Fighting Styles

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

I often ponder, how do you make a fighter as challenging and enjoyable
as a wizard. With a wizard, you always get to pick which tactic you
think is most effective; The right tactic can be extremely effective,
but you don't get many tries if you pick the wrong one. With a
fighter, picking a tactic every turn would be extremely tedious,
because one turn of melee isn't likely (or even fun?)to end the fight.


In NH, certain fighter classes are considered to be preferred by
beginners, and melee fighting is a simple matter of picking the weapon
which deals the most damage/tick and hitting arrow keys repeatedly.
Sure, you can grab a ranged weapon if you want, but unless you set
aside a few skill levels for it, it's a waste of your time.

anyway, I'm trying to describe fighting styles, which could add
variety, possibly as separate skills, player choices, or strategy, to
melee fighting.

The first I can think of is "the brute"- just "rear-back and hit them
as hard as you can". rearing back takes time and telegraphs to
opponent, making dodging/blocking/countering easier, and the
longer/harder you swing, the longer/harder you have to pull back to
recover if you miss. To make a long swing, you obviously need space;
one or two armlengths, partly depending on the weapon's reach. long
swings make it hard to target organs particularly, but if you're
swinging at a crowd of orcs, you're bound to hit one. but when the blow
lands, it may deform armor, sever things, smash bones, crush a random
organ, send opponent off balance, or stun the brain.
49 answers Last reply
More about fighting styles
  1. Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

    Have you ever tried Earthdawn? Fighters in that game had a lot of
    choice in how to advance, and also what options to use in combat.
    Special moves often drain stamina or have other activation costs.

    For a Roguelike, you could have a number of combat skills that can be
    either activated or deactivated from a tactics interface. You could
    also have special moves that are selected like spells. In either case,
    normal attacks could still be handled as mash-fests but the warrior
    would have more options for dealing with special situations.

    - Joseph Hewitt
  2. Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

    jasonnorthrup@yahoo.com wrote:
    > I often ponder, how do you make a fighter as challenging and enjoyable
    > as a wizard. With a wizard, you always get to pick which tactic you
    > think is most effective; The right tactic can be extremely effective,
    > but you don't get many tries if you pick the wrong one. With a
    > fighter, picking a tactic every turn would be extremely tedious,
    > because one turn of melee isn't likely (or even fun?)to end the fight.
    >
    >
    > In NH, certain fighter classes are considered to be preferred by
    > beginners, and melee fighting is a simple matter of picking the weapon
    > which deals the most damage/tick and hitting arrow keys repeatedly.
    > Sure, you can grab a ranged weapon if you want, but unless you set
    > aside a few skill levels for it, it's a waste of your time.
    >
    > anyway, I'm trying to describe fighting styles, which could add
    > variety, possibly as separate skills, player choices, or strategy, to
    > melee fighting.
    >
    > The first I can think of is "the brute"- just "rear-back and hit them
    > as hard as you can". rearing back takes time and telegraphs to
    > opponent, making dodging/blocking/countering easier, and the
    > longer/harder you swing, the longer/harder you have to pull back to
    > recover if you miss. To make a long swing, you obviously need space;
    > one or two armlengths, partly depending on the weapon's reach. long
    > swings make it hard to target organs particularly, but if you're
    > swinging at a crowd of orcs, you're bound to hit one. but when the blow
    > lands, it may deform armor, sever things, smash bones, crush a random
    > organ, send opponent off balance, or stun the brain.


    tactics more useful against heavily armored opponents includes mostly
    defense--dodging more likely as armor slows the opponent, and less
    blocking--while waiting for an opportunity to strike an unprotected
    spot-especially with a stab-probably regardless of proximity to any
    vital organs, or knocking the opponent down, putting him at some
    disadvantage while getting up, or exhaust him until you can remove his
    armor.
  3. Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

    jasonnorthrup@yahoo.com wrote:
    > The first I can think of is "the brute"- just "rear-back and hit them
    > as hard as you can". rearing back takes time and telegraphs to
    > opponent, making dodging/blocking/countering easier, and the
    > longer/harder you swing, the longer/harder you have to pull back to
    > recover if you miss. To make a long swing, you obviously need space;
    > one or two armlengths, partly depending on the weapon's reach. long
    > swings make it hard to target organs particularly, but if you're
    > swinging at a crowd of orcs, you're bound to hit one. but when the blow
    > lands, it may deform armor, sever things, smash bones, crush a random
    > organ, send opponent off balance, or stun the brain.

    That sounds a bit unintuitive from a gameplay perspective, but maybe I
    misunderstand you. Are you actually going to simulate organ crushing
    and bone smashing? If so, how would the user interface for targetting
    an orcs liver work? (This is not a critique but a request for
    clarification.)

    Personally, I like how the assassin works in Diablo 2: Lord of
    Destruction. She is (among other things) a martial arts melee fighter.
    Basically, there are different attack moves that must be used in
    combination for maximum effect.

    It's really simple, actually. You have a "charge up" attack and a
    "finishing move".(*) The charge up is relatively weak, but every hit
    collects a "charge", displayed as an orb of light encircling your
    character. The charges are released by performing a finishing move. The
    finishing move becomes progressively stronger the more charges you have
    collected. Once you stop fighting, any remaining charges will disappear
    very quickly.

    This adds a lot of interesting decisions IMO. Should I deal a little
    damage now (and risk that the monster survives), or build up a further
    charge and deal some more damage in the next turn? Or let's say I face
    a boss monster with a couple of weak minions: Should I kill the minions
    with charge up attacks and thus prepare for the final blow against the
    boss, or is it better to focus on the boss monster only? I like this
    kind of tactical gameplay. Unfornately, much of it gets lost in a
    realtime clickfest like Diablo.(*)


    (*) I should add that the combo system of Diablo's assassin is a bit
    more sophisticated than what I described above. There are six different
    charge-up moves, and each one adds a unique bonus to the finishing move
    that releases its charge. Examples are attack boni or extra fire
    damage. If anybody is interested in the full story, this Diablo 2 fan
    page is a good start:

    http://www.diabloii.net/characters/assassin/martial-arts.shtml

    --
    Flo Häglsperger
  4. Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

    Flo Häglsperger wrote:

    > (*) I should add that the combo system of Diablo's assassin is a bit
    > more sophisticated than what I described above. There are six different
    > charge-up moves, and each one adds a unique bonus to the finishing move
    > that releases its charge. Examples are attack boni or extra fire
    > damage. If anybody is interested in the full story, this Diablo 2 fan
    > page is a good start:
    >

    And it also adds to much micromanagement ... you have to decide what to
    do with each attack, each turn, which is i belive is what should be
    avoided...

    if you want to stick to diablo ii, something more like
    paladin/barbarian/or druid meele skills is imho more adaquate - they
    posses several forms of attack, where usually one dominates as main
    dpending on cheracter build, but other are usefull for special
    ocasions, like Paladin, using usually zeal when dealing with groups of
    mosters, switching to Sarifice when dealing with dangerous monster
    which requires hit-and-run tactis (this attacks doesnt lock character
    on place), and then there are other attacks (charge, smite ...) all
    usefull when used tactically, but none of theese requires
    micromanagement in long run ...
  5. Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

    zweistein wrote:
    > And it also adds to much micromanagement ... you have to decide what to
    > do with each attack, each turn, which is i belive is what should be
    > avoided...

    I agree that this is micromanagement; I disagree that this is
    necessarily a bad thing. In most RLs, spellcasters already have to
    "decide what to do with each attack", and few people see a problem
    there. The user interface could also help by keeping the move of last
    round selected so that in order to repeat an attack, you would just
    press the appropriate direction key.

    Of course, one could also remove some micro-management from wizard
    classes. You would have a generic "cast spell" command that would
    target a monster, and automatically choose the spell or wand that is
    currently the most effective. I can imagine that this could actually
    work quite well. It's all a question of which gameplay aspects should
    be complex and which ones simple.
  6. Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

    jasonnorthrup@yahoo.com wrote:
    > What's available depends on both parties' facing, distance, stance,
    > armor, reach, skill, strength, and exhaustion. That could make a
    > daunting challenge to program.

    TekkenRogue? ;-)
  7. Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

    Fighting styles might just be what the fighter classes need to make
    them viable against wizards. I really do like this idea. Brace
    yourselves, this may be long...

    Ville Tirronen wrote:
    > 2. More Complex styles
    >
    > Actually, what could make fighters perhaps little boring is the
    > universal tactic "get in the corridor, fight one on one". Styles
    > could be very refreshing change here:
    > You don't really see a nimble elven warrior taking on a huge
    > ogre by backing into tight corner first, right?

    I think that such systems would be ideal in terms of fighting styles
    (as opposed to the simpler ones), but for advantage a style gives, it
    should also have some drawbacks. For example, with this suggested
    style:

    > Nimble rogue, Every time the character with this combat style
    > is hit, there is a (good) chance that he will dodge. Dodging
    > moves character to another square adjacent to attacker.
    > Thus, to effectively use this style, you must fight at open.

    It might be a good idea to also lower the player's to-hit chance. That
    way, enemies can't hit you, but you have a harder time hitting them. Or
    perhaps your attacks do less damage, or some other drawback. This way a
    player cannot merely slice his way unharmed through an ocean of strong,
    but inaccurate, enemies.

    That's not to say that every fighting style should have drawbacks.
    There should, in my mind, be several "basic" fighting styles, ones that
    differ little from one another save for a few stat bonuses (i.e.
    slightly stronger and faster; slightly more accurate and increased
    critical hit rate; etc.).

    More advanced fighting styles could also be learned. These would offer
    bonuses as well as drawbacks, as mentioned above. One, let's call it
    the "Iron Wall of Hidden Temple" style, might make the player very good
    at absorbing damage and enduring pain, with the drawback being that he
    moves slower and has a harder time hitting his opponents (stronger, but
    stiffer, muscles). Another, let's call it the "Concealed Spring in
    Blade Striking at Heart of Opponent" style, might allow the player to
    automatically counter the attacks of his foes, but at the drawback of
    his own, non-counter attacks being much weaker (or perhaps disabled all
    together). Fighters would hence have to decide which bonuses to balance
    against which defects in a given situation.

    Stats need not be the only things that fighting styles affect. A style
    might give a player a huge boost in all of his stats without decreasing
    any of them, but then he might slowly loose a few HP every turn for as
    long as he is using said style. Hence, he gains amazing power, but if
    he doesn't know how to use it correctly, he dies. This would add yet
    another tactical depth to the warrior class.

    Of course, with all these stances, it would probably be best to assign
    every style a skill number. This way a player, as he uses a stance,
    becomes more proficient in its ways. Hence the drawbacks of a style can
    be decreased, while the benefits can increase (a really powerful style,
    then, may at first have *many* more drawbacks than advantages, but as
    you level it up, the drawbacks start to decrease and the advantages
    increase dramatically, meaning that to reap the full fruit of such a
    style a lot of time and patience are needed).

    If there are lots of styles, though, it might hard to train them all.
    But if fighting styles were clumped into separated "classes" (i.e. in
    real life, different forms that all fall under the class of "karate",
    different forms that fall under the class of "judo", etc.) then
    learning one kind of style in a class might make learning other styles
    of the same class easier, as well. So a player could conceivably become
    proficient in quite a few styles, if he sticks to one or two classes.

    This raises an interesting question, however. How does a player learn a
    style in the first place? A fighter should probably be able to choose
    several fighting styles at the start of a game, and learn more along
    the way, either from books, from training with a teacher, or from some
    item (magic teaching-crystal). Also, certain artefact weapons might
    come with their own fighting styles that can only be used when wielding
    them. And it might be possible to allow players to combine old fighting
    styles to make new ones...

    Well, that's all I have to say about fighting styles. Though while
    we're on the subject of adding spice to the warrior classes, I always
    thought giving fighters their own special moves might help give them
    some added flair. And not just things like "shoot fire from his sword",
    or other things that are equivalent to wizard-magics.

    Perhaps a warrior could pick up a foe and hurl him into a group of
    other foes, as a make-shift missile? Perhaps a fencer could learn to
    find gaps in his enemy's armour and exploit them, or use a special
    thrust that bypasses armour altogether, or knock his foe's weapon out
    of his hand?

    Other such special moves could include:

    * A special counter move (the player strikes back if attacked in melee,
    but otherwise does nothing).

    * Knocking an opponent back a square.

    * Grabbing a foe and using him as a shield (you block the arrow with
    your +5 Orc...).

    * Switching places with an enemy (ala the monk in ADoM).

    * Hitting the opponent many times all at once with many weak strikes,
    so that an un-armoured enemy would take more damage, but a
    heavily-armoured foe would not (the weak strikes being too wimpy to
    pierce his platemail).

    * Tearing off a monster's arm in mid combat to use as a club

    * Jumping above the heads of your enemies and attacking as you come
    down, ala Diablo II

    * Taking a bite out of a foe and using his flesh to heal yourself (for
    the ogre in us all :)

    Certain special moves might be dependant on a specific fighting style,
    and the only way to increase your skill with a move is to train the
    style over all. Though if you have to be in one style to perform a
    certain technique, then it might be a good idea to make changing styles
    take time.

    I do like the idea of appending them to the function keys, though, for
    quick access :)

    Anyway, that's all from me for now. I think some of the above might
    have already been mentioned, but I don't have time to read through it
    all again. Sorry if I repeated anything :)

    - Steve
  8. Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

    <unlurk>

    For odd reason or another this topic interests me.

    > anyway, I'm trying to describe fighting styles, which could add
    > variety, possibly as separate skills, player choices, or strategy, to
    > melee fighting.

    There are other ways of incorporating fighting styles in a game. I can
    think of few which could perhaps be fun.

    1. Simple Combat styles.

    Following the tradition of hongkong movies, each fighter has a
    distinctive fighting style, with perhaps kungfu'ish name such
    as Jade Dragon, the Hulking sword, Fleeting thought and so on.
    (In your head, replace these with cool names.)

    Each style would have an efficiency rating towards other styles.
    For example, the Hulking Sword style would be nigh useless against
    Fleeting thought, which would on the other hand be easily defeated
    by Jade Dragon.

    Various styles would have to be acquired through training, manuals or
    quests. If you like, each style might need a weapon of certain type
    to work. The basic idea beeing this: A fighter would need to get smart,
    and switch to proper style for each foe. Or even go somewhere else and
    learn an effective style.

    Not every fight should need a special style, and some combinations of
    styles would give only small bonuses.

    Even in a non-kungfu style game these would be just as useful.
    Just use 'styles' such as "huntsman" and "bestial". The former
    beeing style used by hunters and latter for all manner of beasts.


    2. More Complex styles

    Actually, what could make fighters perhaps little boring is the
    universal tactic "get in the corridor, fight one on one". Styles
    could be very refreshing change here:
    You don't really see a nimble elven warrior taking on a huge
    ogre by backing into tight corner first, right?

    Examples:

    Nimble rogue, Every time the character with this combat style
    is hit, there is a (good) chance that he will dodge. Dodging
    moves character to another square adjacent to attacker.
    Thus, to effectively use this style, you must fight at open.

    Whirling halberd, If you attack at different direction than last
    time you get bonus damage and defense. Simulating cinematic effect
    where a man with a long weapon whirls around dealing blows everywhere.
    This avoids the general tactic of killing monsters one at the time.

    Superior Charge. Get a very sizeable bonus if you move three squares in
    line towards the foe you are attacking.

    More could easily be thought out.

    3. Styles with special mechanics.

    Perhaps you could also have styles such as "Stunning blows" which have other
    effects on the foe besides killing it outright. Using that style character
    deals less damage but renders the foe more susceptible for further attacks.
    You can also have magical effects here, such as paralysis, health drain etc.
    (Go on, watch a B class kungfu movie :)

    Or combine this with 1. and 2. before. Should make for rather interesting
    fighters.


    User interface could be rather simple, just switch style from single keys
    (function keys perhaps) and then just bang away just like before.
  9. Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

    Flo Häglsperger wrote:
    > zweistein wrote:
    > > And it also adds to much micromanagement ... you have to decide what to
    > > do with each attack, each turn, which is i belive is what should be
    > > avoided...
    >
    > I agree that this is micromanagement; I disagree that this is
    > necessarily a bad thing. In most RLs, spellcasters already have to
    > "decide what to do with each attack", and few people see a problem
    > there.

    So why make another spellcaster class?

    If we give the warriors the same per-turn micromanagement (and, hey,
    why not add Stamina Points to match Mana Points to fuel these attacks?)
    we have just created wizards by another name.

    > Of course, one could also remove some micro-management from wizard
    > classes. You would have a generic "cast spell" command that would
    > target a monster, and automatically choose the spell or wand that is
    > currently the most effective. I can imagine that this could actually
    > work quite well. It's all a question of which gameplay aspects should
    > be complex and which ones simple.

    Which would, of course, turn Wizards into mere archers or fighters.

    I think a lot of Fighter changes are solutions in search of a problem.
    The reason to have additional classes shouldn't be to just have another
    sets of names for levels. It should be to have different gameplay
    styles. One entirely viable gameplay style is the "Move into enemy
    till they die" as opposed to the "Choose my attack every turn". The
    former can be handled by fighters, the latter by wizards.

    In POWDER, all of the "fighter" skills are passive in nature. If you
    have the Parry skill and are wielding the proper weapon, you will
    automatically try and parry without having to enter a "Parry Mode" or
    select "Parry" from the action menu.

    I see nothing wrong with having a "class" where one doesn't have to
    make decisions in how to best do damage to the enemy other than
    pre-battle choices. There are no shortage of other things to think
    about in a roguelike.
    --
    Jeff Lait
    (POWDER: http://www.zincland.com/powder)
  10. Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

    > Nimble rogue, Every time the character with this combat style
    > is hit, there is a (good) chance that he will dodge. Dodging
    > moves character to another square adjacent to attacker.
    > Thus, to effectively use this style, you must fight at open.
    >
    > Whirling halberd, If you attack at different direction than last
    > time you get bonus damage and defense. Simulating cinematic effect
    > where a man with a long weapon whirls around dealing blows everywhere.
    > This avoids the general tactic of killing monsters one at the time.
    >
    > Superior Charge. Get a very sizeable bonus if you move three squares in
    > line towards the foe you are attacking.

    Excellent ideas, particularly the last two - because they are
    activated, not by pressing some action keys, but simply by your
    movement on the map.

    I wonder if there could be some more along the same lines...

    move forwards on alternating diagonals rather than on a straight line
    to activate a 'dodge missiles' skill?

    attack then retreat, attack then retreat, to activate a 'fencing' skill
    for improved defense?

    A.
  11. Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

    Jeff Lait wrote:
    > So why make another spellcaster class?
    >
    > If we give the warriors the same per-turn micromanagement (and, hey,
    > why not add Stamina Points to match Mana Points to fuel these attacks?)
    > we have just created wizards by another name.

    (other "clever" suggestion of mine snipped)

    > Which would, of course, turn Wizards into mere archers or fighters.

    That's a very interesting observation. I had not considered this, but I
    agree, equalizing fighters and wizards is not a good idea. Even in an
    rpg without formal classes, the gameplay differences between "fighter"
    and "spellcaster" characters should be apparent. Otherwise, one would
    be well advised to remove magic from the game altogether. So thanks for
    the reality check.

    On a sidenote, this is probably the result of applying my "coder
    mindset" to game design. In coding, it is usually helpful to write one
    more general function instead of two specialized ones. When talking
    about gameplay concepts (as opposed to the code that implements these
    concepts), the advantage of generalization is less clear.

    For example, one might (perhaps quite reasonably) say that swinging a
    sword and shooting an arrow are instances of a more generally gameplay
    activity, "attacking". And aren't spells just funny ranged attacks with
    flashy graphics (or the ascii equivalent, flashy descriptions)? And
    also, is casting a spell not an "action" just like dropping an item or
    moving a square? If we are at it, can't actions be composed of
    sub-actions, like using a crossbow == aiming + shooting + reloading?
    Given that, can "descending into the dungeon and killing the Wizard of
    Yendor" not be regarded as one long action with hundreds of
    sub-actions? (I can get more ridiculous if you wish. The point is, it's
    not always easy to stop myself when I'm in that generalizing mindset.)
  12. Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

    jimrandomh wrote:
    > Ville Tirronen <aleator@st.jyu.fi> wrote:
    > >
    > > 2. More Complex styles
    > >
    > > Actually, what could make fighters perhaps little boring is the
    > > universal tactic "get in the corridor, fight one on one". Styles
    > > could be very refreshing change here:
    > > You don't really see a nimble elven warrior taking on a huge
    > > ogre by backing into tight corner first, right?
    > >
    > > Examples:
    > >
    > > Nimble rogue, Every time the character with this combat style
    > > is hit, there is a (good) chance that he will dodge. Dodging
    > > moves character to another square adjacent to attacker.
    > > Thus, to effectively use this style, you must fight at open.
    > >
    > > Whirling halberd, If you attack at different direction than last
    > > time you get bonus damage and defense. Simulating cinematic effect
    > > where a man with a long weapon whirls around dealing blows
    > > everywhere. This avoids the general tactic of killing monsters one
    > > at the time.
    > >
    > > Superior Charge. Get a very sizeable bonus if you move three
    > > squares in line towards the foe you are attacking.
    > >
    > > More could easily be thought out.
    > >
    > > 3. Styles with special mechanics.
    > >
    > > Perhaps you could also have styles such as "Stunning blows" which
    > > have other effects on the foe besides killing it outright. Using
    > > that style character deals less damage but renders the foe more
    > > susceptible for further attacks. You can also have magical effects
    > > here, such as paralysis, health drain etc. (Go on, watch a B class
    > > kungfu movie :)
    > >
    > > Or combine this with 1. and 2. before. Should make for rather
    > > interesting fighters.
    > >
    > >
    > > User interface could be rather simple, just switch style from
    > > single keys (function keys perhaps) and then just bang away just
    > > like before.
    >
    > Why even require the user to set a style? Assume the character develops
    > his own distinctive fighting style which he always uses, which
    > incorporates all the fighting skills he has.
    >
    > But the idea here that you should be able to bang away using nothing
    > but the movement keys is good. So along those lines, I came up with a
    > list of combat maneuvers, requiring only the normal movement keys and
    > the 'wait' key. They're somewhat subtle (definitely need a message to
    > indicate when they go off), but logical and not imbalancing. None of
    > them are martial arts themed.

    And an excellent list it is!

    This is the sort of stuff that fighters need, IMHO. I especially liked
    the wall-pinning options.
    --
    Jeff Lait
    (POWDER: http://www.zincland.com/powder)
  13. Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

    Flo Häglsperger wrote:
    > Jeff Lait wrote:
    > > So why make another spellcaster class?
    > >
    > > If we give the warriors the same per-turn micromanagement (and, hey,
    > > why not add Stamina Points to match Mana Points to fuel these attacks?)
    > > we have just created wizards by another name.
    >
    > (other "clever" suggestion of mine snipped)
    >
    > > Which would, of course, turn Wizards into mere archers or fighters.
    >
    > That's a very interesting observation. I had not considered this, but I
    > agree, equalizing fighters and wizards is not a good idea. Even in an
    > rpg without formal classes, the gameplay differences between "fighter"
    > and "spellcaster" characters should be apparent. Otherwise, one would
    > be well advised to remove magic from the game altogether. So thanks for
    > the reality check.

    Please don't let that stop you from turning fighters into wizards.
    Just so long as you are aware of what you are doing, it's fine by me.

    > On a sidenote, this is probably the result of applying my "coder
    > mindset" to game design. In coding, it is usually helpful to write one
    > more general function instead of two specialized ones. When talking
    > about gameplay concepts (as opposed to the code that implements these
    > concepts), the advantage of generalization is less clear.

    Roguelikes are a hard balance between orthoganality and special cases.
    You need consistent rules so that the player can learn how the games
    world works and you can code it easily and relatively bug free. But
    you need special cases to make things interesting.

    My rule of thumb for Spells in POWDER is that if I could add a spell
    with no new code, I shouldn't add the spell :>

    This helps prevent the Frost Bolt/Fire Bolt/Poison Bolt/Force Bolt that
    all just do different elemental damage. In POWDER, for example, there
    is no Fire Bolt. Frost Bolt will freeze lava and water. Poison Bolt
    inflicts damage over time. Force Bolt knocks one of the combatants
    back a square and can be used to shatter doors/boulders.

    > For example, one might (perhaps quite reasonably) say that swinging a
    > sword and shooting an arrow are instances of a more generally gameplay
    > activity, "attacking". And aren't spells just funny ranged attacks with
    > flashy graphics (or the ascii equivalent, flashy descriptions)? And
    > also, is casting a spell not an "action" just like dropping an item or
    > moving a square? If we are at it, can't actions be composed of
    > sub-actions, like using a crossbow == aiming + shooting + reloading?
    > Given that, can "descending into the dungeon and killing the Wizard of
    > Yendor" not be regarded as one long action with hundreds of
    > sub-actions? (I can get more ridiculous if you wish. The point is, it's
    > not always easy to stop myself when I'm in that generalizing mindset.)

    Choosing your granularity and sticking with it is very important.

    Most roguelikes have you slaughtering hundreds or thousands of enemies
    on the way to the Big Shiny at the end of the dungeon. This is why
    even Wizards tend to carry a big stick - it's less *player* time to
    thwack the rats in their way rather than having to choose a spell for
    each piece of vermin.
    --
    Jeff Lait
    (POWDER: http://www.zincland.com/powder)
  14. Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

    At 16 Jun 2005 23:48:38 -0700,
    Flo Häglsperger wrote:

    > Jeff Lait wrote:
    >> So why make another spellcaster class?
    > The point is, it's
    > not always easy to stop myself when I'm in that generalizing mindset.

    We all happen to start walking on the clouds et all.
    Fortunatelly, there are always helpful, rational people here
    with their AA missiles ready. :)

    --
    Radomir `The Sheep' Dopieralski @**@_
    (: ) 3 Snap!
    . . . ..v.vVvVVvVvv.v.. .
  15. Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

    Steve Pasquella wrote:
    > It might be a good idea to also lower the player's to-hit chance. That
    > way, enemies can't hit you, but you have a harder time hitting them. Or
    > perhaps your attacks do less damage, or some other drawback. This way a
    > player cannot merely slice his way unharmed through an ocean of strong,
    > but inaccurate, enemies.

    That could be fun for higher levels-also note that to dodge, you'd
    probably need a space to dodge to.
  16. Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

    Ville Tirronen <aleator@st.jyu.fi> wrote:
    >
    > 2. More Complex styles
    >
    > Actually, what could make fighters perhaps little boring is the
    > universal tactic "get in the corridor, fight one on one". Styles
    > could be very refreshing change here:
    > You don't really see a nimble elven warrior taking on a huge
    > ogre by backing into tight corner first, right?
    >
    > Examples:
    >
    > Nimble rogue, Every time the character with this combat style
    > is hit, there is a (good) chance that he will dodge. Dodging
    > moves character to another square adjacent to attacker.
    > Thus, to effectively use this style, you must fight at open.
    >
    > Whirling halberd, If you attack at different direction than last
    > time you get bonus damage and defense. Simulating cinematic effect
    > where a man with a long weapon whirls around dealing blows
    > everywhere. This avoids the general tactic of killing monsters one
    > at the time.
    >
    > Superior Charge. Get a very sizeable bonus if you move three
    > squares in line towards the foe you are attacking.
    >
    > More could easily be thought out.
    >
    > 3. Styles with special mechanics.
    >
    > Perhaps you could also have styles such as "Stunning blows" which
    > have other effects on the foe besides killing it outright. Using
    > that style character deals less damage but renders the foe more
    > susceptible for further attacks. You can also have magical effects
    > here, such as paralysis, health drain etc. (Go on, watch a B class
    > kungfu movie :)
    >
    > Or combine this with 1. and 2. before. Should make for rather
    > interesting fighters.
    >
    >
    > User interface could be rather simple, just switch style from
    > single keys (function keys perhaps) and then just bang away just
    > like before.

    Why even require the user to set a style? Assume the character develops
    his own distinctive fighting style which he always uses, which
    incorporates all the fighting skills he has.

    But the idea here that you should be able to bang away using nothing
    but the movement keys is good. So along those lines, I came up with a
    list of combat maneuvers, requiring only the normal movement keys and
    the 'wait' key. They're somewhat subtle (definitely need a message to
    indicate when they go off), but logical and not imbalancing. None of
    them are martial arts themed.

    Whirlwind attack. If you attack different enemies in a clockwise or
    counterclockwise pattern, your attack rate is increased and you don't
    get penalties for being attacked from behind. For example,
    789
    4@6
    123
    If the player attacks in directions 8,6,2,4 in that order, then the
    third and fourth attacks take half as long. (The 8,6 attacks receive no
    benefit because the pattern is not yet established. It would also work
    if you did 6,9,6,3, or 8,9,3,1, or something like that so long as it
    keeps rotating in the same direction.) Doesn't work with small weapons
    or bludgeoning weapons.

    Situational awareness. The fighter is particularly good at keeping
    track of chaotic melees, and gets a bonus instead of a penalty to AC
    when in melee with multiple opponents.

    Power attack. If you wait a turn before striking, you deal double
    damage and may knock your target back one space, or knock him down.
    Works best with bludgeoning weapons.

    Wall pin. If your opponent is humanoid and up against a wall or
    cornered, eg
    #... #.@
    #&@. #&.
    #... ###
    you get a bonus to hit. Additionally, there is a chance that you
    completely pin him against the wall. You then get guaranteed extra-
    damage hits, and intelligent creatures might surrender (if the game can
    handle that). It would be a good idea to give this ability to monsters
    as well.

    Receive a charge. If you are waiting, you are assumed to be 'set to
    receive a charge', so that any creature which runs towards you (move in
    same direction 3 or more turns in a row) gives you a free attack on it.
    Does triple damage with a polearm.

    Defensive stance. If you alternate between fighting and moving back,
    you are assumed to be in a defensive position and get an AC bonus.
    ("Fighting" means "being attacked in one round". Moving back to abuse
    speed/timing doesn't count.) Eg, the pattern is: attack until attacked
    at least once, move back (now in defensive stance), attack until
    attacked at least once and at most twice, move back, repeat. The AC
    bonus is lost when an action is made which breaks the pattern.

    Evasive stance. If you alternate between fighting and moving laterally
    (still within range of the same enemies), then you are assumed to be
    focusing on evading and get a large AC bonus. The AC bonus is larger if
    wielding a small weapon or no weapon.

    Parrying Disarm. Each time you parry an attack, you have a chance to
    disarm the attacker. (Parrying accounts for some small portion of your
    AC, and a larger portion while in a defensive stance. You parried if
    the parrying bonus to AC made the difference between a miss and a hit.)
    Requires a suitable weapon.

    Tackle. If a creature is running away but you get a melee hit on it,
    you can knock it down and stop it from moving.


    So, without using any keys outside the normal movement and wait keys,
    we have the special abilities:
    Whirlwind attack
    Situational awareness
    Power attack
    Wall pin
    Receive a charge
    Defensive stance
    Evasive stance
    Parrying disarm
    Tackle
    all of which, IMO, make melee combat more interesting.

    --
    CalcRogue: TI-89, TI-92+, PalmOS, Windows and Linux.
    http://calcrogue.jimrandomh.org/
  17. Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

    The Sheep wrote:
    > At 17 Jun 2005 13:08:45 +0100 (BST),
    > David Damerell wrote:
    >
    > > Quoting jimrandomh <usenetNOSPAM@jimrandomh.org>:
    > > So why do I like the wall pin, or the defence bonus for being surrounded?
    > > It's situational, and it's situational in a way that's entirely the
    > > player's deparment. The character is doing the supposed minituae of
    > > blocking and parrying, but the space the character moves to is under the
    > > player's control.
    >
    > Woudn't it complicate monster's AI *a lot*?
    > I'd expect the (moderately) intelligent monsters will try to avoid
    > positionsi in which the player has an advantage...

    A common problem with D&D game masters is that they give the players a
    nifty Flaming Sword. They then decide to have the players face lots of
    Fire Resistant monsters because they don't want the flaming sword to be
    overpowered.

    If you give players the Pin on Wall power, it is crazy to then make all
    the monsters worth pinning on walls dance out of the player's way.

    As it stands, even with "Follow player" AI, it isn't that trivial to
    get pin on wall situations. You likely need to open yourself to a
    round of attacks to put them between you and the wall.

    It's like if someone were setting up the whirlwind attack, attacking 8,
    6, and then the creature at position 4 decides to run away to prevent
    the attack from working. Good AI, but it defeats the purpose of the
    gameplay.
    --
    Jeff Lait
    (POWDER: http://www.zincland.com/powder)
  18. Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

    "Steve Pasquella" <spasquella@yahoo.com> wrote in message
    news:1118962750.612162.46050@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
    > Fighting styles might just be what the fighter classes need to make
    > them viable against wizards. I really do like this idea. Brace
    > yourselves, this may be long...
    >

    Don't you mean: fighter classes need this to make them *into*
    wizards?

    I have a question. Why would you ever play a fighter if the gameplay
    is all wizard just with the names changed?

    > [..]

    --
    Glen
    L:Pyt E+++ T-- R+ P+++ D+ G+ F:*band !RL RLA-
    W:AF Q+++ AI++ GFX++ SFX-- RN++++ PO--- !Hp Re-- S+
  19. Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

    Glen Wheeler wrote:
    > "Steve Pasquella" <spasquella@yahoo.com> wrote in message
    > news:1118962750.612162.46050@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
    >
    >>Fighting styles might just be what the fighter classes need to make
    >>them viable against wizards. I really do like this idea. Brace
    >>yourselves, this may be long...
    >>
    >
    >
    > Don't you mean: fighter classes need this to make them *into*
    > wizards?

    (I haven't been following this newsgroup too acively so pardon me if
    this has been talked before.)

    Not that I am any sort of rl developer, but how about another angle
    about the classes. Consider D&D 3rd edition (or whatever that is) that
    has feats and quite free multi-classing options. (I personally have not
    played the new D&D in any other way than NWN.)

    What I suggest is to change the class-system so that the player would be
    more or less free to choose new talents when gaining new levels (spell
    casting abilities, *fighting styles*, ability to use different weapons
    or armor, spotting enemy weaknesses etc.). The initial choise of class
    would provide a "starting point" for the character so that fighters
    would have combat-oriented initial talents while wizards would of course
    have spell-casting abilities. The initial choise of class might also
    (slighly) limit the available choises when gaining new level.

    The point should no be to allow to make some super-mega-hyper character
    that makes demigods to flee in horror, but add some variance and
    "personal touch" to the gameplay.


    --
    Rami
  20. Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

    On Fri, 17 Jun 2005 12:16:28 +1000, Glen Wheeler wrote:

    >
    > "Steve Pasquella" <spasquella@yahoo.com> wrote in message
    > news:1118962750.612162.46050@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
    >> Fighting styles might just be what the fighter classes need to make
    >> them viable against wizards. I really do like this idea. Brace
    >> yourselves, this may be long...
    >>
    >
    > Don't you mean: fighter classes need this to make them *into*
    > wizards?
    >
    > I have a question. Why would you ever play a fighter if the gameplay
    > is all wizard just with the names changed?

    Because it's a roleplaying game. Your character is not a wizard, he's a
    fighter. Obviously, roleplaying is up to the player, but I think it's
    easier to get into character if your avatar has more substance.

    Besides, the fighting styles mentioned above are for the most part quite
    different from wizard spells.

    >
    >> [..]

    --
    Andy
    andy@pagezero.net
    www.pagezero.net
  21. Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

    At Fri, 17 Jun 2005 11:15:56 +0300,
    Rami Saarinen wrote:

    > What I suggest is to change the class-system so that the player would be
    > more or less free to choose new talents when gaining new levels (spell
    > casting abilities, *fighting styles*, ability to use different weapons
    > or armor, spotting enemy weaknesses etc.). The initial choise of class
    > would provide a "starting point" for the character so that fighters
    > would have combat-oriented initial talents while wizards would of course
    > have spell-casting abilities. The initial choise of class might also
    > (slighly) limit the available choises when gaining new level.
    >
    > The point should no be to allow to make some super-mega-hyper character
    > that makes demigods to flee in horror, but add some variance and
    > "personal touch" to the gameplay.

    The problem is that by the end of the game all the characters would have
    all the available skills and abilities, and all of the maxed out.

    Another problem with it is that an error or mistake made early on in your
    character development (like choosing wrong skill) will ruin that character
    if there are limits on the number of skills, or skills that are mutually
    exclusive, etc.

    --
    Radomir `The Sheep' Dopieralski @**@_
    (Oo) 3 Eh?
    . . . ..v.vVvVVvVvv.v.. .
  22. Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

    The Sheep <thesheep@ sheep.prv.pl> writes:
    > At Fri, 17 Jun 2005 11:15:56 +0300,
    > Rami Saarinen wrote:
    > > What I suggest is to change the class-system so that the player would be
    > > more or less free to choose new talents when gaining new levels (spell
    > > casting abilities, *fighting styles*, ability to use different weapons
    > > or armor, spotting enemy weaknesses etc.). The initial choise of class
    > > would provide a "starting point" for the character so that fighters
    > > would have combat-oriented initial talents while wizards would of course
    > > have spell-casting abilities. The initial choise of class might also
    > > (slighly) limit the available choises when gaining new level.
    > >
    > > The point should no be to allow to make some super-mega-hyper character
    > > that makes demigods to flee in horror, but add some variance and
    > > "personal touch" to the gameplay.
    >
    > The problem is that by the end of the game all the characters would have
    > all the available skills and abilities, and all of the maxed out.

    Depends how long the game is. Crawl is a good implementation of this
    sort of skill system, and looking at the YAVPs for it this doesn't
    seem to happen.

    > Another problem with it is that an error or mistake made early on in your
    > character development (like choosing wrong skill) will ruin that character
    > if there are limits on the number of skills, or skills that are mutually
    > exclusive, etc.

    Crawl's solution to this is that you start off with level 0 in every
    skill, apart from a few skills that your race/class combination gives
    you to start with. You then improve in every skill by using that skill.

    It's therefore impossible to get a skill that you'd never use. Of
    course, it's possible to get a skill that's of limited use in the late
    game, but since I've never got a Crawl character out of the early game
    this doesn't worry me much. If the skill gets me _to_ the late game
    it's fine with me...

    --
    Chris
  23. Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

    The Sheep wrote:
    > At Fri, 17 Jun 2005 11:15:56 +0300,
    > Rami Saarinen wrote:
    >
    >
    >>What I suggest is to change the class-system so that the player would be
    >>more or less free to choose new talents when gaining new levels (spell
    >>casting abilities, *fighting styles*, ability to use different weapons
    >>or armor, spotting enemy weaknesses etc.). The initial choise of class
    >>would provide a "starting point" for the character so that fighters
    >>would have combat-oriented initial talents while wizards would of course
    >>have spell-casting abilities. The initial choise of class might also
    >>(slighly) limit the available choises when gaining new level.
    >>
    >>The point should no be to allow to make some super-mega-hyper character
    >>that makes demigods to flee in horror, but add some variance and
    >>"personal touch" to the gameplay.
    >
    >
    > The problem is that by the end of the game all the characters would have
    > all the available skills and abilities, and all of the maxed out.

    How about dividing the skills to class-specific and global?

    Also, as Chris Morris implies in his message, making (some / all)
    skills, for example, percentage based instead of on-off type might help
    with the max. problem.

    (I personally like Harn-like skills in which the skills you use increase
    gradually.)

    We could aso limit the amount of new skills one can choose and new skill
    could be quite expensive as opposed to increasing already active skills.

    > Another problem with it is that an error or mistake made early on in your
    > character development (like choosing wrong skill) will ruin that character
    > if there are limits on the number of skills, or skills that are mutually
    > exclusive, etc.

    There's nothing one can't fix with a proper scroll. :) Or maybe a new
    kind of shop: the rehab center?

    I'm sure every system has its own strong and weak points. One could ease
    up thing by providin good help on the skills as well as some
    "recommendation system".

    --
    Rami
  24. Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

    Chris Morris wrote:

    > The Sheep <thesheep@ sheep.prv.pl> writes:
    >> At Fri, 17 Jun 2005 11:15:56 +0300,
    >> Rami Saarinen wrote:
    >> > What I suggest is to change the class-system so that the player would
    >> > be more or less free to choose new talents when gaining new levels
    >> > (spell casting abilities, *fighting styles*, ability to use different
    >> > weapons or armor, spotting enemy weaknesses etc.). The initial choise
    >> > of class would provide a "starting point" for the character so that
    >> > fighters would have combat-oriented initial talents while wizards would
    >> > of course have spell-casting abilities. The initial choise of class
    >> > might also (slighly) limit the available choises when gaining new
    >> > level.
    >> >
    >> > The point should no be to allow to make some super-mega-hyper character
    >> > that makes demigods to flee in horror, but add some variance and
    >> > "personal touch" to the gameplay.
    >>
    >> The problem is that by the end of the game all the characters would have
    >> all the available skills and abilities, and all of the maxed out.
    >
    > Depends how long the game is. Crawl is a good implementation of this
    > sort of skill system, and looking at the YAVPs for it this doesn't
    > seem to happen.
    >
    >> Another problem with it is that an error or mistake made early on in your
    >> character development (like choosing wrong skill) will ruin that
    >> character if there are limits on the number of skills, or skills that are
    >> mutually exclusive, etc.
    >
    > Crawl's solution to this is that you start off with level 0 in every
    > skill, apart from a few skills that your race/class combination gives
    > you to start with. You then improve in every skill by using that skill.
    >
    > It's therefore impossible to get a skill that you'd never use. Of
    > course, it's possible to get a skill that's of limited use in the late
    > game, but since I've never got a Crawl character out of the early game
    > this doesn't worry me much. If the skill gets me _to_ the late game
    > it's fine with me...

    There's still the risk of "spending the limited xp" on too much different
    skills and thus limiting your ability to get more xp later. Judging from
    the posts which say things like "turn of skill A for now", it could be a
    valid concern.
  25. Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

    Quoting Andy Driver <andy@pagezero.net>:
    >On Fri, 17 Jun 2005 12:16:28 +1000, Glen Wheeler wrote:
    >>I have a question. Why would you ever play a fighter if the gameplay
    >>is all wizard just with the names changed?
    >Because it's a roleplaying game.

    No, it's not. Roleplaying games demand multiple human participants. Let's
    not be fooled by the misuse of "RPG" to mean "computer game with vaguely
    D&D mechanics".

    >Your character is not a wizard, he's a
    >fighter. Obviously, roleplaying is up to the player, but I think it's
    >easier to get into character if your avatar has more substance.

    Character, nothing, but I agree that more substance doesn't hurt.

    However, I would suggest a fundamental distinction here, very like the one
    Jeff Lait is driving at. The wizard makes conscious decisions about what
    spell to cast, and those can be offered to the player. The fighter is
    largely making subconscious decisions based on previous training, because
    of the speed of melee combat, and those should be left to the character.

    By all means let the player make decisions about fighting styles or
    techniques, but let them be pre-combat setup decisions made by spending XP
    or choosing techniques to practice or whatever. When actually in a fight,
    by all means describe - and offer game-mechanical utility for - the
    effects of these tricks, but don't make the player pick every turn.
    --
    David Damerell <damerell@chiark.greenend.org.uk> flcl?
    Today is Second Chedday, June - a weekend.
  26. Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

    Quoting jimrandomh <usenetNOSPAM@jimrandomh.org>:
    >But the idea here that you should be able to bang away using nothing
    >but the movement keys is good. So along those lines, I came up with a
    >list of combat maneuvers, requiring only the normal movement keys and
    >the 'wait' key.

    I don't like the whirlwind attack here, but some of the other ideas such
    as the wall pin are excellent.

    The trouble with a choice of fighting styles or whatever is that the
    player is overwhelmed with choices. Either they don't know what is best or
    they're steamrollered by numbers, or both; and it's inevitable in a
    roguelike that people are going to want what is best, because there is a
    tactical game there and it tends to be hard.

    [And if there is a clear best choice, everyone will use it, rendering the
    others pointless.]

    Remember Omega's attack patterns, where you'd pick a series of
    attack/block/feint/riposte? All very well until you consider that, since
    you don't know what they really do, you might as well be picking at
    random. A straight offensive/defensive slider gives you the only
    meaningful effect there and is less confusing.

    So why do I like the wall pin, or the defence bonus for being surrounded?
    It's situational, and it's situational in a way that's entirely the
    player's deparment. The character is doing the supposed minituae of
    blocking and parrying, but the space the character moves to is under the
    player's control.

    With position-based techniques like these, the player can pick the ones
    they think will be easiest to set up, which is a clear distinction; and
    not everyone will pick the same ones because the question of how well a
    given technique fits your own playing style is more important than the
    precise value of the bonus given.
    --
    David Damerell <damerell@chiark.greenend.org.uk> flcl?
    Today is Second Chedday, June - a weekend.
  27. Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

    On Fri, 17 Jun 2005 12:56:40 +0100, David Damerell wrote:

    > Quoting Andy Driver <andy@pagezero.net>:
    >>On Fri, 17 Jun 2005 12:16:28 +1000, Glen Wheeler wrote:
    >>>I have a question. Why would you ever play a fighter if the gameplay
    >>>is all wizard just with the names changed?
    >>Because it's a roleplaying game.
    >
    > No, it's not. Roleplaying games demand multiple human participants. Let's
    > not be fooled by the misuse of "RPG" to mean "computer game with vaguely
    > D&D mechanics".

    I'm not sure that Roleplaying games require multiple participants. The
    Fighting Fantasy range of books were roleplaying games, and didn't require
    multiple players. That's quite similar to RL games, but with
    books instead of computers.

    >>Your character is not a wizard, he's a fighter. Obviously,
    roleplaying
    >>is up to the player, but I think it's easier to get into character if
    >>your avatar has more substance.
    >
    > Character, nothing, but I agree that more substance doesn't hurt.
    >
    > However, I would suggest a fundamental distinction here, very like the
    > one Jeff Lait is driving at. The wizard makes conscious decisions about
    > what spell to cast, and those can be offered to the player. The fighter
    > is largely making subconscious decisions based on previous training,
    > because of the speed of melee combat, and those should be left to the
    > character.

    Why should the player be forced to choose a wizard character to play the
    game this way? What I mean is, the choice between fighter and wizard is
    not supposed to be equivalent to a game mode switch, is it?

    I figure the choice between a fighter and a wizard is that one uses his
    physical abilities to survive, and the other uses his magic and learning.
    It's more a theme-switch. Not that playing a fighter with special attacks
    should feel anything like playing a wizard.

    > By all means let the player make decisions about fighting styles or
    > techniques, but let them be pre-combat setup decisions made by spending
    > XP or choosing techniques to practice or whatever. When actually in a
    > fight, by all means describe - and offer game-mechanical utility for -
    > the effects of these tricks, but don't make the player pick every turn.

    As I understood them, the ideas presented above for different combat
    styles were special case attacks, with the default bump-to-attack move
    still in effect. Sure, allow the fighter player to simply hack his way
    through the hordes in the normal way, but why restrict the more tactical
    player from employing a variety of attacks? Then the choice of play style
    is still the player's.

    --
    Andy
    andy@pagezero.net
    www.pagezero.net
  28. Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

    Quoting Andy Driver <andy@pagezero.net>:
    >On Fri, 17 Jun 2005 12:56:40 +0100, David Damerell wrote:
    >>Quoting Andy Driver <andy@pagezero.net>:
    >>>Because it's a roleplaying game.
    >>No, it's not. Roleplaying games demand multiple human participants. Let's
    >>not be fooled by the misuse of "RPG" to mean "computer game with vaguely
    >>D&D mechanics".
    >I'm not sure that Roleplaying games require multiple participants. The
    >Fighting Fantasy range of books were roleplaying games,

    Er, no, they aren't. They have mechanics similar to conventional tabletop
    roleplaying games, but you don't do any roleplaying. Therefore they are
    not roleplaying games.

    I cannot understand why people are confused by the mechanics when it's
    pretty obvious from the name that "roleplaying games" are defined by the
    activity of roleplaying, especially when quite a few roleplaying games
    don't _have_ the sort of mechanics that cause people to incorrectly label
    computer games thusly.

    >>However, I would suggest a fundamental distinction here, very like the
    >>one Jeff Lait is driving at. The wizard makes conscious decisions about
    >>what spell to cast, and those can be offered to the player. The fighter
    >>is largely making subconscious decisions based on previous training,
    >>because of the speed of melee combat, and those should be left to the
    >>character.
    >Why should the player be forced to choose a wizard character to play the
    >game this way?

    Well, why not? I mean, what you guys seem to want is that there's no way
    _not_ to play the game this way. This is as good a split as any, it's the
    traditional split in games of this type, and it fits nicely with the idea
    of what the character is "really" doing, promoting immersion.

    >As I understood them, the ideas presented above for different combat
    >styles were special case attacks, with the default bump-to-attack move
    >still in effect.

    If the former are more effective, you're making people choose them against
    all non-windshieldable opponents; ie, you've eliminated the "fighter" game
    mode to make them just like wizards.

    If not, they're just pointless chrome.
    --
    David Damerell <damerell@chiark.greenend.org.uk> flcl?
    Today is Second Chedday, June - a weekend.
  29. Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

    At 17 Jun 2005 13:08:45 +0100 (BST),
    David Damerell wrote:

    > Quoting jimrandomh <usenetNOSPAM@jimrandomh.org>:
    > So why do I like the wall pin, or the defence bonus for being surrounded?
    > It's situational, and it's situational in a way that's entirely the
    > player's deparment. The character is doing the supposed minituae of
    > blocking and parrying, but the space the character moves to is under the
    > player's control.

    Woudn't it complicate monster's AI *a lot*?
    I'd expect the (moderately) intelligent monsters will try to avoid
    positionsi in which the player has an advantage...

    --
    Radomir `The Sheep' Dopieralski @**@_
    (Oo) 3 Eh?
    . . . ..v.vVvVVvVvv.v.. .
  30. Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

    David Damerell wrote:
    > Quoting Andy Driver <andy@pagezero.net>:
    >
    >>On Fri, 17 Jun 2005 12:16:28 +1000, Glen Wheeler wrote:
    >>
    >>>I have a question. Why would you ever play a fighter if the gameplay
    >>>is all wizard just with the names changed?
    >>
    >>Because it's a roleplaying game.
    >
    >
    > No, it's not. Roleplaying games demand multiple human participants. Let's
    > not be fooled by the misuse of "RPG" to mean "computer game with vaguely
    > D&D mechanics".

    I gotta argue this point with you. An older thread discussed "true"
    roleplaying, and it got me thinking more about this point. One good
    example of "roleplaying" that someone brought up, was the style of
    play of children. As a kid, you take on the role of heroic warrior,
    or powerful wizard, or ninja, or jedi, or whatever, even though you
    are just a kid swinging a stick at a couple of bushes. Kids certainly
    don't require multiple participants in their play (although it helps),
    and are more than capable of engaging in one of the most rudimentary
    forms of roleplaying, 100% solo.

    Granted, no computer game has yet to achieve true roleplaying status
    (although some games are more roleplaying "friendly" than others), but
    it's not impossible, and it certainly doesn't require multiple human
    participants. So, anyways, I agree with your second point, but I
    think you're a bit off on your first point.


    --
    My projects are currently on hold, but I do have
    some junk at the site below.

    http://www.freewebs.com/timsrl/index.htm

    --
  31. Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

    On 2005-06-17, Flo Häglsperger <haeglsperger@gmail.com> wrote:
    > On a sidenote, this is probably the result of applying my "coder
    > mindset" to game design. In coding, it is usually helpful to write one
    > more general function instead of two specialized ones. When talking
    > about gameplay concepts (as opposed to the code that implements these
    > concepts), the advantage of generalization is less clear.
    >
    > For example, one might (perhaps quite reasonably) say that swinging a
    > sword and shooting an arrow are instances of a more generally gameplay
    > activity, "attacking". And aren't spells just funny ranged attacks with
    > flashy graphics (or the ascii equivalent, flashy descriptions)? And
    > also, is casting a spell not an "action" just like dropping an item or
    > moving a square? If we are at it, can't actions be composed of
    > sub-actions, like using a crossbow == aiming + shooting + reloading?
    > Given that, can "descending into the dungeon and killing the Wizard of
    > Yendor" not be regarded as one long action with hundreds of
    > sub-actions? (I can get more ridiculous if you wish. The point is, it's
    > not always easy to stop myself when I'm in that generalizing mindset.)

    Its very easy. First you write your concept of operations, use case,
    software requirement, and software design documents.

    Then you code what's already written down on paper.

    When you skip the design steps and code first then you are doing things
    backwards. Its then not surprising that the "coder" in you starts messing
    up the product.

    Just my $.05
  32. Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

    At 17 Jun 2005 10:34:25 -0700,
    Jeff Lait wrote:

    > The Sheep wrote:
    >> Woudn't it complicate monster's AI *a lot*?
    >> I'd expect the (moderately) intelligent monsters will try to avoid
    >> positionsi in which the player has an advantage...

    > A common problem with D&D game masters is that they give the players a
    > nifty Flaming Sword. They then decide to have the players face lots of
    > Fire Resistant monsters because they don't want the flaming sword to be
    > overpowered.
    >
    > If you give players the Pin on Wall power, it is crazy to then make all
    > the monsters worth pinning on walls dance out of the player's way.

    On the other hand, it would surely add another dimension and made it
    interesting, if some monsters could do that and some not.

    > As it stands, even with "Follow player" AI, it isn't that trivial to
    > get pin on wall situations. You likely need to open yourself to a
    > round of attacks to put them between you and the wall.

    You'd quickly learn the right combination of moves -- which obviously
    woudn;t be very natural. I think the most dangerous would then be the
    monsters that move randomly.

    > It's like if someone were setting up the whirlwind attack, attacking 8,
    > 6, and then the creature at position 4 decides to run away to prevent
    > the attack from working. Good AI, but it defeats the purpose of the
    > gameplay.

    I think it doesn't. It adds complexity and makes it interesting. You see,
    not every creature would notice that it's in the way of a very heavy
    axe... at least not in time. And it would have to be the creature's turn
    to move.

    --
    Radomir `The Sheep' Dopieralski @**@_
    <..> ] 0110110?
    . . . ..v.vVvVVvVvv.v.. .
  33. Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

    At Fri, 17 Jun 2005 09:19:36 GMT,
    jimrandomh wrote:

    > Ville Tirronen <aleator@st.jyu.fi> wrote:
    > Whirlwind attack. If you attack different enemies in a clockwise or
    > counterclockwise pattern, your attack rate is increased and you don't
    > get penalties for being attacked from behind. For example,
    > 789
    > 4@6
    > 123
    > If the player attacks in directions 8,6,2,4 in that order, then the
    > third and fourth attacks take half as long. (The 8,6 attacks receive no
    > benefit because the pattern is not yet established. It would also work
    > if you did 6,9,6,3, or 8,9,3,1, or something like that so long as it
    > keeps rotating in the same direction.) Doesn't work with small weapons
    > or bludgeoning weapons.

    Turn 1:

    You hit the goblin. The goblin panics!

    #####
    #g...
    ##@..
    ......

    Turn 2:

    You hit the goblin. The goblin runs.

    #####
    #.g..
    ##@..
    ......

    Turn 3:

    You hit the goblin. Whirlwind attack, triple damage!

    #####
    #..%.
    ##@..
    ......

    :)

    --
    Radomir `The Sheep' Dopieralski @**@_
    (`') 3 Grrr!
    . . . ..v.vVvVVvVvv.v.. .
  34. Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

    David Damerell wrote:
    > Quoting Andy Driver <andy@pagezero.net>:
    >
    >>On Fri, 17 Jun 2005 12:16:28 +1000, Glen Wheeler wrote:
    >>
    >>>I have a question. Why would you ever play a fighter if the gameplay
    >>>is all wizard just with the names changed?
    >>
    >>Because it's a roleplaying game.
    >
    >
    > No, it's not. Roleplaying games demand multiple human participants. Let's
    > not be fooled by the misuse of "RPG" to mean "computer game with vaguely
    > D&D mechanics".
    >

    Nah. Roleplayers, confronted with a game in which it's even
    remotely possible to identify themselves with some kind of
    character, will roleplay. Multiple human players are not
    required. I recall seeing one at the mall, back when Asteroids
    was a popular arcade game, muttering orders at an imaginary crew
    as he dodged and ducked and shot rocks and flying saucers;
    apparently his fire control officer was named Spinoza and his
    tactical officer (in charge of shields and hyperjumps) was
    Plantaganet.

    Roleplaying is mental. People do it, or not, whenever they have
    the chance or the choice. There's nothing magical about having
    multiple human players that gives them or denies them that chance
    or choice.

    Bear
  35. Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

    In article <1118970790.198383.219360@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
    Jeff Lait <torespondisfutile@hotmail.com> wrote:
    >Flo H=E4glsperger wrote:
    >> zweistein wrote:
    >> > And it also adds to much micromanagement ... you have to decide what to
    >> > do with each attack, each turn, which is i belive is what should be
    >> > avoided...
    >>
    >> I agree that this is micromanagement; I disagree that this is
    >> necessarily a bad thing. In most RLs, spellcasters already have to
    >> "decide what to do with each attack", and few people see a problem
    >> there.
    >
    >So why make another spellcaster class?
    >
    >If we give the warriors the same per-turn micromanagement (and, hey,
    >why not add Stamina Points to match Mana Points to fuel these attacks?)
    >we have just created wizards by another name.

    This is true. Although these "wizards" presumably have more Hit Points
    than the more ordinary sort, and many more attacks with limited range.

    That said, I think (given other messages in the thread) we are in agreement
    on the potential utility of such a class.

    -Andrew (who finds his Crawl fighters generally have plenty to think
    about)
  36. Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

    The Sheep wrote:
    > At Fri, 17 Jun 2005 09:19:36 GMT,
    > jimrandomh wrote:
    >
    > > Ville Tirronen <aleator@st.jyu.fi> wrote:
    > > Whirlwind attack. If you attack different enemies in a clockwise or
    > > counterclockwise pattern, your attack rate is increased and you don't
    > > get penalties for being attacked from behind. For example,
    > > 789
    > > 4@6
    > > 123
    > > If the player attacks in directions 8,6,2,4 in that order, then the
    > > third and fourth attacks take half as long. (The 8,6 attacks receive no
    > > benefit because the pattern is not yet established. It would also work
    > > if you did 6,9,6,3, or 8,9,3,1, or something like that so long as it
    > > keeps rotating in the same direction.) Doesn't work with small weapons
    > > or bludgeoning weapons.
    >
    > Turn 1:
    >
    > You hit the goblin. The goblin panics!
    >
    > #####
    > #g...
    > ##@..
    > .....
    >
    > Turn 2:
    >
    > You hit the goblin. The goblin runs.
    >
    > #####
    > #.g..
    > ##@..
    > .....
    >
    > Turn 3:
    >
    > You hit the goblin. Whirlwind attack, triple damage!
    >
    > #####
    > #..%.
    > ##@..
    > .....


    ##########
    #...%....^
    ##@....... "FORE!"
    ...........

    ##########
    #....%...^
    ##@.......
    ...........

    ##########
    #.....%..^
    ##@.......
    ...........

    ##########
    #......%.^
    ##@.......
    ...........

    ##########
    #.......%^
    ##@.......
    ...........

    ##########
    #........^ "The goblin corpse falls into the pit!"
    ##@.......
    ....\......
    \
    \
    "HOLE IN ONE!"

    A.
  37. Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

    At 19 Jun 2005 13:53:29 -0700,
    Antoine wrote:

    > "HOLE IN ONE!"

    I think I should have used bulette in this example ;)

    --
    Radomir `The Sheep' Dopieralski @**@_
    (Oo) 3 Eh?
    . . . ..v.vVvVVvVvv.v.. .
  38. Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

    David Damerell wrote:

    > So why do I like the wall pin, or the defence bonus for being surrounded?
    > It's situational, and it's situational in a way that's entirely the
    > player's deparment. The character is doing the supposed minituae of
    > blocking and parrying, but the space the character moves to is under the
    > player's control.
    >
    > With position-based techniques like these, the player can pick the ones
    > they think will be easiest to set up, which is a clear distinction; and
    > not everyone will pick the same ones because the question of how well a
    > given technique fits your own playing style is more important than the
    > precise value of the bonus given.

    I... think I agree. Hmm. This has some serious possibilities.
    It gives the player a simple, standard interface where the same
    basic "moves" are available to beginners and advanced characters,
    but makes the moves have implications and tactical considerations
    that make the same move more or less valuable depending on how
    the character's skills work. And it makes combat descriptions
    a lot more fun to read.

    Aside from making combat a lot more interesting, It's a nice
    way to differentiate and even create subclasses of fighters.
    It's a nice way to present the player with abilities that
    will *occasionally* help even if the player doesn't take
    them into account, but which will help *a lot* if the player
    knows them and works with them. And in the course of a given
    game, a player will learn move combinations that work because
    of a character's particular skill combinations, for that
    character.

    I think I'm going to steal this idea. :-) With one or two
    alterations and modifications. First, I'm going to randomize
    skill awards, so the player can neither predict nor choose
    which move the character's going to learn first -- except that
    it will always be compatible with the equipment the character's
    been using for the last little while, it will always be
    something the character has seen used, and the really powerful
    ones will tend to be later rather than earlier. Second,
    monsters will have these abilities too. Third, nothing and
    nobody will ever get "most" of them; that's a good way to
    avoid the "thousanduplet syndrome" that occurs in so many
    winning characters, especially since the half-plus that will
    be missed in any one game will tend to be late-game, powerful
    and game-altering skills. You could play a thousand times
    and get a different combination of "powerful" moves every
    time, let alone the "ordinary" moves. I think this will add
    a lot of interest and replayability to the fighter class.

    Bear
  39. Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

    jimrandomh <usenetNOSPAM@jimrandomh.org> wrote in message news:<Xns967835E67D614jimrandomh@207.69.189.191>...
    > Ville Tirronen <aleator@st.jyu.fi> wrote:
    > So, without using any keys outside the normal movement and wait keys,
    > we have the special abilities:
    > Whirlwind attack
    > Situational awareness
    > Power attack
    > Wall pin
    > Receive a charge
    > Defensive stance
    > Evasive stance
    > Parrying disarm
    > Tackle
    > all of which, IMO, make melee combat more interesting.


    Great concept, and great examples! However, as there is no game that
    actually uses this system this might be forgotten. I have lurked here
    some time, and noticed the posts about too many posts (that is, coders
    don't code but type). I would like to see 7DRL or similar "simple" RL
    that tests the concept. I think some of these would work well in a
    Conan-RL some threw around. *winkwink* :)


    --
    Janne Joensuu,
    Endoperez

    This is, of course, just a self-centered request. I don't have the
    skill to code a game, and am too lazy to actually make anything with
    what Java I know, so I won't be learning to do that either.
  40. Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

    Quoting Andrew Patrick Schoonmaker <aps@turing.cs.hmc.edu>:
    [Fighters picking attacks]
    > -Andrew (who finds his Crawl fighters generally have plenty to think
    >about)

    Quite. There's plenty of room for an interesting tactical positioning game
    without this business of picking an overhand swing and all that - which is
    why I liked the positionally oriented feats.

    [Also, of course, in most games grunts get some ranged attacks, and they
    typically select which one to use each turn...]
    --
    David Damerell <damerell@chiark.greenend.org.uk> Kill the tomato!
    Today is Teleute, Presuary.
  41. Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

    Quoting Ray Dillinger <bear@sonic.net>:
    >David Damerell wrote:
    >>Quoting Andy Driver <andy@pagezero.net>:
    >>>Because it's a roleplaying game.
    >>No, it's not. Roleplaying games demand multiple human participants. Let's
    >>not be fooled by the misuse of "RPG" to mean "computer game with vaguely
    >>D&D mechanics".
    >Nah. Roleplayers, confronted with a game in which it's even
    >remotely possible to identify themselves with some kind of
    >character, will roleplay.

    This is absolutely true, as your Asteroids example suggests. But no-one
    says Asteroids is a roleplaying game!

    Clearly the term should be reserved for those games intended for
    roleplaying purposes, which I don't think that is practical without
    multiple human participants, rather than being applied to every game
    where someone could potentially roleplay - which as you have illustrated
    means essentially every game in existence.

    And _certainly_ we should not apply it to games because they happen to have
    psuedo-D&D mechanics! Look at the mess that got MMO* games into.
    --
    David Damerell <damerell@chiark.greenend.org.uk> Kill the tomato!
    Today is Teleute, Presuary.
  42. Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

    Glen Wheeler wrote:
    > "Steve Pasquella" <spasquella@yahoo.com> wrote in message
    > news:1118962750.612162.46050@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
    > > Fighting styles might just be what the fighter classes need to make
    > > them viable against wizards. I really do like this idea. Brace
    > > yourselves, this may be long...
    > >
    >
    > Don't you mean: fighter classes need this to make them *into*
    > wizards?
    >
    > I have a question. Why would you ever play a fighter if the gameplay
    > is all wizard just with the names changed?

    Actually, I usually play as fighters, myself, and I don't play as
    wizards too often because I specifically *don't* like having to choose
    an attack every turn.

    I don't think anyone wants to make the fighter classes into wizards.
    But every now and then it can be nice to have a special attack or two
    to fall back on when faced with a particularly tough enemy, or group of
    enemies.

    It is like when I play as draconian gladiators in Crawl. Often times a
    draconian's breath weapon can come in quite handy (especially when
    playing a race-class combo that is bad with ranged weapons), though
    it's use is limited, and I'm not even required to use it. The same is
    true with the barbarian's mighty-attack in ADoM, or with any other such
    powers availible to fighters in roguelikes.

    Because a warrior has innate special attacks, does this automatically
    make him a wizard? I don't think so. The gameplay style of a warrior
    would still be using combat tactics and large, deadly objects to beat
    his opponents into submission. Only with special moves he would have
    ways of augmenting his attacks, if he chose to use them.

    And if a fighter didn't want to use special moves, then he could just
    worry about training his basic fighting skills and raising his stats,
    just like any other warrior in any other game. Flexibility is the thing
    here, and giving the player a wider variety of options, not limiting
    them :)

    And on the matter of fighting styles stances, I don't think that this
    makes warriors into wizards anymore than using the tactics in ADoM
    makes my barbarian into an elementalist. Fighting styles would just
    give the player a little boost in aiding him in using his tactics.

    And, of course, if you didn't want to bother with different fighting
    styles than all you would have to do was stick with the basic one you
    start with (a nice generic one :) and only worry about training that.
    That way you might not be as versatile with your stances, but you would
    be so proficient in your single style that everything would balance
    out, in the end.

    Of course, fighting styles and special moves for fighters would be
    something new, but even if you wanted nothing to do with them, there
    would always be more conventional roguelikes. Besides, it's good to try
    new things. Nothing ventured, nothing gained, right?
  43. Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

    Andy Driver <andy@pagezero.net> wrote in message news:<1118998098.ca90384855dd0bbf79a6594a7c1e9873@teranews>...
    > On Fri, 17 Jun 2005 12:16:28 +1000, Glen Wheeler wrote:
    >
    > >
    > > "Steve Pasquella" <spasquella@yahoo.com> wrote in message
    > > news:1118962750.612162.46050@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
    > >> Fighting styles might just be what the fighter classes need to make
    > >> them viable against wizards. I really do like this idea. Brace
    > >> yourselves, this may be long...
    > >>
    > >
    > > Don't you mean: fighter classes need this to make them *into*
    > > wizards?
    > >
    > > I have a question. Why would you ever play a fighter if the gameplay
    > > is all wizard just with the names changed?
    >
    > Because it's a roleplaying game. Your character is not a wizard, he's a
    > fighter. Obviously, roleplaying is up to the player, but I think it's
    > easier to get into character if your avatar has more substance.
    >
    > Besides, the fighting styles mentioned above are for the most part quite
    > different from wizard spells.
    >

    I didn't find any message where this would be more appopriate. Sorry
    about that. I am trying to tell why, in my opinion, the giving
    fighters styles wouldn't chance them to play like mages.

    The suggested fighting styles are activated in two different ways.
    First, you choose one style to be active, and it affects your
    abilities. This is similar to the Tactics of ADoM: Berserk gives you
    boni to attack and damage, maluses to defense; cowardice has opposite
    effects. Pressing F1 to choose the Me Troll You Mashed -style to use
    against the well-armored man-at-arms, and pressing F2 to change to Way
    of the Fast Foot when you notice some Knights too tough for you to
    handle ATM behind the lines of the man-at-arms. You choose the general
    tactics your character uses. Changing tactics does not cost anything
    in ADoM. If that something got two critical hits through, you can
    switch to coward before running away to get slight speed bonus. In few
    cases, a downtime of a turn or two might be appopriate (like changing
    from berserk/bashing troll to fencing/dancing hummingbird), but to
    make the difference between wizards and warriors clear fighters should
    only have to change tactics when *situation* changes.

    The other way of introducing styles that was mentioned is quite
    innovative. Moving towards the enemy in straight line for three turns
    invoking Charge is very different from any mage I have played in ADoM
    or Crawl. And getting a bonus from slashing into different directions
    with a weapon would hopefully give a fighter a reason to wade in
    towards the enemy, something wizards won't be doing. And once again,
    avoiding enemy's attacks by moving *around* them is not something
    wizard would do. He would go away from his enemy, then bombard it with
    spells from distance. Warrior, however, stays close to his enemy.

    --
    Janne Joensuu,
    Endoperez
    X-Com 1, Star Control 2, Prince of Persia 1, Starflight, Rogue, Master
    of Magic... sometimes I wish I was old enough to be nostalgic
  44. Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

    Antoine wrote:
    > ##########
    > #...%....^
    > ##@....... "FORE!"
    > ..........
    >
    > ##########
    > #....%...^
    > ##@.......
    > ..........
    >
    > ##########
    > #.....%..^
    > ##@.......
    > ..........
    >
    > ##########
    > #......%.^
    > ##@.......
    > ..........
    >
    > ##########
    > #.......%^
    > ##@.......
    > ..........
    >
    > ##########
    > #........^ "The goblin corpse falls into the pit!"
    > ##@.......
    > ...\......
    > \
    > \
    > "HOLE IN ONE!"
    >
    > A.
    >

    :-D

    Have you encountered _Dudley's Dungeon_ yet?
    (http://nicolaas.net/dudley/index.php)
    It's a (roughly) Nethack Comic, and has had several strips with jokes
    like this in them, though much of the rest are quite accurate and
    occourable.

    --
    Simon Richard Clarkstone: s.r.cl?rkst?n?@durham.ac.uk/s?m?n.cl?rkst?n?@
    hotmail.com ### "I have a spelling chequer / it came with my PC /
    it plainly marks for my revue / Mistake's I cannot sea" ...
    by: John Brophy (at: http://www.cfwf.ca/farmj/fjjun96/)
  45. Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

    Quoting Ray Dillinger <bear@sonic.net>:
    >David Damerell wrote:
    >>Clearly the term should be reserved for those games intended for
    >>roleplaying purposes, which I don't think that is practical without
    >>multiple human participants, rather than being applied to every game
    >>where someone could potentially roleplay - which as you have illustrated
    >>means essentially every game in existence.
    >And just as clearly, it should be reserved for those games intended
    >for roleplaying purposes, ie, those which the designers have included
    >elements specifically intended to appeal to roleplyers and/or
    >facilitate roleplaying, whether multi-player or not.

    Well, no, I don't think that's quite right. The designer may suppose that
    a little character chrome is much the same thing as true interaction, but
    that doesn't make it so.

    >>And _certainly_ we should not apply it to games because they happen to have
    >>psuedo-D&D mechanics! Look at the mess that got MMO* games into.
    >Eh. We disagree. Those are roleplaying games, in that they include
    >elements intended to appeal to roleplayers and/or facilitate
    >roleplaying.

    Ah, waitaminute, I _do_ think many MMO*s have roleplaying elements; my
    argument is that they are called MMORPGs _not_ because of that but because
    of sub-D&D mechanics, and this is a mistake.
    --
    David Damerell <damerell@chiark.greenend.org.uk> Kill the tomato!
    Today is Oneiros, Presuary.
  46. Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

    David Damerell wrote:
    > Quoting Ray Dillinger <bear@sonic.net>:

    >>And just as clearly, it should be reserved for those games intended
    >>for roleplaying purposes, ie, those which the designers have included
    >>elements specifically intended to appeal to roleplyers and/or
    >>facilitate roleplaying, whether multi-player or not.

    > Well, no, I don't think that's quite right. The designer may suppose that
    > a little character chrome is much the same thing as true interaction, but
    > that doesn't make it so.

    If you press a button and simulated missiles fire across a
    simulated battle map, that's true interaction. The computer
    has reacted to something you did, and you (presumably) react
    to what the computer does. Pouf. Interaction. Interaction
    does not have to be meaningful or personal to exist, nor does
    it have to be meaningful or personal to exist in a roleplaying
    game.

    > Ah, waitaminute, I _do_ think many MMO*s have roleplaying elements; my
    > argument is that they are called MMORPGs _not_ because of that but because
    > of sub-D&D mechanics, and this is a mistake.

    I think they are called roleplaying games because they include
    elements intended to appeal to roleplayers and/or facilitate
    roleplaying. It was the design intent of the authors to make
    a roleplaying game, and having finished the game that's what they're
    calling it.

    Bear
  47. Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

    Quoting Ray Dillinger <bear@sonic.net>:
    >David Damerell wrote:
    >>Quoting Ray Dillinger <bear@sonic.net>:
    >>>And just as clearly, it should be reserved for those games intended
    >>>for roleplaying purposes, ie, those which the designers have included
    >>>elements specifically intended to appeal to roleplyers and/or
    >>>facilitate roleplaying, whether multi-player or not.
    >>Well, no, I don't think that's quite right. The designer may suppose that
    >>a little character chrome is much the same thing as true interaction, but
    >>that doesn't make it so.
    >If you press a button and simulated missiles fire across a
    >simulated battle map, that's true interaction.

    Please don't be deliberately obtuse. It's perfectly clear from context
    what I mean by "interaction" here.

    >>Ah, waitaminute, I _do_ think many MMO*s have roleplaying elements; my
    >>argument is that they are called MMORPGs _not_ because of that but because
    >>of sub-D&D mechanics, and this is a mistake.
    >I think they are called roleplaying games because they include
    >elements intended to appeal to roleplayers and/or facilitate
    >roleplaying.

    Well, not to put too fine a point on it, you're wrong. The name comes from
    the similarity to the genre of single-player computer games called "RPGs"
    because of pseudo-D&D mechanics.
    --
    David Damerell <damerell@chiark.greenend.org.uk> Distortion Field!
    Today is Aponoia, Presuary.
  48. Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

    jimrandomh wrote:

    > all of which, IMO, make melee combat more interesting.

    Sound much from fighting games but yes, it seems fun, both to players
    and coders ;P

    Hmm... more reasons to make a movement log.
  49. Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

    hmmm... seems a lot like the monk techniques on slashem...
    On 20 Jun 2005 08:36:58 -0700
    j87joensuu@hotmail.com (J.M. Joensuu) wrote:

    | jimrandomh <usenetNOSPAM@jimrandomh.org> wrote in message news:<Xns967835E67D614jimrandomh@207.69.189.191>...
    | > Ville Tirronen <aleator@st.jyu.fi> wrote:
    | > So, without using any keys outside the normal movement and wait keys,
    | > we have the special abilities:
    | > Whirlwind attack
    | > Situational awareness
    | > Power attack
    | > Wall pin
    | > Receive a charge
    | > Defensive stance
    | > Evasive stance
    | > Parrying disarm
    | > Tackle
    | > all of which, IMO, make melee combat more interesting.
    |
    |
    | Great concept, and great examples! However, as there is no game that
    | actually uses this system this might be forgotten. I have lurked here
    | some time, and noticed the posts about too many posts (that is, coders
    | don't code but type). I would like to see 7DRL or similar "simple" RL
    | that tests the concept. I think some of these would work well in a
    | Conan-RL some threw around. *winkwink* :)
    |
    |
    | --
    | Janne Joensuu,
    | Endoperez
    |
    | This is, of course, just a self-centered request. I don't have the
    | skill to code a game, and am too lazy to actually make anything with
    | what Java I know, so I won't be learning to do that either.
Ask a new question

Read More

Development Games Video Games