Print

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

[freeformschooler]

I started out as a Simulationist, because the whole reason I started playing DF was that I was extremely interested in procedural generation. In some ways that's still a driving factor, as I'm still waiting for the day we have an init option to procedurally generate everything.

I... don't know what I'd fall under in those three as it stands right now, though. I wanna call myself a Gamist or Simulationist but I'm really not. Right now the entire reason I'm interested in DF is because I look at it as a programmer and system designer. I want to know how it ticks, and I want to know how to exploit the system. Like that time I discovered I could play randomly generated demons and FBs in adventure mode with a little entity tweaking. I don't care as much about how well everything is simulated as I do about what extent I can blow open the simulation. Like, how much can we mod in the game? How EXACTLY do Dwarves react to fire? Are locations randomly generated the first time you enter them? Once I figured those out, the appeal of the current version started slightly falling apart. DF is interesting to me because I lose some interest in a game once I have fully figured it out, and I still feel I will never fully understand all of DF's mechanics.

I guess what would best fit me is the standard Bartle Test's Explorer role.

[daveralph1234]

To me... Simulation is the point of Dwarf Fortress and the Gameplay and your ability to alter the world itself are ways to enjoy and interact with it.

I second this. The game should be as good a simulation as possible, even if that means it beeing unbalanced. But I also want to be able to see my creations/exploits take an effect on the world.
 What I would love, especially after the caravan and army arcs are done, is the ability to continue running worldgen on a world in which I have already played, and then to see what effect my creations have and wheather they can stand the test of time, and whatever else the history-simulator throws at it. An intresting side effect to this would be to be able to jump in with a fortress at year 0 and then see how dramaticaly you can effect the future of the world (for better or for worse). Or maybe if you jumped in using adventure mode and say, assasinated an important historical figgure (a king, general etc), sparking a war or such, and then to be able to see what effect thous actions will cause over time.

[hermes]

Simulationist / future Gamist.

As the game stands, what sets DF apart from other strategy/management games for me (and others I guess) is the detail of the simulation, the environment and the entities, and the subsequent emergent behaviour.  However, I do have trouble playing the game because there isn't any goal besides what one defines for oneself, which necessitates a lot of meta-roleplaying that suits succession forts but not lonely gamers like myself.  Colonization is probably my favourite game of all time; in terms of simulation it is child's play next to DF, but the very clear goal you are given, and the climactic endgame make it, IMO, currently a better *game* than DF.

I'm looking forward to the caravan and army developments which will hopefully bring solid gaming principles into the DF world - i.e. the game's entities will present you with some goals you can reach for, and recognise and reward you when you get them.  (This was discussed in DF talk 16, so we know that it's going to be addressed in some form).  I like the adventure mode/gaming tangents that Toady goes off on, but equally the core simulation aspects of development are wonderful and exciting to watch slowly come alive.  They go hand in hand, and I can happily wait for the simulation-foundation to be cast before gamist-gaming needs are attended to.

Thus, currently I play DF as a simulationist, but I'd rather, and am eagerly anticipating the time when I can, play it as a gamist.

[freeformschooler]

Hermes, I agree with you 100%. With each new substantial feature added in that affects play, I become more and more of a Gaming. Ultimately, I think we'll see a lot of Gamist / Simulationist people several version from now, due to the massive adventure mode add-ons.

[Karlito]

There was definitely a lot more Gamist appeal in the old 2D version of DF. You would progress linearly into the mountain, and the deeper you went, the better metals would be, but you'd have to suffer attacks of monsters from the chasm and lava river. As your fort grew in wealth and power, hordes of useless nobles would come, demanding space and items. There was a clear end condition with your fortress being completely destroyed after mining too deep.

Compare that to the current version of DF and it seems like a lot of the Gamist features were sacrificed for more Simulationist ones. Current forts only have access to three or four kinds of metals; it's geologically sound, but not as fun as being able to plumb the depths for that small cluster of platinum that you know has to be there.

I do of course, enjoy the Simulationist aspects of DF, there probably the primary reason I play the game, but I guess I'll echo Hermes sentiment above

Thus, currently I play DF as a simulationist, but I'd rather, and am eagerly anticipating the time when I can, play it as a gamist.

[Biopass]

Hoo boy. I don't think I fit into any of these, but I sorta also fit into all.

Gamism got me into DF. 40d was the first version I played. I was looking for roguelikes, and saw DF mentioned a bunch. The description of it as a complex RTS got me interested. That was years ago. I think it was the simulationism that got me hooked. I remember when I was younger how I would rage at Age of Empires 3 because "WHY ON EARTH are they HITTING THE TREE WITH AN AXE, it has ZERO HP, but it's STILL STANDING and I'M GAINING WOOD!". The lack of realism killed it for me. Suddenly, Dwarf Fortress came along and it was glorious.

Now, I almost roleplay DF. I do what's logical. I guess that would be simulationist? Maybe? I dig in and plot out a massive Great Hall that I'm working on by the first summer. Because it makes sense for my dwarves to do. The fact that it's 5 Z-levels high has no bearing on the outcome, save that it takes more time, but it feels right. It's not constructionism, because I have no desire to use all my gold to cover the floors in the hall... I do that for the nobility's chambers. Because it makes sense.

But then, there's the challenge of it all. The management. I love the fact that all the resources are actual game items, not just numbers, that if I want to stockpile all my wood here, I need more space. And then the sheer "awesome" factor that makes me build a bridge across a massive artificial chasm and put a ballista battery on the side. Useful? Nah. But awesome to knock invaders off and watch them tumble 50 z-levels. Or collapse it under them, Khazad-Dum style. I'd have to say that the awesomeist (new category!) are what keep me coming back, if it's because I can have beehives now, or because that goblin is dragging his guts around, or because WAIT WHAT IS THAT A HOLLOW SKIN AND IT'S WALKING OH ARMOK NO! Toady has done magnificently delivering the awesomeist features, and his creativity is unparalleled. As long as that stands, I'll be here.

[Tiny]

I'm not sure what I am, I don't like playing the game that much (UI) but I love the tails of dwarf fortresses, I love the DF infulence on the indy game communinty.
 
It's worth it for me to give Tarn a few quid here and there, not because I play it much but to keep the influence going.

[darkflagrance]

Simlutionist/Constructionist: building grandiose structures for unpredictable game entities to interact with in unexpected ways; part of the fun of creating something awesome is watching it interacted with by those who will be awed; however, even more fun is watching its destruction by the cruel world.

[Chromasphere]

   I'm a simustoryist.  The simulationist aspect is very important to me, but so is the story.  For me, they both go hand-in-hand.  In the description, Capt'n talks about 'grittyness' and that is a must for me.  The mud on the feet, blood splashed across an arm and weapon, wind blowing from some direction as the sun sinks slowly below the horizon.  The epic struggle for survival in some small little place while the rest of the world carries on oblivious.  I too want to see small signs of bigger things happening in the world, like armies marching by in the distance or caravans telling of tidings from far away places. I want to taste and smell the world... a living world.   All this creates a strong, vibrant simulation AND story.

  Even now, there are terrific stories to be seen.  A look in the Legends view can tell a thousand of them great and small.  As well, all the little details of every member of a fort and the interactions that go on there, leads my mind into these little snapshot stories... glimpses into the lives of the inhabitants of a world.  Even a small event like a visiting caravan could lead to a 20-30 page story if I were inclined to start writing again.

The first time I heard what the Adam's vision was for DF, I was sold... for it is exactly what I had been looking for.  Thank-you Toady and Three-toe,!   Thank-you!
 

[Rooster]

I'm gamist. Huge SC nerd. Or just of RTS's in particular. At first I was into exploration of the game because I like to figure out roguelikes.
Now I'm into trying to learn anything efficiently. I read stories all the time about !!legendary df players!! doing magma and armies all in 2 years, and I still don't know how to do that. I'm too casual for that.

And I don't ever play adventure mode. I just don't.

[Max White]

I'll take an order of number two please?
I do enjoy seeing a construction come together, it is rather pleasing, but the first time I noticed moss? Now that was a thrill.

[Dakk]

I'm a simulationist with a bit of constructionist, and this is evident in both fort and adventurer mode. My main goal in fort mode is aways doing some awesome and/or ridiculous megaproject and then gloriously dying fighting, but I aways try to take on a challenging biome, glaciers being some of my favorites, and I aways want to feel that the cold and baren land should take a toll on my dwarves. I love messing with gears and axles and waterwheels whenever I have a reason to.

I'm only not a constructionist in adventurer mode because it currently doesn't support it. While I want magic and fantasy setting stuff on it, I also want it to be as realistic as possible. I want to feel hunger and thirst and suffer from sleep deprivation, I want the wild to be challenging not only because of dangerous animals, bandits and bogeymen, I want it to offer real life dangers as well. Of course, I also want to be able to deal with these problems in a realistic way, such as hunting some animal for food and turning its skin into clothes and its bones into tools, and be able to make a living with it, selling stuff on the market. I also want to be able to take jobs on cities and earn a salary for it, become a bandit and be hated by everyone, etc.

I feel that being a gamist on any game that doesn't involve some sort of active multiplayer is a very silly thing. If DF suddenly got pre-set goals and linear progression in dificulty ala JRPGs I'd be very very sad.

[Neonivek]

I feel that being a gamist on any game that doesn't involve some sort of active multiplayer is a very silly thing

Being a gameist also includes things like comparible advantages and disadvantages (so you don't hit insurmoutable walls for example), cleaning up obsticles to gameplay (for example the military), and otherwise deals with gameplay directly rather then either extrapolated from what you see and the situations that arise (Simulationist) or created with your own mind using the tools you are presented with (Constructionist).

Even Simulationist and Constructionist have areas that are outright silly. For example Simulationist can ask for details that arn't nessisary (Calculate the mold on cheese) and Constructionist can ask for a lot of time being taken up through customisation (Coloring Stone tiles or asking for 5 shades of Bronze)

So it isn't exactly silly. (just described badly >_>)

[Max White]

Calculate the mold on cheese

Know how I know I'm a simulationist?
On reading that, I would actually like to see that implemented.

[Capntastic]

Reminder:  They're not hard classifications, that I've come up with solely from my experiences and discussions with the community.  Further, it's specifically a classification for what people enjoy/want more of in the game.  Think of it like a triple ringed venn diagram, I'd suggest.   Most people are gonna fall somewhere on it.

Since some people seem to be puzzled by the idea, I'll go further to explain what 'gamist' would mean, in my mind.  I'll add that DF's original conception was less about making a fantasy world to explore and hang out in, and more about creating little treasures (which would have values) and then having an adventurer go in in a secondary phase and attain those goodies.  A very cut and dried, explicit goal system.  Gamists are the people who want a clear set of challenges and a steadily rising difficulty ramp, as well as having a preference for game balance over realism.  They might be in favor of the more simplified game progression of cliff -> river -> chasm -> magma than the way the game evolved.  They might want more roguelike dungeon delving elements to interact with and loot, rather than wanting tombs and labyrinths to be generated solely for placement into the world's history.  It's hard to pin down in granular specifics, but it's definitely a current of thought I see a lot of people having.