Print

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

[Kogut]

And again, pigeonholing is failing in my case

*Gamist - I like challenge in style of real time strategy game (see my sign!), but I hate even idea of points, badges and high scores

*Simulationist - that is why I play DF instead of RTS like Starcraft. Everything, including biological units constructed from single type of minerals and gas? It is insulting my intelligence.

*Constructionist - my dwarves have real, interesting rooms, not 3x1 efficient rooms - and I am doing it without any ingame bonuses.

BTW, Bartle Test is first psychological test with clear result: I am explorer!

[freeformschooler]

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.

Interestingly enough, .25's Adventure Mode is a little like that right now. You have things as an adventurer you can do that generally follow the same principle each time, with similar but varied goals:

Quests: Kill minor evil creature/bandit > Repeat multiple times > Get send to civ leader > Kill minor or major evils creature > Repeat multiple times > Kill megabeasts/titans
Weaponry/armor: Low level starting stuff (bronze, wood) > Iron > Steel > Spoiler if you're dedicated to getting it and know how

Though there is a pretty large amount of variance game-to-game. Like maybe you find a steel longsword before you find and iron one, or maybe you have Axe skill, and thus use a masterwork iron axe instead of the steel sword. Additionally, modding is at the point where the larger mods provide their own pathways for adventurers, but it usually boils down to about the same principle. I'd imagine far future versions will have MUCH more variance with different things to do than just kill things.

[Funk]

For example, I think that all materials, creatures, etc. be exactly as in real life; fairly simulationist. However, if a feature is annoying, then it should be fixed at the expense of realism. Realism first, fix if need be.

that is just how i feel about simulating real life in df

i want my acts to change the world and shape the story.
i dont want to kill random monsters by the the thousands and have the world be unchanged.

[Jelle]

I guess I'm somwhere in between gamist and simulationist.

I would like the game to be as simulate the challenges a dwarven fortress would face in realistic conditions.
I dislike any mechanic that seems disproportionally difficult to what it would realistically be. For example I like the added difficulty of having animals graze as well as the realism aspect, and I hate the fact that other animals need no upkeep whatsoever. Similar I dislike how just a few farm plots can somehow feed a hundred individuals and there's never any failed harvests. Protecting crops against pests would be both challenging and realistic.

But what I really detest is game features that are vague at best, such as military training through danger rooms. If you look at it rationally it makes no sense and makes the game to easy.
I'm a bit open to bizare new game features like the to be added necromancy and reanimation, but only if it stays true to the amtosphere dwarf fortress tries to simulate, and ofcourse it isn't gamebreakingly powerful or weak.

I like to build big things, but only truly if I see a practical use for it. I could make a gigantic 10 z level and 5 tiles thick wall to protect an area. But I would only find it truly statisfying if the game had more fleshed out sieges and architecture so that building something like that makes sense. Let me build that wall if it serves to protect from siege fire and halt invaders trying to scale the walls.

That said I might think the whole necromancy to be added may not be so hot, but I am truly looking forward to the economy and added layer of complexity and possabilities. Anything the fleshen out the rather shallow society our dwarves currently live in.

[AWellTrainedFerret]

I consider myself an "OCDist". I guess you could say I focus on building a fort that has maximum efficiency yet retaining an aesthetic / artistic quality.

If this means at some point I have to dig out a second site and then cast a new fort entirely out of obsidian, then so be it.

[Vertigon]

I'm probably a gamist/simulationist. I like to construct a story through the game no matter what mode I'm in, and watch that story unfold and develop. I actually find a lot of joy in trawling through Legends looking for a tale of a hero, villain, monster, or just someone that lives a normal life. When books make it in, I will certainly be running around the world reading as many as possible. I love seeing the stories that not only I create, but that NPC's live out on a day-to-day basis. For example, if I'm talking to someone in Adventurer mode, I like to ask about their family, their profession, what they think of the places around, all that stuff.

I enjoy the challenge of a fortress, but I don't really start one unless I have a specific idea, whether I want this fortress to have a grand entrance, or a strong military, or a thriving trade, or have the whole thing built out of clay.

[Frelus]

Well, I am not playing the game for too long now, but I don't really see myself in these categories.
I would call myself a gamer, a gamer being a person who plays the game for the fun (and !!FUN!!).
I like these openended games, heroic last stands against the HFS, dragons, elephants and the like.
I like the adventure mode for simply being random, killing dragons but getting killed by horses.
While writing this, the word "casual" came up in my mind, but then it isn't the right description, since I play DF
in almost all my PC-time(some hours a day).
I do not take on big challenges like giant towers, nor do I want to complicate this game more by economy etc., I just like these "when you understood it, it is simple" kind of games.
Not implying that DF is simple, but you all remember this first "WTF" moment you had when looking onto DF the first time.
So, I would call myself a fungamer.
Not casual, but a person enjoying just playing for the sake of playing and getting weird events.
I play it to imagine a dwarf, standing on a retractable bridge over a volcano, shouting "YOU SHALL NOT PASS" at the onstorming army and sacrificing himself to hold them on the deathtrap long enough.
And then shouting "fly, fools" at the idiots who want to get his socks.
greetz, Freddy

[Rinnix]

I guess I would be a sort of gamist/simulationist. I want massive glory, riches, and fame (in Adventurer as well as Fortress mode), and am completely fascinated by the things that DF conjures up along the way.

I have strong urges and wishes and dreams of building fantastic and aesthetic structures, but alas, I have no creativity; not it that aspect at least. I figure I'm too technical with things, unfortunately, and try to do things certain ways. I don't to be like that, I just am. No originality even. That all what I want: some good ole imagination.

Even with Legos I didn't come up with new things; in fact, I nearly built everything out of those 2x3 blocks. Too technical I am.

[monk12]

I'd consider myself predominantly simulationist, with a blooming gamist waiting for more features.

The depth of simulation is really the greatest part of DF, and the complex ways in which everything interacts with everything else is a large part of the appeal to me. No game is quite like another, one peon dwarf is different from every other peon dwarf, every embark has its own unique challenges and every world has its own unique history. The more development adds to the simulational fidelity, the more all those little unique quirks actually matter in each game, and I still find myself surprised by some of the things that happen.

When I say gamist, I mean that I enjoy setting goals for myself and trying to achieve them in the best way possible. Sometimes that's a mountain of soap, sometimes that's a melee only military with no walls, sometimes that's rolling up an Adventurer and trying to kill a GCS. I don't want linear/clear progression, but I do want the option to pursue my own agendas and have the simulation respond faithfully to that. Starting Scenarios should be interesting, in particular, since they should provide those "implied goals" without keeping you from, say, also turning everyone into a werewolf for kicks, or pursuing a less straightforward or easy approach to those goals.

I would consider the ability to respond to and interact with everything in logical ways to be the greatest strength of DF- very little in the game is "window dressing" and the bits that are have explicitly stated plans for their future use (musical instruments, for instance.) Utilizing everything in your possession to achieve a goal (whether a grand "profit/slaughter" goal or just a "make that orphan a bit happier,") whether those items were intended to interact with each other in that way or not, is the biggest thrill I get out of DF. The more stuff you can interact with, the more varied ways you can achieve goals, and you can set whole new goals with each addition.

[de5me7]

Im not sure which i am. For me DF is about creating a story in a not dissimular way to an RPG. Im part constructionist on the side, but i guess im both gamist and simulationist in so far as they can add depth and direction to the story, but the story experience is the end product for me, not the realism of the simulation or the challenge of the game.

[Cruxador]

Im not sure which i am. For me DF is about creating a story in a not dissimular way to an RPG. Im part constructionist on the side, but i guess im both gamist and simulationist in so far as they can add depth and direction to the story, but the story experience is the end product for me, not the realism of the simulation or the challenge of the game.

That would be narrativist, a philosophy capntastic didn't see fit to mention.

[Capntastic]

That would be narrativist, a philosophy capntastic didn't see fit to mention.

No need to get snippy.   I didn't really mention it because it falls out of the scope of in-game things and into a sort of meta-game what-the-player-percieves aspect.   It could be partially wrapped in with simulationism in some aspects, with regard to the elements that tend to make narrative stuff 'come alive'.   But further, this thread was made to get more information and feedback from the community, so it's pretty unfair to get upset at me when things pan out in unpredicted ways.

[Putnam]

Narrativist is just another way to say either gamist or simulationist. A gamist enjoys seeing a narrative unfold before them that, due to it's nature, may be spoiled, as it is predetermined. A simulationist enjoys seeing a narrative unfold through a series of simulated events.

[Capntastic]

I feel that a lot of current narrative events exist at the meta-game level, but as simulationist aspects take a more solid hold, will be increasingly recognized by the game.

[Cruxador]

I didn't really mention it because it falls out of the scope of in-game things and into a sort of meta-game what-the-player-percieves aspect.

Narrativist is just another way to say either gamist or simulationist. A gamist enjoys seeing a narrative unfold before them that, due to it's nature, may be spoiled, as it is predetermined. A simulationist enjoys seeing a narrative unfold through a series of simulated events.

This is partially true, but not entirely. Narrativist design is that which explicitly encourages types of stories. Toady's implementation of simulative elements tends to be heavily flavored by narrative preferences. In tabletop design, where narrativism is a currently pretty prominent philosophy, we often see mechanics that reward interesting story choices. Mainstream video games are hugely gamist, and railroaded as fuck (by necessity, in large part) so such things don't come up. In Toady's case, it's pretty much all simulation, with narrative flavors, but this isn't necessarily an inherent case in design.