they are just helpless, free-roaming dwarves until they hit maturity. We've even come to love them, and define our own vision of dwarven parenting, based on their incomplete nature. Most of a dwarf child's non physical stats are set at birth.

There's room for dwarven children (and children in general) to become more interesting. Rather than having them all acquire some basic farming skills (which is just a place holder), or become legendary by a lucky mood, players should get to watch the children of their fort mature and change over their childhood.

So the question becomes....what would make them grow? What would cause them to change? How much is what they'e born with, and how much is what they learn?

It's the old Nature vs. Nurture debate. And since legions of anthropologists, developmental psychologists, sociologists and others haven't come to a firm consensus on which one is dominant, I doubt we will either.

Most will say that it's combination of both. Nature refers to the biological and genetic factors that influence behavior and development. Nurture refers to the behaviors and traits that children are either taught or learn by observation/interaction with others.

So what I propose is something like this.

1. Birth
At birth, children inherit what they do now: physical appearance and some attributes.

In addition they get:
 
ONE behavioral from either of their parents.
TWO mental traits from either of their parents.
ONE random, non-physical trait. The genetic x-factor so they aren't clones of their parents.

Whether these traits are dominant or recessive doesn't matter atm. How heritable a trait is in this version is based on where it shows up in the raws.
 
The total number of traits a dwarf baby could have would be capped, and the cap would increase when they mature into a child. A child's cap would be the same as an adult dwarf's cap, since they should be on par with other dwarves when they mature. 

2. Trait acquisition and change during childhood

Again we come back to Nature vs. Nurture.

Nature-based trait acquisition is problematic for me because it's something the player doesn't see. As a baby, certain behavioral traits don't get a chance to manifest (because babies just drool, sleep, poo and cry in RL.) When a child grows, they can start expressing those traits which have been there the whole time, but only now have a way to be seen by others.

To a player though, this just looks like "Urist McBabyPants is now a child. 'Oh, Urist McBabyPants seems to be anti-social now. Thanks Nature!'" It's change and development of a sort, but it's the least interesting kind from a game play standpoint.

Nurture on the other hand is the bread and butter of development, IMO. And it makes the most sense for game play. Seeing children interact with others, seeing them follow people around, try unsuccessfully to do grown up stuff...these things show the player the connection between what the child did, and the dwarf they eventually became.

Nature still needs its place though, but it's delicate thing to simulate. Are people born with personalities they can't escape? Is someone born to a "violent" set of parents guaranteed to have violent behaviors later on in life, even if they're never raised with their biological parents? Is intelligence something you're born with the potential for, but you have to develop in your lifetime to really excel at? Or is your total potential in anything (spacial awareness, kinesthetics, intelligence) ultimately defined by genetics?

We know the physical body is mutable with work to a certain point, but the extent which non-physical traits are has always been in question. We know if you've got a short, skinny build...you can work out and become ripped...but you're never going to get taller.

IMO, Nature sets the terms, and from there Nurture allows an individual to bend or break the terms early on in life. So, I think those few traits picked up at birth, and maybe one other over the course of their childhood, should be the limit for how many traits a child inherits from their parents. Perhaps the value of inherited traits can start out pretty high...but be subject to change later. Read on.

2a. Trait hardening

As children, we are sponges for information. We acquire new information and grow brain matter at the highest rate we ever will in our lives. So it follows we're also highly impressionable. As we get older (read as, in our teens), our ability to learn starts to decline and our opinions, behaviors and natures harden against change.

In DF, I think this should be represented by all traits being flexible in childhood. Their scores can go up, they can go down, and they can do so by large amounts. Job skills should be earned at a higher than normal rate. When said child hits maturity, their traits "harden" to change and their skill gains go back to adult levels.

In this way, Nature takes a role, and so does Nurture, where one sets the terms while the other can break them. But, depending on things turn out, a trait that a child inherited can be even further influenced by their life experiences....say if you have a violent-natured child who watches a lot of combat drills, and grows up to be even more violence-oriented as an adult.

The mechanics are already there for this. Skill rusting was added in this most recent version, and I think it would be small step to apply the same kind of logic to traits.

2b. Trait Acquisition

Two methods: Learning and Life Experience.

Learning happens in both stages of childhood, as does life experience.

Learning
Children should learn in different ways at different stages of childhood. As babies, they shouldn't be 'doing' a lot, but watching and listening and taking in stuff. As a child, then they start getting involved, do work, learn in traditional ways ect....

There are three methods of learning: seeing, doing and listening.
As babies, dwarven children only engage in "seeing" learning.
As children, they learn by seeing, doing and listening.

Seeing is the most basic way children acquire new information. They see things they've never seen before, they watch people doing stuff they've never done, ect...

To get things started, children first need a "target" that they learn from. How they pick a target can be based on a lot of factors: family relations, randomness, personality likes and dislikes, whatever. I suppose their target might even be something non-dwarf, like a pet, or a toy.

Once a child has a target, they can reference what their target is doing and what traits they have, and begin adding quantities of that job experience or traits to their own stats. (Or in the case of a toy, it might just increase a trait value the longer it's played with.) Modeling and imitation is how children begin to learn anything. They would follow people around, and some of that time would be spent seeing useless things, like people sleeping. But it would give a child a lot of different inputs and their stats would fluctuate over time. 

Doing happens when children mature to the next stage. They undertake tasks just like now, only their potential task list expanded to most everything. So they might try to forge something, or craft something, milk a cow, go mining, gather, haul, ect... They should exhibit a preference for what they're already best at, but they shouldn't be limited to just their one job. They're still experimenting after all. Some trait hardening sets in at this point, both because it's realistic and because children will actually be getting job xp.

Listening is, without creating some crazy dwarven school system, sort of an extension of how social skills increase. Dwarven children that spend their time around others increase social skills at a quicker rate, but they also can pick up new personality traits or change existing ones, and job skills. This would represent older adults trying to educate a child in an informal way, and also sets up some peer modeling and early childhood friendships.

At the child stage of maturity, children would do all three types of learning. They'd attempt work, follow people around and watch them, and engage in conversations. Each time they would select a target, in some cases the target being a job, and select a new target when the job is completed or when they need to eat, sleep or take a break.

3. Life Experiences

The other side of the coin in development is a child's life events that impacts who they become. Traumatic experiences are the big factor here. The death of loved ones and friends, being attacked, getting injured getting surrounded by something they dislike, starving or dying of thirst, witnessing lots of death...these are all things that would leave lasting impressions on young children.

This would be a chance to introduce new and different traits that wouldn't normally occur from fortress life. They don't have to be wholly negative either. They might even be mitigated by personality traits the child already has.

Ex: Child A is attacked by the last surviving goblin of a goblin ambush and wounded. Because they the trait "never gets discouraged" they gain "confidence" from surviving the attack.

Child B is attacked by the last surviving goblin of a goblin ambush and wounded. The child gains "timid."

Child C loses a sibling to a rabid hoary marmot. The child gains the "is often sad" trait.

This would also be a chance to introduce psychosis in a non-magical, non-mood way. Compulsive disorders, PTSD, paranoia, agoraphobia, the list goes on. 

To recap~

Stage:  Learning Modes: Trait Hardening: Rate of Learning          Skill Rusting:
Baby         Seeing               None              Crazy-High (150%?)      No
Child      See/Do/Listen       Mild (20%)        Accelerated (125%?)    No

Other considerations:

Dwarven Schooling. A system where children can learn in a player controlled way is the next logical step.

Social groups: DF Talk #8 talked a lot about the future of social groups. Unions, religious groups, ect... These all pose interesting questions (and drama!) for dwarven children. Do they automatically become members of their parent's groups, like citizens? Do they have to choose to join them? What happens if they make a choice that is diametrically opposed to their parents?

[Pilsu]

You don't just "try out" forging and mining. A lot of the labors we have are not something kids would try to pick up on their own. People are rather averse to hard work in general, it's unlikely the kids would try out things that aren't reasonably lightweight work. Usually crafting of some kind. More empathetic kids would be more likely to offer to help people whereas the selfish ones would likely run about outside in their little cliques, trying to kill marmots with a stolen crossbow. Dwarves with sticks up their asses should probably tell the kids to fuck off when they try to get in the way with their helping, causing discouragement.

Most of the work done by kids should be mandated by the player as chores. Kids shouldn't just run around the pastures without a care in the world, my farmer mother had to bust her ass most of the day.

Does the skill rusting mechanic cause dabbling skills to fade? I'd be quite irritated if the kids in my fort picked up skills that will never fade to clutter their list.

In addition to injuring each other fighting and playing with toys, I could see kids swimming if the water's warm. Speaking of fighting, the relationship system needs a little more depth. Not everything warrants a grudge and some dwarves should try to mend such, at least until they decide the guy is in fact a complete, irredeemable pillock. Kids shouldn't be so eager to make friends with adults either.


Naturally, if kids ever get this unruly, we need to be able to lock doors with keys given to only the relevant people and station guards that drive kids off. You can bet some kids would be dumb enough to go werewolf hunting after hearing the militia men talk about their patrols and while that makes for good stories, I need to be able to prevent it.

[Steely Glint]

Some play could even result in useful skills when the child matures. I know a few people who were inspired by childhood play (i.e. Lego blocks) to become architects or mechanical engineers.

Perhaps dwarven children could slowly gain forging skills while playing with a mini-forge, capped at novice level. Or instead of actually having the skills when they mature, the game could take advantage of the skill rusting system to treat play skills as "pre-rusted," so that the rate of real skill gain will be faster once maturity is reached. The same could be true for crafting and music skills once they're introduced.

[nenjin]

You don't just "try out" forging and mining. A lot of the labors we have are not something kids would try to pick up on their own. People are rather averse to hard work in general, it's unlikely the kids would try out things that aren't reasonably lightweight work. Usually crafting of some kind. More empathetic kids would be more likely to offer to help people whereas the selfish ones would likely run about outside in their little cliques, trying to kill marmots with a stolen crossbow. Dwarves with sticks up their asses should probably tell the kids to fuck off when they try to get in the way with their helping, causing discouragement.

Quite right, but it would be nice to keep some of the dwarfy aspects of children. I've come to like Dwarven parent's devil-may-care attitude toward their kids. It seems very dwarfy to me that kids are allowed to dabble in whatever they want, even if it's exceptionally dangerous. It kind of reminds me of the whole Amish Rumspringa thing.

But I also see a dwarf giving a youngster a kick in the ass for getting in their way. Dwarves also have a high work ethic, by most standards. Perhaps dwarven children could engage in mining and forging, while human and elf children do not.

Does the skill rusting mechanic cause dabbling skills to fade? I'd be quite irritated if the kids in my fort picked up skills that will never fade to clutter their list.

Well, skill rusting represents the consumption of under-utilized neurons to support the growth of more used neurons. (I.e. you fight more than you draw, so the parts of the brain that are used for drawing get smaller while the parts of the brain related to fighting grow larger.) Since babies and children don't sacrifice (as much? any) brain matter to learn something new, there doesn't have to be any skill rusting for children. That could only start to set in when they become an adult.

Some play could even result in useful skills when the child matures. I know a few people who were inspired by childhood play (i.e. Lego blocks) to become architects or mechanical engineers.

Totally. Or little toy soldiers. (Toy Goblins!) Or little wooden animals. The list goes on. I would like that toys would provide less overall learning (but maybe contribute to happiness, or give a happy emotion, in addition to the learning) so they don't trump active learning experiences.

I don't think you want to provide them extra or enhanced skill increases when they get mature though. The idea is that kids don't apply themselves to work the same way adults do, so adults make more job xp because they work more. Kids get more xp per task....but they're less likely to work as often, so they don't end up as high master whatevers by the time they hit maturity.

But the few jobs you had them do should get them enough xp that you notice, and can go "Oh hey, Urist McPeePants spent a good month in the mason shop, that's why he's a novice Mason."

4. An alternate hypothesis of development

This is just another way it could be approached, but it's much, more more complicated.

One take on traits, nature, nurture, ect... is like I said. Nature sets the terms, the maximums and minimums, and Nurture allows you to bend those.

Another theory, however, treats Nature and Nurture as two separate variables in how any input turns out.

So take one of the examples from above.

Child A loses a sibling in a goblin attack. Their biological, inherited traits say they will react one way, while their socialized, learned traits say they will react in another way.

So let's say they're likely to be depressed, and that's a trait they inherited. But they also get a lot of happiness from friends. Both those traits have impact on the event (the death of the sibling) producing a result that's different than what it would have been with only either trait being applied.

That's way more complicated to sort out though, as every trait has to be written as a reaction, basically. It'd be like:

Trait A: Trait B: Event 1 = New Trait.

That's a tougher overall system to create, but it's more realistic in some ways, and strikes a truer balance between starting traits and ones that are acquired later.

[therahedwig]

It certainly beats "Urist McTeenager has been quite content lately, he has eaten in a legendary dining room lately, he's lost his one and only brother to a horde of vile goblins and is now an orphan without a certain future, he has admired a fine chair lately..."

I think kids should be more defined like: Baby, Kid, Teenager.
With the Kid stage being like it is now, running around and helping with chores, while the Teenager state would be more like Nenjin's idea, that they try to take apprenticeship or emulate their 'heroes'.

[Pilsu]

So you figure a child is just going to fire up a forge or go work in a coal mine out of the fun of it just because it's a dwarf? Might as well be suggesting they eat rocks, that just results in dumb stereotypes.

Any serious work should require permission (aka apprenticeship). I can picture a dwarf with the right personalty quirks having wood- or stonecrafting as a hobby as long as I don't have to provide them with materials. They probably shouldn't produce rings and whatnot, idols and whistles that are then owned by the dwarf make more sense. They should have the sense to toss them away if they're no good or if they get tired of them. They musn't end up with 200 useless items just because they grew up to be creative and like idols. Any other real work, however, shouldn't just be something they pick up randomly. I should have a say in the matter.


As for age descriptions, teenager is a poor choice by name alone. It'd cave in on itself if you made a species that matures before it turns thirteen.

[therahedwig]

Puber? Adolescent? 'Young dwarf'?

*Looks at synonyms*

Youth, juvenile, minor, youngster?

Dwarfling... nah, wouldn't make sense.

I personally like adolescent.

As for the item problem, maybe make parents take away kid's items if they have too many?(I mean, I've had toys thrown away by my own mother because she thought that they were garbage)

[FreakyCheeseMan]

A really complicated system like this might be too much- though it does sound cool- but some simpler, more gameplay-effecting stuff might be cool.

Maybe either have dwarves "learn" from being around their parents while they work, or some sort of day-care system with classes similar to the instruction drills.

Skills are capped now, right? Maybe raise the cap based on the child's skill level upon becoming an adult, so the son of an armorsmith trained by armorsmiths could become something more valuable than the son of a pump operator. Not fair, probably inaccurate, but hey- Dwarf Fortress!

[Phmcw]

This seems crazy complicated for something that the player won't ever see. Or is it?

The education system should be chosen such that we can influence it. It will be done right when we can have spartan fortress, peaceful mystic fortress, shaolin fortress.... depending how the children are raised. Skill maxing is not very interesting, I want to see different societies because of different education.

[nenjin]

I'm very much *not* interested in gaming this system. I'm *not* suggesting this as a method of producing exactly the kind of dwarves you want, even if it is flavorful to say "yar, this is a spartan fortress." The development of children should reflect the kind of fortress you have, and who lives there....not a player decision that they're 'just going to be this way.'

I'm much more interested in the simulation aspects of it, and of watching AI operated children evolve and develop. That seems more interesting to me than yet another way to get "Legendary_Mason_004."

Put another way, it'd be fun to watch dwarven children go from blank slates to full-fleshed out characters and to have that all done behind the scenes, without having to micro your classrooms, or your teachers, or all the other insanity that begins to sound a lot like the new military screen.

The only complicated part about is the selection, averaging and mitigation of different traits. Most everything else just reworking how dwarven children already function.

They musn't end up with 200 useless items just because they grew up to be creative and like idols. Any other real work, however, shouldn't just be something they pick up randomly. I should have a say in the matter.

A) They don't invent jobs for themselves, they would pick them off the jobs list. The only "useless" item would be one that you ordered. So unless you're ordering useless items...you're not getting useless items. You're getting "not made by your professional craft dwarf" items.

B) They wouldn't produce things at the rate of even an unskilled adult, nor would they obsessively do the task like other dwarves. They would make ONE or TWO things, move on, do something else, but get a larger amount of job skill for doing it than a normal dwarf.

[Pilsu]

A) They don't invent jobs for themselves, they would pick them off the jobs list.

I should have a say in that. I don't want the punks trying to tame lions or build important supports just because the job is designated to be done and they just felt like it. Milking cows, maybe, if someone they like is doing it and they're curious. Still, I get to designate dwarf labors for a reason. Playing around is all fun and games but when it comes to work, I should be able to boss them around like everyone else. Within reason of course, but I do expect them to do the chores they're damn well told to do. I might have to use the belt a few times but that's fine by me.

The only "useless" item would be one that you ordered. So unless you're ordering useless items...you're not getting useless items. You're getting "not made by your professional craft dwarf" items.

If they start stealing my logs and sabotaging my production just to facilitate their hobby, I'm gonna break out the belt. Nick a knife and go fetch a branch if you want to but you punks better leave my fine wood alone unless I tell you otherwise!

B) They wouldn't produce things at the rate of even an unskilled adult, nor would they obsessively do the task like other dwarves. They would make ONE or TWO things, move on, do something else, but get a larger amount of job skill for doing it than a normal dwarf.

If I want them working, I probably have adult supervision to train them. If the brats think they can just go watch TV because they don't feel like learning a trade and earning their keep, they have another thing coming. Namely, my belt. I think you're noticing a pattern here.

All my kids will grow up to be bitter husks of human dwarf beings. Keeps the fortress guard busy and makes sure the grudge system doesn't go unused. But yeah, kids didn't just frolic in the meadows back in the day, they shouldn't do so here if I have something for them to do. Sure, I can't expect them to be perfect little angels that do everything perfectly but I do want some control over a set chunk of the working day. Work builds character, discipline or lack thereof would probably have ramifications for their personalities.

[nenjin]

You seem fairly hung up on the whole "hitting kids" thing.

[Pilsu]

'Tis flavorful and historically accurate to beat kids until the stupid falls out.

[Jimmy]

Things I like:
Children dabbling in trades. Performing tasks randomly that would allow an adult dwarf of a similar skill level to perform the task. If you don't want children to make crafts, raise the minimum skill level in the workshop profile. They likely shouldn't gain more than novice level before disabling the skill.
Playing with toys. They don't have to gain ownership of the toy, as that would cause fort clutter. Instead, they should grab it from a stockpile, carry it round or take it to their room and gain some form of skills/happy thoughts.
Schools. New noble position for headmaster/education noble. Possibly a new noble screen to dictate the areas of focus for teaching classes (farming, crafts, physical skills etc). Noble organizes classes similarly to squad leaders organizing training drills. Children attend based on their personality.
Trait gain. Likely a powergoal item. I like the elegance of the OPs idea.

[Pilsu]

You don't learn to farm or craft things in schools. At least back then you didn't. I see nothing wrong with simply teaching them to read and write.