[Crawl] Challenge Games

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.misc (More info?)

Arsenic Man -- Trolls, ogres, and kobolds only (unless I missed a
gluttonous race). Eat *everything* you kill, as far as is possible.
This includes kobolds, mutagenic corpses, rotting mutagenic corpses,
necrophage corpses...

Heretic Man -- Reach the ET. Convert to every religion in turn, and
leave the ET with *every single god* pledged to and then abandoned.

Blasphemous Man -- As Heretic Man, but leave the ET to do something
offensive to each god that gets offended before abandoning the faith.

Obsessive-Compulsive Man -- Try on every single piece of armor,
weapon, jewelry, ASAP. Test read/quaff every scroll/potion when first
discovered. If you are going to learn spells, never fail to learn a
spell if you can (if this means you have 1 spell level and the only
available level 1 spell is Summon Butterflies -- you're summoning
butterflies).

The Streaker -- no body armor, bardings, or cloaks.

Frodo-Complex Halfling -- Play a halfling. When you find lava, throw
all your jewelry in. Okay that's just silly. Clearly it is time for me
to stop.

--
R. Dan Henry
danhenry@inreach.com

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.misc (More info?)

R. Dan Henry wrote:

> Heretic Man -- Reach the ET. Convert to every religion in turn, and
> leave the ET with *every single god* pledged to and then abandoned.

I've thought about this, but with the looser requirement of just
requiring all religions to have been taken by game end. Of course a
character who succeeds as an atheist all the way down and just pops into
the ET for some hurried hereticism on the way up would also meet this
definition, so this thought still needs a little work.

> Blasphemous Man -- As Heretic Man, but leave the ET to do something
> offensive to each god that gets offended before abandoning the faith.

Trouble is, not all gods can be offended, I think, except maybe by
ignoring them... I oughta check if you can make e.g. Nemelex mad by
leaving him unfed long enough.

> Obsessive-Compulsive Man -- Try on every single piece of armor,
> weapon, jewelry, ASAP. Test read/quaff every scroll/potion when first
> discovered. If you are going to learn spells, never fail to learn a
> spell if you can (if this means you have 1 spell level and the only
> available level 1 spell is Summon Butterflies -- you're summoning
> butterflies).

This one sounds like fun, at least for a while. Might be good for
enchanters -- finally a use for Remove Curse!

Erik

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.misc (More info?)

On Thu, 02 Jun 2005 00:07:25 +0200, Erik Piper <erikNO@skySP.czAM>
wrote:

>R. Dan Henry wrote:
>
>> Heretic Man -- Reach the ET. Convert to every religion in turn, and
>> leave the ET with *every single god* pledged to and then abandoned.
>
>I've thought about this, but with the looser requirement of just
>requiring all religions to have been taken by game end. Of course a
>character who succeeds as an atheist all the way down and just pops into
>the ET for some hurried hereticism on the way up would also meet this
>definition, so this thought still needs a little work.

Okay, I should have specified you do this AS SOON AS you find the ET
-- and no going below ET's lowest possible depth until you do.

>> Blasphemous Man -- As Heretic Man, but leave the ET to do something
>> offensive to each god that gets offended before abandoning the faith.
>
>Trouble is, not all gods can be offended, I think, except maybe by
>ignoring them... I oughta check if you can make e.g. Nemelex mad by
>leaving him unfed long enough.

That's why I specified each god "that gets offended".

>> Obsessive-Compulsive Man -- Try on every single piece of armor,
>> weapon, jewelry, ASAP. Test read/quaff every scroll/potion when first
>> discovered. If you are going to learn spells, never fail to learn a
>> spell if you can (if this means you have 1 spell level and the only
>> available level 1 spell is Summon Butterflies -- you're summoning
>> butterflies).
>
>This one sounds like fun, at least for a while. Might be good for
>enchanters -- finally a use for Remove Curse!

Note that I'm not trying any of these myself. I'm still trying to get
that darned orb thingy.

--
R. Dan Henry
danhenry@inreach.com

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.misc (More info?)

R. Dan Henry wrote:
> Okay, I should have specified you do this AS SOON AS you find the ET
> -- and no going below ET's lowest possible depth until you do.

So, success at the challenge depends on knowing spoilish information
that isn't in the documentation? (Which, so far as I've observed from
hitting ?, consists solely of the keyboard reference...) If this is to
be the rule, then the challenge rules should explicitly give the dungeon
level in question.

--
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
Palladium? Trusted Computing? DRM? Microsoft? Sauron.
"One ring to rule them all, one ring to find them
One ring to bring them all, and in the darkness bind them."

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.misc (More info?)

On Wed, 01 Jun 2005 12:25:19 -0700, R. Dan Henry
<danhenry@inreach.com> wrote:

>Arsenic Man
>Heretic Man
>Blasphemous Man
>Obsessive-Compulsive Man
>The Streaker
>Frodo-Complex Halfling

Note: None of these challenges is degenerative; that is, you are still
expected to try to win the game as normal. Frankly, with a hard combo,
just getting a first rune will be pretty good, but the first winner of
the challenge is the one who escapes with the orb.

--
R. Dan Henry
danhenry@inreach.com

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.misc (More info?)

Twisted One wrote:
> R. Dan Henry wrote:
>
>> Okay, I should have specified you do this AS SOON AS you find the ET
>> -- and no going below ET's lowest possible depth until you do.
>
>
> So, success at the challenge depends on knowing spoilish information
> that isn't in the documentation? (Which, so far as I've observed from
> hitting ?, consists solely of the keyboard reference...) If this is to
> be the rule, then the challenge rules should explicitly give the dungeon
> level in question.

You were involved in a thread where the other forms of documentation
were spoken about in passing. Furthermore, the documentation (beyond the
quickstart doc that also exists) is a text file named "crawl.txt" among
the small number of text files that you will view as you examine the
crawl folder after unpacking it.

The Temple entrance is, as a special-area entrance, specially and
brightly colored, attracting attention when one sees it. In other words,
it's exceedingly discoverable. It's the first special area in the game,
and is frequently mentioned even in newbie posts.

The Temple entrance has a range of levels (4 through 7), not "a" dungeon
level. This fact is, with a little thought ("insulting?" try
"realistic"), implicit in the words "lowest possible depth."

All definitions for the challenge presented so far are tough, and hopes
for top placement are so slim for people who don't yet know something so
fundamental to Crawl play as the existence the Temple that the challenge
will not be terribly attractive to them anyway.

Before making provocative statements, please research the assumptions
they are based on, in case they're false. You'll save yourself and
everyone else a lot of trouble. Thanks.

Erik

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.misc (More info?)

Erik Piper wrote:
[snip]
> The Temple entrance has a range of levels (4 through 7), not "a" dungeon
> level. This fact is, with a little thought ("insulting?" try
> "realistic"), implicit in the words "lowest possible depth."

The fact that there is one is implicit there. Not the fact that it's 7.

[snip]

It looks like you interpreted my post as indicating uncertainty as to
whether there's a Temple, not as to whether there's a maximum depth to
it. I knew there was a Temple -- hell, I've found it a few times. I
didn't know there was a depth limit (other than the obvious, the bottom
of the main dungeon, wherever *that* is -- implied in another recent
post to be 27).

--
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
Palladium? Trusted Computing? DRM? Microsoft? Sauron.
"One ring to rule them all, one ring to find them
One ring to bring them all, and in the darkness bind them."

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.misc (More info?)

"Twisted One" <twisted0n3@gmail.invalid> wrote in message
news:RKidnbbMttvu9gPfRVn-jg@rogers.com...
> R. Dan Henry wrote:
>> Okay, I should have specified you do this AS SOON AS you find the ET
>> -- and no going below ET's lowest possible depth until you do.
>
> So, success at the challenge depends on knowing spoilish information that
> isn't in the documentation? (Which, so far as I've observed from hitting
> ?, consists solely of the keyboard reference...) If this is to be the
> rule, then the challenge rules should explicitly give the dungeon level in
> question.
>

Didn't read the game manual then? That might give you some insight.

--
Glen
Lyt E+++ T-- R+ P+++ D+ G+ F:*band !RL RLA-
W:AF Q+++ AI++ GFX++ SFX-- RN++++ PO--- !Hp Re-- S+

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.misc (More info?)

Glen Wheeler wrote:
> Didn't read the game manual then? That might give you some insight.

Which game manual? The ? key only gave me keyboard bindings, unlike in
Angband. Handy to have that be the first thing the help key brings up
(unlike in Angband), but not if it's the ONLY thing...

--
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
Palladium? Trusted Computing? DRM? Microsoft? Sauron.
"One ring to rule them all, one ring to find them
One ring to bring them all, and in the darkness bind them."

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.misc (More info?)

Twisted One wrote:
> Erik Piper wrote:

[desnip your orignal comment -- what on god's green earth kind of
usefulness could that snip have possibly had?]

>>> So, success at the challenge depends on knowing spoilish information
>>> that isn't in the documentation? (Which, so far as I've observed
>>> from hitting ?, consists solely of the keyboard reference...) If
>>> this is to be the rule, then the challenge rules should explicitly
>>> give the dungeon level in question.

[no desnip of my wordiness, I'll leave it at what you quoted]

>> The Temple entrance has a range of levels (4 through 7), not "a"
>> dungeon level. This fact is, with a little thought ("insulting?" try
>> "realistic"), implicit in the words "lowest possible depth."
>
> The fact that there is one is implicit there. Not the fact that it's 7.

Your "dungeon level in question" sentence was ambiguous and thus I took
it to mean that you expected the temple to be on a certain level.

> [snip]
>
> It looks like you interpreted my post as indicating uncertainty as to
> whether there's a Temple,

I had to interpret it somehow, considering you spoke only of "spoilish
information," which could be interpreted a variety of ways even after
taking into account the context.

> not as to whether there's a maximum depth to
> it. I knew there was a Temple -- hell, I've found it a few times. I
> didn't know there was a depth limit (other than the obvious, the bottom
> of the main dungeon, wherever *that* is -- implied in another recent
> post to be 27).

Here, let's rephrase your original post.

[start with quote from the OP giving context -- this is just a mockup so
I won't do it here]

"Some people who want to be in the challenge may not yet know the range
of temple levels because they never bothered to, wanted to, or knew how
to spoil themselves regarding that. So I'd say the challenge ruleset, if
somebody puts together a formal one, should state outright that the
bottom level for the Temple is 7."

[We can skip the bit about the help because, besides it being wrong
("documentation implemented differently than angband" does not mean "no
documentation"), it kinda brings too many topics into the post at once.]

There, no charged words or mistaken assumptions. Really helps a lot!

Erik

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.misc (More info?)

Erik Piper wrote:
> Here, let's rephrase your original post.
>
> [start with quote from the OP giving context -- this is just a mockup so
> I won't do it here]
>
> "Some people who want to be in the challenge may not yet know the range
> of temple levels because they never bothered to, wanted to, or knew how
> to spoil themselves regarding that. So I'd say the challenge ruleset, if
> somebody puts together a formal one, should state outright that the
> bottom level for the Temple is 7."

I didn't KNOW it was 7 at the time, so I could never have written that
other than as a lucky guess. That's why I asked...

> [We can skip the bit about the help because, besides it being wrong
> ("documentation implemented differently than angband" does not mean "no
> documentation"), it kinda brings too many topics into the post at once.]

It's implemented differently enough I can't find the command to access
it even in the command reference -- and of course can't find it in the
full documentation without finding the full documentation *first*. Where
in the interface is the rest of the online help? Is it a big secret? Geez.

--
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
Palladium? Trusted Computing? DRM? Microsoft? Sauron.
"One ring to rule them all, one ring to find them
One ring to bring them all, and in the darkness bind them."

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.misc (More info?)

Twisted One wrote, a few replies back...

[...] the documentation? (Which, so far as I've observed from hitting ?,
consists solely of the keyboard reference...) [...]

Erik Piper wrote, a few replies back...

You were involved in a thread where the other forms of documentation
were spoken about in passing. Furthermore, the documentation (beyond the
quickstart doc that also exists) is a text file named "crawl.txt" among
the small number of text files that you will view as you examine the
crawl folder after unpacking it.

Twisted One wrote:
> Erik Piper wrote:

>> "Some people who want to be in the challenge may not yet know the
>> range of temple levels because they never bothered to, wanted to, or
>> knew how to spoil themselves regarding that. So I'd say the challenge
>> ruleset, if somebody puts together a formal one, should state outright
>> that the bottom level for the Temple is 7."
>
>
> I didn't KNOW it was 7 at the time, so I could never have written that
> other than as a lucky guess. That's why I asked...

I had a sneaky suspicion I would make an embarrassing error of logic
when writing that. Yes, of course -- you would write "...outright that
the bottom level for the Temple is X."

>> [We can skip the bit about the help because, besides it being wrong
>> ("documentation implemented differently than angband" does not mean
>> "no documentation"), it kinda brings too many topics into the post at
>> once.]
>
> It's implemented differently enough I can't find the command to access
> it even in the command reference -- and of course can't find it in the
> full documentation without finding the full documentation *first*. Where
> in the interface is the rest of the online help? Is it a big secret? Geez.

See the quote above from this very thread.

Erik