So, a couple of months ago I became obsessed with the Dwarf Fortress strategy/world-building game for a few weeks, and part of my obsession involved the very basics of an RPG based around it.
I've been messing around with these ideas again this week, and I wanted to post my thoughts here for consideration. For the unfamiliar, the point of this RPG idea is to explore the Dream of dwarves building a fortress, interacting with elves, humans, and goblins, going to war, scouring for resources, and so on.

DF is a bit of a tall order, in that it's incredibly detailed, single-player only, possessed of an almost inscrutable interface... did I mention how detailed it was? My initial concept centers around a few simple stats that get a lot of mileage and multiple, layered uses:

Beard - social standing among dwarves, a measure of how much clout you have; this extends to interactions with non-dwarves as needed (may be able to declare discovery of other settlements/civilizations, be they elves, goblins, humans, or other dwarves)
Metal - skill at crafts in general, and the creation of finished products, including complex mechanisms for traps and bridges and the like
Wood - exploration of the surface world, speed of movement in the wilderness, harvesting plant life in general (can declare discovery of natural features on the surface world, such as rivers, copses of trees, and so on)
Meat - hunting, fishing, and butchery
Stone - mining/digging, architecture, alcohol tolerance, movement speed underground, and exploration of the underground world (can declare discovery of natural features underground, such as rivers, veins of gems or metals, magma flows, etc.)

Those are the civilian uses of stats. There is also a "battle mode" into which any dwarf can enter, at which point all stats take on different meanings:

Beard - combat leadership, and how intimidating you are to your foes (since goblin invaders often run away when outmatched, I think Beard should be useful to scare away enemies, if you desire; also useful to rally and command dwarves)
Metal - a measure of how well-armed you are (probably relates to damage-dealing and damage-prevention; a dwarf going into Battle Mode must stop by the fortress armory to gather weaponry, or his Metal will be at 0 in combat; this is not always a bad thing)
Wood - ranged combat capability, dodging, and speed (out of Battle Mode, speed is mainly at issue to see how quickly unarmed dwarves can make it back to base, either to arm themselves or just to get to safety. In Battle Mode, Wood is your overall speed, both above and below ground)
Meat - your ability to get through/around an opponent's defenses; also a general measure of the fury of your attacks. Also, measures your capacity for the infamous Wrestling skill, which allows you to pin, disarm, and then torture enemies
Stone - your resistance to wounds, and possibly a measure of your defenses

In combat, you generally select two stats to roll together for each action (probably going to to a dice pool thing, since I like that, but it's up in the air for right now), and that reflects what you're up to: Metal+Meat is a standard attack, Stone+Metal is a standard defensive maneuver, etc. I am all about determining different combinations and figuring out what they would mean for the fight.

Greatness - in the original computer game, the sum total of all your material wealth, furnishings, etc., is collected into a rating of how awesome your fortress is. I want to have something like that here, but with a lot less granularity than a computer could support. This will hinge on two things: resources and fortress-building. Whenever a dwarf uses Wood or Stone to exploit a source of lumber, minerals, etc., it's assumed that those materials are added to the coffers of the fortress for a "base level" amount of Greatness points.
You'll need to break out a sheet of graph paper at this point - the players put their heads together and work on their fortress. I want to encourage actually drawing what it looks like, probably from a pure-vertical perspective; on another sheet of paper entirely, record the distance to various "discovered" resources and natural features. As the fortress grows and gets filled up with details (decoration, finished goods, a well-stocked armory, etc.), the dwarves essentially turn the base-level Greatness points of your acquired resources into high-Greatness weapons, trinkets, goods, and so on.
At this point, I have some vague ideas about a turn-based, "seasonal" time system, which would make the distance between resources and the fortress meaningful even during times of peace (in terms of how much you could collect, I suppose), and that, in turn, would give some structure to how quickly a fortress could accumulate Greatness.
Greatness isn't just-because; it's actually going to be used to determine how much attention your fortress gets from immigrant dwarfs, merchants of other races, and screaming hordes of goblin invaders. For now, I think a d100 system would make some sense, as far as establishing when these events happen (migration, trade, invasion) - you roll d100+Greatness and consult a chart to see whether you're hosting merchants, being attacked, or home to new immigrants. As in the original game, merchant visits occur in specific seasons, based on the race of the merchant (elves in spring, humans in summer, dwarves in autumn). Invasions can happen in any season, as can immigration; each season, then, you'd roll three times on the chart, to see if you get trade, migrants, or invaders. The exception is winter - no one comes to trade with you in winter!
I have absolutely no idea how trade should work, or even if some level of granularity even makes sense, here. It's probably sufficient just to have general resource pools with a rating attached to them; in that case, you could trade 1-for-1 of a useless or excess resource for something you do need.

Specific Resources - presumably, the exploration ability covered by Wood and Stone would be two-fold: successes would determine whether or not you find the thing at all, and some other way of reading the dice would determine how far away it is/how hard it is to get to. That second part is something I haven't quite figured out yet; maybe the number of dice that come up as failures could dictate how accessible the resource is, and yes, this means that the more skilled you are, the more likely you are to locate a resource that's far away. That makes sense to me - I want to limit the number of "nodes" for a particular resource you can find at a single time, giving more skilled dwarves greater access, but also limiting resources to one "node" per distance-rating. Common resources require a single success to find; more rarefied goods require more, while omnipresent goods require no successes at all (the distance is the only relevant factor, in that case). That being said...
Choice of "Map" - since selecting where to plant your fortress is so important to the original game, I figure a quick discussion of what's rare, what's common, and what's omnipresent is important before the game begins. A list of resources (wood, gems, ore, farmland, hunting grounds, etc.) and natural features (rivers, magma flows, hills, etc.) will be hashed out, in terms of modifiers to things - gems and ore are less common than stone and wood in general, but in drier or more mountainous climates, wood might be harder to find, and in flatter or sandier climes, stone and ore and gems will be harder to find. I imagine trade will become more relevant when certain resources are more precious, or even non-existent.
Of course, what DF adaptation would be complete without ... Strange Moods?
Haven't worked this out at all yet, but the basic idea is that a dwarf PC stands a chance of becoming an utter master at either Stone, Metal, or Wood, but could very well go insane/die/go on a killing spree if the requirements aren't met. The other upshot is that a treasure of great worth is created as a result of the Strange Mood, which would add a tidy sum of Greatness points to things. Those requirements could be easily met (materially) if the right kind of merchant were visiting that season, but if not, the Stone and Wood specialists would need to hurry up and find what the moody dwarf needs to ensure success. I think striking a balance between Greatness points consumed on the project vs. the difficulty of the dice challenge is important; if you can buy what you need from a merchant, it should really cost you, but the alternative is a roll of the dice. Something like that.
I realize that there's a certain board-game quality to all this, a certain lack of RP-style Exploration; at least it feels that way to me. I figure that the other half of the game, the part not directly covered by the rules, is the interaction of all the dwarves in the fortress a) with each other b) with the Royal Court that commissioned the expedition, and c) with other races.
Romance, jockeying for position, squabbling over the priorities of the fortress, not to mention good old fashioned grudges and bar-fights, are all important things to actually "do" as a dwarf - as much as I've outlined a bunch of mechanical thingies, but those are intended to be co-central or background elements, sharing or giving spotlight with/to the actual interactions between dwarves. Dwarf NPCs should be needy little bastards who take credit for others' discoveries, pick fights over imagined insults, cower and flee at the approach of invaders, and so on. I think the GM's role is to introduce complications whenever possible/enjoyable, holding the power to cause cave-ins, floods, breakups, etc. There should be space for stories or plots within the game - stuff that goes deeper and more detailed than the rules themselves would do alone - stuff like weird discoveries in the mines, agents of the Crown showing up with hidden agendas, things like that.

Thoughts?

Hey, gang... :)
I realize I didn't really say what I was hoping to get from y'all on this topic. From those of you who've played Dwarf Fortress before, I'd like to know your thoughts - does this capture the essence, in your opinion? Does it sound like fun? Anything you'd do differently?

As a bit of a twist, have you considered actually playing dwarf fortress as you rp? It seems a little like you want to reinvent it just so you can roleplay taverns and things, whereas it seems like a better solution is to use it as inspiration for your own roleplay, and get the GM to cheat the game in response to how well you do! I mean the best way to capture the systems mechanical structure is with the system itself, and if it has a lot of stats you can translate those into conditions for your roleplay sessions, such as working out the mood of the fortress, etc.

Hey, JW!
Hmmmmm well, I suppose my question to you would be "How do the players have an impact?" I'm envisioning a bunch of faithful gamers crowded around a computer screen, essentially ... playing Dwarf Fortress together.
Also - what's that about the GM cheating the game? You mean, hacking it in some way to reflect the players' decisions?

Exactly! Or using existing cheat codes if they exist, but through an interface rule system that makes the cheats a reaction to what the players have been doing. I suppose the question might be what you are trying to add to the game; perhaps you could pick up some modding skills and clean up the user interface (if that is appropriate), and add in the cheats/fiction activators at the same time, or perhaps you could create rules for how the DM plays the game with player input, or some other variant, and do it with a laptop with good viewing angles, so you can put the screen flat like a sort of board.

I'm quite a fan of trying to mix the best of both worlds; the flexibility, speed and imagination of a group of people working it out, and the rigour and raw detail handling power of computers, when that adds something. I wouldn't ignore the poor computer for the sake of it. ;)

Okay, J, how about this :)
Do you have any thoughts or suggestions specifically related to making a tabletop RPG for Dwarf Fortress? I want to share the love with typical RPers, without having to fret over whether anyone in my area plays the computer version.
Those hybrid ideas of yours are pretty interesting, for sure, but I dunno if that's really my thing.

Well, taking JoyWriters idea further, I would think you would have the GM at the computer and players around. I don't think dwarf fortress has cheat codes? But instead of that you could work out a system that players decide where and what certain rooms are all about, and how they are set up - they sort of own those rooms. The whole fortress would become a mix of all players ideas - but not just giving ideas in the raw, but some sort of roleplaying out the dwarves then that affects what they can do with new rooms, somehow in some yet to be determined way.

And...I don't want to be a bummer, but making a dwarf fortress RPG sounds kind of like making a D&D exalted game or a shadowrun D&D game - as in they wouldn't be an exalted or D&D game, really. Part of the feeling of it is in how the mechanics feel upon contact in play - and sadly in dwarf fortress, that's forever trapped in the computer version.

I suppose I could call it Moria: Before the Fall, then ^_^ with a note on the first page that says "An homage to the Roguelike-style game Dwarf Fortress."
Ooh, given that the slogan of DF is "Losing is fun!", and the dwarf-hold at Moria is eventually overrun by goblins, maybe it could be a LotR cousin of Polaris - "tragedy at the utmost depths". Okay, I like this! :) Thoughts?
If it seems like I'm not interested in what you guys have to say, that's not true at all - when it relates to tabletop RPG design, at any rate. I usually feel pretty isolated after a while, playing computer games; I have some baggage related to video games and feeling like they're a waste of time. Not that I don't enjoy them; clearly I'm a big fan of at least one of them.
Anyway, I find tabletop roleplaying to be far more satisfying emotionally.

I'll let you in on a little secret: I've never actually played dwarf fortress! So while I am interested in creating low handling time high detail systems (almost as much as appropriately converging computer and tabletop), I can't compare to the portion you'd be emulating. But as to the portion you'd be creating new, I can get behind that.

If loosing is part of the fun, then the game must obviously be very loss tolerant; you'd have to be able to go through all kinds of things and still have tools to play with. Have you considered having families or clans as what you play as instead of single characters? You could always play as the head of the family and switch to other characters as that one gets killed. That's one form of loss tolerance, another is being able to retreat reliably.

And if you want to be able to keep it emotionally substantial, even during the building parts, then you could try covering the emotional side of architecture. That is something you my have to research, but it is of course a human perspective. If you can decide how dwarfs think about their living spaces (I guess natural light is not as much of a priority!), then you could stick that in with a lot less research.

I appreciate you letting me in on the secret, JW :)
Yeah, there's actually an intense amount of programming in DF dedicated to what makes dwarves happy: drinking a lot of alcohol, making friends, eating good food, admiring decorations and well-designed objects, making legendary-quality items, getting married, having a kid, and so on. Interestingly, "[taking] joy in slaughter" is something that makes dwarves happy.
On the subject of sunlight, dwarves can get sunlight-sickness if they stay way too long inside. It's a bit unclear as to how long this takes, but if a dwarf stays indoors for weeks at a time, upon going out he will get a migraine so bad that he throws up. Yes, this is what actually happens in the game. I haven't seen it myself, though.
Things that make them unhappy: talking to someone they don't like, losing a spouse, child, or romantic interest, sleeping in substandard accommodations (for dwarf nobles, the bar is a good deal higher), smelling something that's rotted, getting injured, not getting enough to drink or eat, and so on.
There really is quite the emotional side to constructing a Fortress; the problem, I suppose, is that there's a very clear-cut way to go about that, and it's only if you do it "wrong" (there's wiggle room) that you'll have to worry about fussy dwarves.
Actually, I suppose the presence of nobility (which starts up the monetary system for your Fortress, meaning that the nobles get to take whatever they like, and commoners have to pay for things), a chief architect who wants a rush job or is tight-fisted, or something like that could mean that meaningful moral choices affect the Fortress as a whole: if you don't care about your dwarves enough, they'll kill each other and burn the place down, or try to, at any rate. Dwarves like to be pampered - they like having their own rooms (they share with immediate family without complaints, tho), they like drinking all the time (about twice as often as they eat...), they absolutely love decorations, finely wrought items, and good food. If you expand your Fortress too quickly to give every new dwarf all of that, you could have a riot on your hands. Seriously: one despondent dwarf who starts a fight could actually start a chain reaction of extreme unhappiness, as dwarves are pretty fragile emotionally and violently express their discontent. Gods forbid if you run out of alcohol, too...
The nobility thing is really neat: before you hit a certain population level, dwarves all sleep wherever, eat together, use whatever tools and weapons they need for a job, and so on. If you have "economy mode" on, however, once you hit 50 dwarves and get your first noble, you'll need to start minting coins, and dwarves will start earning wages from their tasks. This also means they have to pay rent, and the market for housing is strange: if you have dwarves that don't like to work very hard (or just party a lot, which isn't an all-bad trait to have [it makes dwarves happy and builds friendships! Yay!]), then they won't be able to afford sleeping arrangements that make them happy, even if all bottom-tier rooms are of good quality. There's a fixed rent cost for each tier of housing quality (keeping in mind this is a monarchy, after all...), and so, oddly, lazier dwarves require you to build crappy little hovels so they can afford the rent there, even though they'd rather live somewhere else. It's like San Francisco, I suppose.
I'm one player among many who turns off "economy mode", meaning that noble dwarves still arrive when you meet certain conditions, but your Fortress will never have any use for minted coins (oddly, they aren't useful as trade currency!). I really like having a "socialist" Fortress, where everyone works and plays as they see fit, and everyone is allowed to eat and drink what they please. Given that the only truly unproductive activity in the game is Taking A Break (which is necessary, unavoidable, and does not change stats at all), it's actually not so bad if, like me, you have a Fortress that's half party animals (who keep everyone happy) and half work-dwarves (who cook the food and decorate the rooms and craft trade goods and so on). I love it - partying is absolutely a productive, useful activity! Thank gods that dwarves are all such prima donnas!

I suppose what all these things do is create excuses for conflict: if something doesn't happen, the GM says it doesn't happen, or if you run out of a needed supply (the brewery blows up?), then yay! Conflict! Things like flooding, cave-ins, fires, rotting trash, and so on are all pretty manageable if you have an alert and careful chief architect (i.e. the computer-game's player), but sometimes, if given a little too much freedom in how to go about a task, dwarves will knock down the wrong wall and get swept away in water or magma (or both, creating lethal steam!). I've lost a couple of times because an irrigation trench was dug improperly, and then a couple of diggers fell in and drowned. Rather than deal with the Fortress-wide emotional fallout of their deaths, I forfeited.

Did I mention dwarves have pets? And that, should they die, dwarves go into mourning? Honestly, given how needy the hairy little buggers are, it's a wonder anyone gets any work accomplished!

The real essence of the storytelling in Dwarf Fortress is that all the content is procedurally generated.  Everything on the map is 'random' within a certain set of parameters pre-set by other parameters such as the area's climate and local communities.  It seems like in order to capture the essence of that system, you'd have to develop a dice system that also generates everything procedurally via the system itself. Having an author or GM that creates anything for that Fortress that is not created by the system itself seems entirely counter to the point of the thing. Stories that happen around Fortresses happen only because they were emergent from the sim of the thing.

I would say that any system you create would have to capture this.  Lots of charts and diagrams. A dwarf can't carve something on to an artifact bracelet unless he's actually seen it. Until then he's stuck carving things he's already seen - clouds, jewels, abstract shapes and runes.  The GM's biggest job at the start of the game would be to create the nearby world (or, pull it from the DF map himself) and develop the diagrams that would drive the encounters in the game. I could see it being really time consuming to prepare the first session, but then basically everything is randomly rolled from there on out.

That doesn't sound fun to me :) Well, there's one way it could be interesting: if you managed to randomly configure a world in which the game takes place, and for the rest of the game, you don't have to consult thick, annoyingly wordy tomes for anything.
I can't stress this enough: the point of making this a tabletop RPG is not to recreate the experience of Dwarf Fortress on the computer; the point is to envision what it might have looked like had it been made for tabletop in the first place. 

Abkajud wrote:
That doesn't sound fun to me :) Well, there's one way it could be interesting: if you managed to randomly configure a world in which the game takes place, and for the rest of the game, you don't have to consult thick, annoyingly wordy tomes for anything.
I can't stress this enough: the point of making this a tabletop RPG is not to recreate the experience of Dwarf Fortress on the computer; the point is to envision what it might have looked like had it been made for tabletop in the first place. 

Oh, I might also add, since I can't edit, that reading through the original thread it's fairly clear that your initial approach isn't all THAT GM-driven; I'm just arguing it probably should be even less consensus driven and rely more on randomness.

To use an example from the top of the thread, the players decide what's common in the area, etc, but to really capture the essence of DF it feels like you actually would have to generate a chart of exactly what ores were there and where they were so that a player could know if they were mining them. Which would make mining something rare a bigger deal since nobody consentually decided there was gold in thar hills, but, on the other hand, would also make world generation about as tedious as DF world generation is.

I suppose, AJ, the dilemma is that it has to be fun, or there's no point; and yet, it is fun to watch the computer program come up with all that stuff.

If you look at my "Exploration" skill, the point was to let a fairly specific, directed PC decision contain a lot of randomness, and fit in stuff about the seasons and the more sweeping, big-scale feel of the original game, as well. I want to take the bits about the game that create tension and require decision-making and plug those in, albeit in a much more player-directed way.
Example: I have a dwarf who's gone into a Strange Mood, demanding some kind of gem and some wood. Since any given copse of trees will have several kinds of wood, lumber isn't really going to be more than a 1-success item; as such, it doesn't matter the skill of the dwarf who goes out to get it. Dwarves with greater skill will only be able to impress us with how far away they found the copse (each success counts towards "buying" the item, based on its rarity, while the total number of "failed" dice dictates how far away the thing is, so a common item is something that you let the low-skill dwarves gofer). For the gemstone, you'll want your dwarf with highest Stone to go a-digging for it. Each failure to locate an item will result in inching closer to the end of the season (especially if it's far away), and one full season is the longest a Strange (or any kind of) Mood is going to last (in the compy game, it seems to vary, but I don't recall a dwarf lasting more than 3 months holed up in his little workshop, muttering to himself).

Given the stakes here (a dwarf whose Mood isn't satiated will go berserk or just starve himself to death), I think this mechanic, even in its rough-draft stage, captures something of the capriciousness of the DF universe. That's what I'm going for - simple, bold strokes (the stats), a classic-fantasy feel (comes with the territory), and a sense of randomness (you can always find a place to start digging, but does it have what you need?). I think this approach matches with the strengths of the tabletop medium, while letting the computer-game version do what it does best on its own.

Another thing I want to do is create a random-relationship system for, at the very least, new immigrants arriving. I want a game where you roll to see if there's new immigrants this season, and then the players all huddle around to see what kind of dynamic the new guys bring to the Fortress. Drama!! :)

And, for non-DFers, the kinds of Moods are: Fey (basic: demands certain resources, locks himself in a workshop, starves to death if demands are not met, and maxes out in that craft skill once the masterwork item is complete), Secretive (draws a picture instead of telling you his demands, otherwise the same), Possessed (demands are made in vague language, and no skill-up upon item creation), Fell (kills a dwarf and makes a masterwork item from the dwarf's bones, ick), and Macabre (uses dwarf-bones, but will not kill anyone to get them [yes, he'll go crazy if you refuse to dig up the cemetery]).

There's two types of tension and decision making and both seem to get blended together pretty regularly in roleplay culture. One type of tension and decision making is the sort you'll find in chess.

The other sort is best called faux tension and decision making. This is the impression of tension and decision making - it's kind of like narrating a chess match between a PC and Death. Is there a game of chess/is it actual tension and decision making? No. It's the impression of it.

I would say in dwarf fortress the PC game, there is actual tension and decision making, as there are a bunch of resources around as much as there is on a chess board.

The thing is, Abkajud, it sounds like you want to lift the tension and decision making of dwarf fortress out of the PC game and into an RPG. But you seem to want to keep treating it as real (as in chess) tension and decision making? Or am I getting you wrong?

I'm intrigued by your synopsis, but I'm afraid I don't understand it. Can you say more about "real" vs. "faux" decision-making/tension?
Perhaps you mean that in one situation (the chess match), something is actually on the line for the player (i.e. a trophy or what-not), whereas in the other it's like the tension of watching a film?

Pretty much that. It's real decision making when it's some part of your real life on the line. If you were playing chess for fifty bucks, it's easier to see how the decisions in the game can affect your life (well, fifty would add something nice to my life, anyway). Now if it isn't fifty bucks, but the glory of winning, or having a dwarf colony you've spent part of your finite life crafting, on the line, it's still affecting your life. They are real life decisions, even if only small ones.

Simply narrating dwarf fortress like events is indeed like watching a film. Even having rules for narrating still just means your narrating faux tension. There might be tension in using the rules themselves, like in the RPG Capes system use, but the end narration is still faux tension and decision making.

Though alot of roleplayers do try and strongly insist that what they narrated means that X mechanical rules option can't be used anymore, as part of them genuinely believing the narration is a real decision. A smaller segment seem to know it's not a real decision, but as a group enjoy the idea of it being so and as a group help support the idea it is, even though outside of play they know it isn't.

Sorry for going on - the whole thing links into alot of complicated notions and it's hard not to give a quick nod to them. You could just ignore the third paragraph, the first two should be the helpful ones. :)

I can see the difference, I think, but I have to say: it sounds like you're not just distinguishing the two; because you call one of them "faux tension", it sounds like you think one is inherently better than the other.
Of course nothing real is on the line when you're playing a game (okay, aside from money, or a big time investment). But does that make films any less enjoyable? Or story-oriented RPGs, for that matter?
I'm so curious to find out what you're getting at with this. I know sometimes I'm not the best at deciphering ya :) but pray, continue!

Abkajud wrote:
Hey, JW!
Hmmmmm well, I suppose my question to you would be "How do the players have an impact?" I'm envisioning a bunch of faithful gamers crowded around a computer screen, essentially ... playing Dwarf Fortress together.

Heh, that forum reminds me of when I got excited about the 'lets play' of dwarf fortress on RPG net and posters got to name dwarves after themselves. Of course it was entirely cosmetic, but the idea of writing a game where they could set the attitude of their character and such, then he'd run off the attitudes rules, came to mind. I crashed into an effort vs payoff issue with it...but this reminds me...

Abkajud wrote:
I can see the difference, I think, but I have to say: it sounds like you're not just distinguishing the two; because you call one of them "faux tension", it sounds like you think one is inherently better than the other.
Of course nothing real is on the line when you're playing a game (okay, aside from money, or a big time investment). But does that make films any less enjoyable? Or story-oriented RPGs, for that matter?
I'm so curious to find out what you're getting at with this. I know sometimes I'm not the best at deciphering ya :) but pray, continue!

Particularly in Adventurer mode, the feeling of it is more important, or at least more emotionally relevant to me at this point. It's a tough game to get the hang of, and a recent experiment proved to me that I'd forgotten all the controls. :)
Given that the medium can be so tricky, and my excitement for the computer game has faded, what I'm left with is that old desire, so common to RPers, I think, to create a "classic" fantasy RPG. It's pretty much the Heartbreaker urge.

The dwarf fortress actual play/stories that seem to get written up are kind of an story after thing, typically not so much characters making choices in play, but sticking with choices already made, to the bitter end.

This is just like a sounding out suggestion in case it rings something with you, but does sticking with choices made, regardless of how bitter, sound kinda cool as a gameplay thing with you?

!!!!

Callan, you always come through with awesome insights once we've batted things around for a bit.
That ... rocks.
Sticking with choices to the bitter end is exactly what "Losing is fun!" is all about.

Hi Zak, sorry for the thread necromancy - I just wanted to prod you to see if you'd made any progress on this?

I just started a new world and I'm now on my second fortress (doesn't it always happen that way, the first fortress ends tragically after a year, as you start remembering some of the nuances like having a source of drinks for the winter...). The idea of a DF RPG intrigues me tremendously, not in the least because of the challenge involved in actually creating something that captures the essence of a game without getting bogged down in the ultra-detailed simulation aspect.

Much like most simulation-based computer games, Dwarf Fortress is a story-creating engine (though it may be classified as Story After, in some cases). There is little to no front-loading of premise, however. Premise, if it ever arises, results by way of the player's choices: will my greed lead to unimaginable wealth or to eventual destruction? will focusing on military prowess and conquest lead to a healthy internal community or an eventual explosion of internal strife? how do you cope with immigrants attracted by the opulence of your stronghold? will you deal with other civilizations through open trade or insularity, and what effects will that have on your relationships?

As has been identified, the simulation is not a goal in and of itself, but rather a way of offloading trivial or too-complex tasks to the computer and allow the player to make (hopefully) meaningful choices that drive the situation in one direction or another. "Situations" are described, tongue-in-cheek, as "Fun" on the DF wiki, with the word linking back to the article on "Losing". This, I think, is the key to a DF RPG.

As I see it, a DF RPG should keep a great deal of simulation, with random elements thrown in by the bucketload. However, this simulation should serve to create "Situations" leading to potential "Fun". I suppose you could consider these Situations to be Bangs, or they might be Bangs when filtered and interpreted through a GM (or a GM-type-role, which may rotate, whatever).

To summarize my interest in this project, Dwarf Fortress the RPG should (to me):

• Generate stories - stories about the world, stories about the fortresses and neighbouring civilizations, and stories about the dwarves and their clans / families
• Generate artifacts of play - maps of the world, maps of fortresses, write-ups of artifacts, diaries, trade agreements, and so on
• Use just enough randomness and simulation (charts, tables etc) to create opportunities for new Situations in an ever-changing world not fully under the participants' control
• Situations should arise in Fun / the potential for Losing, forcing the players to make interesting choices on the spot
• As you've already identified, the choices made should have long-lasting impact and ultimately serve to address any emergent Premise in the story
• Any unit-of-play - dwarves, fortresses, civilizations - should ultimately cease to exist (="die") yet leave behind a record of itself in the form of an artifact of play and an impact on the world
• In the moment, a player should deal with a Situation in a manner coherent with their own choices; whether that is to the benefit of their dwarf / dwarves, or the community, or the fortress, or a civilization, or the world - letting the player engage with the emergent story on a level most interesting to them, similar to actual gameplay in DF

I'm very interested to hear how your thinking falls in line with that (or doesn't), and how far you've gotten.

Hey Lachek,
Thanks for bringing the thread back! My biggest problem is finding anybody who both a) likes Dwarf Fortress and b) has suggestions for a tabletop game that are informed by awareness of design theory. So - hooray for you!
I am working on an exhaustive background check for work (ah, Catholic schools..), so I can't reply in full right this minute, but I'll leave you with an idea, and an answer:

- the answer: as to your question, "any progress?", the short reply is "Some, but I'd been stuck as to how to relate Premise to the material."
- the idea: I'm going to look into Apocalypse World concepts like fronts and GM Moves. Also, I've been peering at the In a Wicked Age oracles lately; those might be excellent for tapping into the random story-creation you mentioned, and I heartily agree that randomness is a strong theme in DF.

As for Creative Agenda, I'll boiler-plate it for you - - I am a) interested in making a game that promotes Story Now. b) It could conceivably be a vaguely Burning Wheel-ish affair, wherein a love of the Dream implicit in the material acts subordinately to bolster pursuit of Story Now.

Can I email you what I have so far? It's choppy and kind of all over the place, but if you can "read" Dwarf Fortress's crazy Matrix GUI, you just might be able to follow my ideas ^__^

Okay - I'm taking a break from the Catholic school slog.
Some ideas!
A lot of useful or important terrain features in DF are included randomly, especially in the latest version of the game. You can still search for a site with all the features you desire, but the GUI is completely arcane as to which, if any, desired features are actually present in the location the game hands you.

[for the uninitiated: if you want, say, a river and some sedimentary rock, you can tell the game to look for a dig site that has those things present within a couple of square miles or so. The presence of some of these things, like the river, will be immediately obvious once you start playing, but sedimentary rock, *underground* water sources, magma pools, etc. will be literally obfuscated by the terrain until you physically locate them, if they're there at all. I consider this a feature, not a bug, because Losing is Fun!]

I was thinking that it might be kind of cool to have a panic-button option, mechanically -- I call it "Object not found; no path to site." Basically, if some dwarf has gone off on some harebrained scheme and gotten in over his head, it might be fun to really own one's failure by saying "You know what? I'm going to make this even worse for myself." The upshot could be that dwarfs are always looking for an excuse to haul off and kill their compatriots. Seriously! So very many things make them unhappy, and if the basics aren't taken care of (booze, friendship, nice furnishings), it's quite likely a dwarf will tantrum.

One thing that's covered by the existing game quite thoroughly, but shows up only subtly/in the background, is relationships. Dwarfs will become friends with anybody they spend time around, unless of course their personalities clash. Dwarfs do nothing by half-measures: spending time around dwarfs they dislike will anger them and make them grow to hate each other. They also have families, they get married, they have kids... these relationships are all very relevant, very important elements of their daily lives and well-being, but I'm puzzled/intrigued as to how to combine or incorporate the very Trade Guild skill set emphasis of the game with the friends/family aspect of the game.
Quick mechanical idea: Workshop Gossip Time (or whatever). Basically, pick a dwarf who shares a skill with you. Then, you both (as players) decide that your dwarfs have been assigned to the same task, work site, whatever. Independent of how the job goes, you roll ... d6, we'll say, and a 1 means you hate each other, 2-5 means we'll wait and see, and a 6 means y'all are crazy about each other (platonically or otherwise)! If you love or hate them now, then you get either a +1 (for love) or a -1 (for hate) to check how you feel about all of that dwarf's friends. If you're still lukewarm after one hang-out, take a 1-point modifier for next time and use it as you see fit, as a bonus or penalty to the d6. Very important: all feelings between dwarfs are mutual.
I think this idea could/should be front and center every time any labors are performed by more than one dwarf. This could be a cool way to lead to marriages, dorf babies, even factions developing among the workforce! And if you and a stupid bloody noble end up assigned together, and you like them, you traitor, that could introduce some troubling fun dynamics, too! [for the uninitiated: dwarf nobles make stupid, unreasonable requests of all they come in contact with. Dwarf Fortress players usually hate all nobles.]

As for tying in Apocalypse World ideas, I think the Agenda is great as-is: make the world real, make the pc's lives not-boring, play to find out what happens. Principles like "Name everyone. Make everyone human.", "Respond with fuckery and intermittent rewards", and "Be a fan of the players' characters" are all solidly in the spirit of Dwarf Fortress, too. Dwarfs are emotionally fragile creatures who encounter both the heights of triumph (slaying goblin raiders, crafting magnificent Artifacts) and the depths of really awful fuckery (giant cave spiders the size of horses, goblin baby snatchers, cave-ins, etc.), but it's really important that the ... maybe we call the GM the Mayor?... is an impartial-ish aid-and-abettor of the direction the players take the game, rather than some ruthless opponent.
If a dwarf hates your p.c., fuckery is called for, to an extent. Dwarfs have some bluster and they do often carry weapons, but they're relatively peaceable, their lives full, in equal parts, of labor, drink, and partying. They might pull pranks on each other, but even scuffing a mural can be considered an arrestable offense by the Mayor's guards, so it's going to take some seriously bilious hatred to get a dwarf to cross the line. Or sobriety.

Something to ponder, moving forward: fortress wealth attracts migrants AND goblin raiders, but migrants are scared away by any deaths that happen to your dwarfs. Goblins will, doubtless, find the deaths encouraging.
As for play artifacts, I think it could be pretty cool to include the Engraving skill - dwarfs use it to record significant events. Putting such murals around the fortress could be a cool way to intentionally record events for future consumption. Also - it could be kind of cool to knock down said murals later on, either to upset their creators (if they're masterworks, that is) or to put past tragedies behind you. Cool! So many things to think about!

So - that "gossip" mechanic, to see who loves or hates whom?
It occurred to me that that could be the basis for the universal mechanic in the system.

Here's how it could work:
Roll 1d6. If you get 2-6, you succeed. If you get a 1, take a Doom token; more on that in a sec.

Now, if you rolled a 2, you perform slowly and poorly, even though you succeed. Take a Bump token.
If you rolled a 3, choose one of those, and take a Bump.

If you rolled 4 or 5, you did well, and take a Bump.
If you rolled a 6, you give a Bump token; more on that later, too.

Okay - Doom tokens cause horrible things to happen. Some skills, like mining, woodcutting, blacksmithing, etc., are Dangerous - when you get a Doom token, you can spend it right away on yourself or your immediate situation, causing misfortune related to the skill you were using when you botched. Alternately, you can hold onto it, and spend it so something dire (remember: "Losing is fun!") happens to the whole Fortress instead.

Some skills are Safe (need a different name for this...) - they aren't really dangerous activities, so any Doom tokens they earn must be spent on the Fortress or handed off to another dwarf (most likely a p.c.) to deal with instead. If you screw up with one of these, you foist your bad fortune onto others. Some Safe skills are useful and practical; others (like Soap Making) are pretty narrow in application.

Bumps are pretty simple - whenever you roll, you can spend Bumps to add or subtract one from your result, your choice. Very important: Bumps attach to particular skills. Maybe.
Also - you can use Bumps to weaken a skill check result because you don't always want to get the highest roll you can - I'll explain in a moment.

The third skill category is Artifact - skills that can create truly wondrous things if you roll well enough. If you roll a 6 with an Artifact skill, you produce... an Artifact! This is a beautiful, amazing object that does its job really well and looks awesome doing it. Also - you are now Legendary with this skill - add one to the result of all checks with this skill automatically, before applying Bumps. Legendary status probably won't stack.
Also also - the Artifact is worth one Treasure point, which is equally good at attracting migrant dwarfs and fiendish goblin raiders to your Fortress.
3rd (and last) also: the dwarf who made the Artifact is emotionally bound up in keeping it safe, and keeping it in dwarfish hands. If it's ever destroyed, stolen, or traded away, the artificer will make a Mood check to see how he handles the extreme stress of parting with his creation. As such, it isn't always a good thing to make an Artifact - especially if a single craftsdwarf would end up with multiple creations to his name - and yet the auto-plus-one that Legendary skill gets you means that you're likely to churn out masterworks, if so inclined.

I think that invasions (and other Fun) will be determined randomly - but factors like Treasure points will push the die result up, moving from natural disasters over to more intelligent opposition.
Waves of migration will also be determined randomly - I'm tinkering with a system that can handle the 90(!) different skills in Dwarf Fortress - but two factors will definitely affect the size and frequency of immigration: dwarf-deaths in the Fortress and the number of Treasure points. In the latest version of DF, migrant dwarfs who show up despite recent workplace accidents or what-have-you are heralded with, "Some migrants have arrived, though this place may yet be their tomb," (to paraphrase).

Dinnertime for me; more to follow!

I agree wholeheartedly that an Apocalypse World hack is a great way to go about this. One of the strengths of Apocalypse World is its ability to unbalance / tilt things ("moves snowball") which is exactly in line with DF's theme. In DF, as in many simulation games, the player's job is to keep things running smoothly, while the computer's job is to introduce imbalances for the player to deal with.

Fronts is an excellent way to model DF-style opposition as well. Envy (=immigrants, other civilizations, etc), Hunger, Thirst (=alcohol), Environment (=cave-ins, beasts etc), Ambition (=nobles, etc), Decay, Despair (=siege, etc), Fey (=moods, possession), all come to mind as possible Fronts, with lots of opportunities for Threat categories within each.

I actually do suggest a move for each of the 90+ skills in the game, or at least a move for each skill in a somewhat pared-down list (maybe "Fishing" and "Fish Cleaning" can be merged, for example - or "Cooking" could be merged with "Fish Cleaning"). Each player - assuming each player would have control of only one dwarf, which is perhaps not the case - would only have access to a few of these at a time, of course (likely by purchasing skill levels in it from a shared pool of points during the initial Embark mode). Since most dwarf actions is a use of a skill, that doesn't seem excessive to me.

I'd be wary of introducing too many modular sub-systems, it will be difficult enough to model the simulation aspect as is. A meta-layer of resource management and economic flow, entirely absent in Apocalypse World (by design, as far as I can surmise), is a requirement though.

I'd be interested in hearing more specifically about the core system you're considering.

Thanks for the thoughts!

It occurred to me over the weekend that I had, thus far, only concocted meta-level mechanics - everything I'd written up had to do with fortress management, and very little had to do with, y'know, being a dwarf who LIVES in this weird place.

I think I need to read the MC section quite a bit, and see what I can deduce from there. As far as lots of sub-systems are concerned, I think, thus far, that having one system for meta-stuff (roll d6, add your Bumps) that floats up in a seasonal turn-based thing could sit alongside one system for a more real-time, not-meta-stuff (whatever that ends up being, but obviously it's inspired by AW).

The problem I keep coming back to is - what do the dwarfs DO when they're not at work? I wrote up a Fiasco playset last night that kind of covers this, since dwarfs form relationships and get into trouble and so on, like people do, but nothing's occurred to me yet that's gotten me really excited.

(note: cross-posted)

In my last post I confounded Threats with Fronts a bit, although I do think that Environment and Fey need their own distinct Front types. I can see Fey potentially appearing under Decay, but they're basically a Front in and of themselves. Environmental hazards (=digging too deep, etc) could be under a Front called "Greed" I suppose.

Also, Apocalypse World runs on lists, where players or MC typically pick from that list. I envision a DF hack would instead typically use a random element to choose most items, perhaps with a modifier based on a karma-type stat or similar. For example:

When a dwarf uses Mining to dig out a room, corridor, or feature, roll +strength.

On a 10+, the work is completed - roll a d6 modified by Karma.
0 or lower: The work cost one unit of material to construct.
1 - 3: No side benefits.
4 - 5: If a vein is present, retrieve one unit of material from that vein. If a vein is not present, discover a vein (roll on Vein Discovery table). Reduce Karma by 1.
6+: As per results 4 - 5, but in addition the completed work is of Masterwork quality.

On a 7-9, the work is completed but hazardous - roll a d6 modified by Karma.
0 or lower: The work is in danger of crumbling or caving in at an inopportune moment.
1 - 3: The work is sub-par and requires constant maintenance to sustain.
4 - 5: As per results 1 - 3, but if a vein is present, retrieve one unit of material from that vein. If so, reduce Karma by 1.
6+: The work attracts the Fae. Whenever anyone interacts with the work, the MC gets to make a Fae Threat move.

On a 6 or lower, the work does not get completed this cycle. Reduce Karma by 1. If Nobles are in the fortress, the MC gets to make a Noble Threat move.

As for what dwarfs do when they don't work? It's all in Dwarf Fortress... :)

Sleep, eat, drink, have parties, use social skills, etcetera. I'm thinking of a setup similar to Mouse Guard, here: there is a Work phase, and there is a Social phase. During the Work phase, the dwarfs do work - either by their own volition or as demanded by Nobles (other PCs, or the MC if there are no Noble PCs). During the Social phase, the dwarfs get a chance to relax and deal with Threats in the Hunger, Thirst, Decay, Despair categories of Fronts, and work on relationships and pet projects.

Wow, awesome stuff, man! Clearly you know a good deal more about AW than I do.
And, on that note, I think it'd be pretty amazing to see a DF hack for AW, but that's not actually what I was driving at. I don't know enough about that game to really do any work on a hack or a reskin for it; I was shooting for original, if nonetheless "inspired", mechanics.

I... also haven't played Mouse Guard either, but I'm interested in checking it out.
I have to admit that I'm reaching to imagine what play might look like - thus far, I'd been banking on it all deriving from projects and labor and whatnot, with complications being the reason to "break" and have more fleshed-out scenes, as opposed to a sort of meta-game skimming session (i.e. conducting the business of the fortress, but without getting too deep into their day to day lives).

For that matter, I pondered what it might be like for the players to not be tied to any particular characters, and for each season of in-game time to start with a project list, to which dwarfs are assigned. We roll for each project, see how it's going, and ... I suppose we set scenes to explore what happens when things go wrong (not enough food; crime happens; etc.).
Not only is my current "vision" sounding more like a board game/rpg hybrid (in the sense of the mental space we occupy, how "deep" we go into characters, etc., not in the sense of game components), but I'm also feeling some gaps in my indie curriculum.

On the other hand... Moves really aren't that tough to grok, and it just occurred to me that when you wrote "material" in that room-excavation example, we could substitute that word for "barter". Trade in DF doesn't use money, and is actually a sort of barter system in its own right, so that lends itself well to our purposes. Additionally, the way production works in DF is very much in the AW vein - you can point right at the folks who made every single meal, chair, weapon, and trinket you might acquire.

Since you're under a mountain, every square foot of living space requires shoveling and hauling tons of rock up to the surface. Every cup of water that reaches your lips has to be piped in from somewhere, either drained from the surface or pumped (by hand or otherwise) out of some subterranean pool. Nothing appears by magic (and there IS no magic at all in the game, at present), and this is something one must constantly come to grips with.

As far as lists and random results vs. chosen results, I think a strength of the former is that you can make some options plainly better than others. With chosen results, you have to ensure that, on, say, a 10+ result, everything on the choice list is worth a 10+. On the 10+ you've presented here, it's more like different tiers of possibilities; the worst thing that can happen on a 10+ is that you're out some lumber or something, while on a 7-9 you run the risk of the whole thing collapsing around your ears. Big difference!

Inspired, Hack, whatever. I don't mean to say you should necessarily adopt the mechanics wholesale. The basic mechanics of AW is actually its least interesting moving part (it's essentially Unisystem - roll dice, add a resource from your sheet, try to get 10 or better). If you can tweak this to give it a bit more oomph the game will only be better for it.

The interesting part about AW, and where I think it'd really shine as a DF: RPG adaptation, is how the moves snowball. That is to say, you start out with something innocuous and pedestrian, like constructing a mining shaft. You roll the dice and get a result between 7 and 9 (partial success). You now have a success, but with some consequences. You have to try to resolve these consequences, which leads to another move, which leads to another set of consequences, etcetera. At worst, this type of mechanic takes something pedestrian and creates a mini-adventure around it by snowballing. At best, the system creates large-scale, permanent changes to the game world as the snowball doesn't just grow but derails and smashes everything in its path. I can easily see how snowballing moves can lead to the Dwarf Fortress "tantrum spiral", for example.

What I meant about Mouse Guard: MG is set up such that in a single session, there is one or more "GM's Turn" each followed by a "Player's Turn". In the GM's Turn, the guardmice perform Missions constructed by the GM and delivered by an NPC. The guardmice aren't supposed to do anything but their mission during the GM's Turn. The mission is pre-planned with a number of obstacles for them to overcome, but of course the "correct" outcomes aren't necessarily pre-planned. During the mission the guardmice use resources, get Hungry, Thirsty, Tired and Angry as a result of conflicts, and generally wear themselves out. If they succeed in the mission, during the Player's Turn they can spend Checks they have gained during the mission (typically as a result of choosing to get in further trouble) to recover or perform actions such as crafting, trading, socializing, training, and in other ways work towards fulfilling their personal Beliefs.

Similarly, I think one way to go about a DF RPG is to consider a phase for "hi ho hi ho it's off to work we go" followed by a period of relaxation and opportunity for personal achievement. These could further be split up into Seasons (interestingly, so is Mouse Guard) with individual challenge types. Now that I think of it, one of the "You Can Hack It" crew already made a Dwarf Guard adaptation: http://members.shaw.ca/hackit/Episode2.html, http://www.burningwheel.org/forum/showthread.php?6930-Dwarf-Guard

During the Work phase, dwarfs use work moves to complete a certain task. They might have a certain number of moves by which to complete it and might work together or individually on separate tasks. Depending on the outcome they may or may not be able to complete the task on time before the Rest phase begins, and there may be consequences for that (didn't irrigate that underground farm out before winter caused the water supply to freeze, or what have you). During the Rest phase they might just recover, or might choose instead to craft an axe, train a skill, work "overtime" to increase the fortresses' available resources, gold plate their desk, get a promotion, train some new recruits, or whatever.

I think you're right on the money with regards t scenes occurring mostly when things go "wrong". The way we play Apocalypse World is very much the same - occasionally, when someone does something like work a "safe" gig (like farming, f. ex.) or repair a bike, we'll zoom in on what's happening, but typically only when the result of the move is particularly "interesting". The MC can also interject a pedestrian scene like that with a move of their own, like "announce future badness" when a co-labourer announces that some of the crops are full of maggots or whatever. Typically though, these moves are safely glossed over if nothing particularly interesting is happening.

This will mean, as you point out, that if players are performing moves to create resources for the meta-game of economics, you don't zoom in on it - you make the rolls, check the results, make a note on a map and a resource sheet or whatnot, and you move on. During any given project, however, there should be a number of opportunities for "fun" events that you can zoom in on. I don't see this as being a problem, necessarily; resource management can be exciting in and of itself, and it is the meta-game which drives the scarcity Fronts ever onward and create more pressure for "fun".

Dwarf Fortress has a few interesting political-economic phases. In the first, we have a small troupe of dwarfs that are self-sufficient and share resources for the good of the fortress, a sort of anarcho-communist arrangement. When the fortress has amassed some wealth, there's the arrival of immigrants, some which are more or less useless and "feed" off the fortress. The original troupe has to decide how best to use these new resources so they can contribute, and prevent them from causing decay and strife in the fortress' social structure and relationships. Next, nobles arrive from the dwarfen kingdom, or are promoted as such from within. The nobles rely on managers to create a more hierarchical management of the fortress, which leads to its own problems; sometimes the nobles are crazy and ask for export restrictions on prominent trade resources, or demand the creation of an artifact weapon made of balsa wood adorned with turtle shells. Sometimes a successful work foreman will be put in a bad situation due to a deadline not being met, and be sentenced to imprisonment or death to the detriment of the fortress society. And finally (?), while it's not yet implemented in the computer game, you can mint coins and start a mini-economy within the fortress where each dwarf has an income based on the work they do and can use it to acquire items from the fortress stores, a full-fledged capitalist economy - now with its own challenges due to the famed dwarf greed and the inability to produce only goods useful for the survival of the fortress as a whole.

Random vs Chosen is interesting, and there may be room for both. I'm looking at Random as a method for creating the "simulation" aspect. Neither players nor MC have a way of steering the nature of the game in a given direction, which does cause some concern as the ability to reinforce themes are lessened for both parties. On the other hand, carefully crafted moves with random outcome elements does allow for moves to snowball in very unexpected directions, which I enjoy - it seems as though it'd provide potential for some truly interesting emergent occurrences in line with Dwarf Fortress' ability to constantly surprise the player.

Some of my thinking right now, as evident in the example move I provided above, revolves around the ability for the MC to perform "free" Threat moves if a given outcome is activated. Since the MC authors those Threat moves, that should still give the MC the ability to reinforce themes and the scarcity of some Fronts. For example, if an Environment Front is in play with a Threat called "Winter" and a custom move to reduce food stocks, and a Hunger Front is in play with a Threat called "Kalvert Urimaon, the Hungry Dwarf" and a custom move to steal food, when a dwarf fails a Farming move the MC would choose which move to activate based on whether it'd be more suitable to cause strife for the fortress overall or cause problems with a given dwarf.

An idea I was tinkering with, that would establish a system of GM-led dangers and threats, would be as follows:

Whenever you roll poorly on a skill check, you can either take the standard pain-and-suffering, or the GM can offer a suggestion. Playing off my idea posted earlier in the thread, you get a choice - if the task goes Slowly, all dwarfs involved in the project are tied up til the end of the season.
Either a player involved in the task can suggest an alternate, speed-related snag, or the GM can do so.
Whoever suggests an alternative does NOT get to pick which option is used.

If the task goes Poorly, the standard pain is: the product will malfunction in some significant way approximately 50% of the time.
Suggested alternatives should have something to do with the quality and utility of the object (or whatever) produced.

Getting a bit broader-scale, every time someone botches a roll, they can either suffer the consequences themselves (which could be dire), or pass them onto someone else in the production/consumption chain, or they can have nothing bad happen immediately and just move the Doom Token one space forward, or put a Doom chit in the GM's pile, or something like that.
Suffering yourself vs. fobbing it off - - I either want skills to give one option or the other (Doom, option 3, is always an option) OR I want the players to decide if they're a "taker" or a "fobber" at the beginning of the game, with possible switching mid-game.

So - elements of IaWA (bargaining over the fallout of a loss on the dice), Fiasco (either suggest or choose), and AW (the dice roll is inspired by Moves), with a hint of Mouse Guard/Agon (the Doom mechanic, whatever it ends up looking like) thrown in. I realize that personal consequences (work quality, etc.) are determined in competition with threats to the overall Fortress - one is just easier to get out of than the other.
I think the GM should get a small amount of Doom to play with, regardless - possibly based on taking certain actions, regardless of their success (killing merchants, locating adamantine, using magma in industry, and other "Fun!" activities).

I like it a lot!

I think I'm gleaning that you have the seeds of a coherent system already, but its nature is not immediately obvious to me from reading between the lines of Forge posts. I fear that if I contribute further to the thread at this stage I risk derailing you from implementing your ideas in favour of what's in my own boxed-in concept already, so I'll keep on the low-down for now. When you have a core system down "on paper", I'm more than willing to brainstorm more. My email address is lachek@gmail.com if you want to send me any info, or just post it here.

You're definitely on to something great and I hope you keep developing it. :)

Thanks for understanding, lachek - I suppose I didn't know how to get that across.
A part of me would be content to wait and try out Mouse Guard and AW in my own time, but given that it's tough to schedule time with my local gaming group (I'm usually otherwise occupied the night they meet up), it'd be better for me if I could walk into game night with something to play-test, or even a beta if I find some random chance to play-test it.

My design may also be suitable for solo play, a bit like a zoomed-in version of How to Host a Dungeon. I'm thinking, in that case, that Doom events will be chosen randomly, to minimize the intensity of Czege Principle effects.

I actually rolled through seven dwarfs' first season at a new fortress, and I think it played out pretty well. I'm going to have to find at least two other people, and think up more about the gm's role, before I can explore further. But I may just do that soon!

Thanks :)
More to come, as I devise it!