Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Food and Drink

Last response: in Video Games
Share
July 20, 2005 8:32:07 PM

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

I wanted to get some opinons on this idea. Making the food system on an
RL more sophisticated by adding hunger and thirst veriables.

Drink might quench thrist and food might quench hunger and some mgiht
both. Fruit Juice might subtract 2 from hunger and 9 from thirst. Just
an idea. I came up with today and thought i might want to implement in
my RL. I havent given it much thought so ill post back later to either
expand on the idea or realize it was a bad one. Any thoughts from
everyone else?

Thanks.

-Thomas
RL: CHAZM

More about : food drink

Anonymous
July 20, 2005 8:49:43 PM

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

On 20 Jul 2005 16:32:07 -0700, Thomas wrote:

>I wanted to get some opinons on this idea. Making the food system on an
>RL more sophisticated by adding hunger and thirst veriables.
>
>Drink might quench thrist and food might quench hunger and some mgiht
>both. Fruit Juice might subtract 2 from hunger and 9 from thirst. Just
>an idea. I came up with today and thought i might want to implement in
>my RL. I havent given it much thought so ill post back later to either
>expand on the idea or realize it was a bad one. Any thoughts from
>everyone else?

Seems a bit too detailed for me. I'm planning on doing hunger at some
point, but thirst? Probably not.
--
auric underscore underscore at hotmail dot com
*****
It's times like these I wish I believed in God so I'd have someone to thank.
Anonymous
July 21, 2005 12:53:49 AM

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

On 20 Jul 2005 16:32:07 -0700, "Thomas" <comments@foresightsagas.com>
wrote:

>I wanted to get some opinons on this idea. Making the food system on an
>RL more sophisticated by adding hunger and thirst veriables.

Is your roguelike set in a desert? A vile swamp where clean water is
hard to find? If not, why add thirst? You are making a Nethacklike and
presumably would keep hunger to serve the purpose it serves in Nethack
-- as a time limiter. Adding another counter for the same purpose is
pretty pointless. So unless you have some *reason* to add thirst, such
as setting-flavor for an environment as suggested above, please don't.
At least have a functioning game before you start designing complexity
for its own sake.

--
R. Dan Henry = danhenry@inreach.com
Related resources
Anonymous
July 21, 2005 3:51:07 AM

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

Thomas wrote:
> I wanted to get some opinons on this idea. Making the food system on an
> RL more sophisticated by adding hunger and thirst veriables.
>
> Drink might quench thrist and food might quench hunger and some mgiht
> both. Fruit Juice might subtract 2 from hunger and 9 from thirst. Just
> an idea. I came up with today and thought i might want to implement in
> my RL. I havent given it much thought so ill post back later to either
> expand on the idea or realize it was a bad one. Any thoughts from
> everyone else?

No offence, but, BLECH! Hunger is a bit too much for most games, but
adding in thirst too is just overkill. Too much stupid
micromanagement with no gameplay payoff. Your players will curse you
for it, trust me. What advantages do you see coming from adding in
thirst? Hell, what advantages do you see coming from adding in
hunger? Most games could do without either, but hunger keeps finding
it's way into new games, because people are too afraid to break tradition.

Unless finding food will be a constant struggle, and add greatly to
the gameplay value (Frodo and Sam in Mordor come to mind), then don't
bother. But, no matter what, keep thirst out. Too much pain for no gain.


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

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

--
Anonymous
July 21, 2005 5:41:22 AM

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

R. Dan Henry wrote:
> So unless you have some *reason* to add thirst, such
> as setting-flavor for an environment as suggested above, please don't.

I can think two reasons to add water. The first one is that it acts
like eating: you have to find water supply to survive and it's a
gameplay component itself. No better or worse than anything else.
The second reason is realism. If you have eating, why not drinking
too? It's more realistic.
One of my favourite games Dungeon Master has food and water. It adds
micromanagement, but that's the whole point. It IS micromanagement
just like playing around with your gear and getting better stuff.
Anonymous
July 21, 2005 5:48:30 AM

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

R. Dan Henry wrote:
> So unless you have some *reason* to add thirst, such
> as setting-flavor for an environment as suggested above, please don't.

I can think two reasons to add water. The first one is that it acts
like eating: you have to find water supply to survive and it's a
gameplay component itself. No better or worse than anything else.
The second reason is realism. If you have eating, why not drinking
too? It's more realistic.
One of my favourite games Dungeon Master has food and water. It adds
micromanagement, but that's the whole point. It IS micromanagement
just like playing around with your gear and getting better stuff.

(Reposted this, because gg went nuts and didn't respond.)
Anonymous
July 21, 2005 10:40:54 AM

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

Krice wrote:

> I can think two reasons to add water. The first one is that it acts
> like eating: you have to find water supply to survive and it's a
> gameplay component itself. No better or worse than anything else.

And it can be a useful and pleasant component.
There can be different and interesting ways to get food and water: for
example hunting and preserving carcasses vs russian roulette with
fountains and bottles.
There can be specific tools and skills like racks for drying meat,
distillation and ovens, specific magic items like endless waterskins
and self-duplicating loaves and parallel lines of spells of
destruction, purification and creation like in D&D.

If desired food and water can be an important part of the game in many
ways, from undeads poisoning the water table to underground dwellers
growing fungi in the dark to the hero defending his little farm and
bringing home food for winter.

> The second reason is realism. If you have eating, why not drinking
> too? It's more realistic.

I agree; while adding a thirst level to the character is just a danger
like many others, allowing a decent description of different foods
increases believability.

Micromanagement is bad (food is very mundane when compared with the
rest of the inventory) but it is a problem only in games that require
the player to explicitly eat and drink; there are better ways.
For example, assume that food and water points decrease every turn and
adverse effects (fainting, penalties) appear below fixed thresholds;
every level of food and water points between that and full capacity is
equally good.
Instead of eating and drinking individual items, the player could
define a queue of what to eat and a queue of what to drink; probably it
would be defined by giving priorities to food types (e.g. watermelons
first to get rid of them, then water, then fruit juice, then various
types of increasingly expensive spirits).
Whenever the food or water level drops below the threshold, the hero
automatically eats or drinks the first item in the queue; it could be a
free action (simple and easy) or there could be complex rules for
waiting until a turn can be spared.
The player would always remain at the optimal food and water level and
he would micromanage food only in interesting situations: when either
queue is exhausted, when something special like a potion or a pill is
eaten or quaffed explicitly and when the priorities of different foods
need an adjustment (e.g. conserve slime molds because yeek gluttons
trade elvish bread for them).
An automatic system could also consume food in increments much smaller,
and more realistic, than a "ration" or a "bottle".

Lorenzo Gatti
Anonymous
July 21, 2005 11:22:06 AM

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

David Damerell wrote:
> Then better not have any dragons, goblins, or any sort of underground
> labyrinth full of loot at all. That would be more realistic.

The word "realistic" can be interpreted in many ways.. In a way
dragons and goblins are realistic, they are creatures which might
exist. Not including their possible magical properties, but magic
is equally unrealistic to all creatures.
Maybe "logical" is better word in this case. Three options:

1. No food or water
2. Food or water
3. Food and water

Option 2 is least logical from those three. It doesn't make sense
that you need to eat, but there is no need to drink. But I guess
some people think it's a proper rule for roguelikes:) 
July 21, 2005 11:28:07 AM

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

The problem I had, is my town level has a night and day, but the food
cycle lasted for several days before the player gets 'hungry'. Any
less time and the player is always eating, refactoring town time to
food time, means day/night last.. well last for ever, and when your
waiting for an event to happen, thats a looooong time.

-stu
Anonymous
July 21, 2005 11:34:31 AM

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

gatti@dsdata.it wrote:
> Micromanagement is bad

This must be one of the most repeated game design mantras..:) 
It's not bad if it stays manageable. It's just a matter of how
detailed the micromanagement is. Too detailed can make the game
ridiculous.

> An automatic system could also consume food in increments much smaller,
> and more realistic, than a "ration" or a "bottle".

Automatic system is also more boring. It doesn't leave the player
much to do:)  Some people actually like micromanagement and they
would hate the idea of "automatic" system taking care of such an
important thing for them.
July 21, 2005 2:00:54 PM

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

Wow, I've gotten a lot of response to this.

I can defignitly see what the people who dislike this are thinking. But
after all an RL is not like dnd or something. You cant tell the
computer "Walk to the nearest town." Every move is counted in and my
game will be more detailed then many others including factors like the
food and drink. I have a system of moves or partail turns so you could
(W)ear armor, step up next to an enemy, and with a lot of dexterity
maybe ever then hit the enemy with your mace...

I dont know why you would be walking around not wearing armor until
battle but.. yeah ;) .. its just an example.

If you dont like to keep track of a multitude of operations during a
carfuly planned combat or keep track of how hungry you are vs how much
food (or drink) is in your invantory then an RL might not be the right
game for you. I am not trying to say this is the only way to play
but... its honestly what i personally like most about RogueLikes.
Complexity. They make you keep track of all those things.

Really i dont want water or drink in my game to be a huge deal. All
character will start with some and you will have to drink infrequently.
It no differnt from any other gameplay element. I i started a post
saying that i wanted to include magic fountains with strange effects or
traps in my game just like most others everyone wouldn't be telling me
that would make the game arbetrarily complex. Face it, Playing a
computer game probably isn't the most meaningful thing one can do and
wandering dungeons on a computer is probably all arbatrary in some
peoples minds but its fun. I believe that adding drink will be a good
element. And if it flops and is unpopular among players.. it can always
be removed.

Imagine this:

The game will tell you your hungry when hungry, thirsty when thristy. I
could change the system. In most games there is a cirtain regularity to
getting hungry. Lets say thats thirst now in Chazm. Now hunger is also
there but is 3x as slow. Its not like i would be keeping hunger as is
and then adding in a difficult and tedious thirst system on top!

Besides, i am not sure how to quote, but i liked what "krice" said
about either both or neither being the most realistic. I would disagree
only in that RLs are not ment to be realistic but adding realism into a
fake world to make it real is a goal.

I just dont understand why most RLs have only food and not water. Maybe
ill find out its for good reason but personally i think this seems like
a good idea.

I think if you are going to have your game be any more detailed then
(F)ight as a command you should also include food and water.

Further, what if instead of insta death, thirst and hunger effected you
diffentyly and you could go a long time without them

like

food: water:
Burst You cant Drink any more
#
Satiated Hydrated
#
# small minus
# to dex
#
Not hungry Not Thirsty
#
#
#
#
Hungry Thirsty
#
#
#
#
Weak Dehydrated
#
# increasing
# increasing minuses to dex
# minuses to & very small -'s
# strength to int and cha
#
#
#
Fanting Hallucinating
#
#
# large minus 2 str hallucinating and
# occational huge minuses to dex
# increasingly
# long fainting
#
DEATH DEATH

That was probably a terrable table but my idea is that they both effect
you differently and instead of like nethack where you are not hungry
for a long time and then hungry for a short time and then like 20 moves
of weak and fainting and then death. you could go on for 200 moves
being hungry and thirsty and only reciveing minues to states befor you
even start fainting or hallucinating. It could be interesting. I think.
Thoughts?

-Thomas (preparing himself for more disaproving rants) ;) 
RL: CHAZM
July 21, 2005 2:08:38 PM

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

Also I just got "The Sheep's" Message and thought I would respond to
that. Thats a good point. Maybe i didn't mention it would be a lot of
both like this maybe:

Food/Drink -toHunger -toThirst
************ ************ ***********
Water flask 0 50
Juice 8 25
Pear 20 5
apple 25 6
ration 60 50 // note that this is
a package that contains food and water inside it and would be most
common to eat
Giant Rat Corpse 70 0 // infected %
chance
Jerky/dry meat 35 0
Water Jug 0 90

etc...
Hmm to busy to comment more on that but the table speeks for itself.
Many/most foods drink add to both but it is reasonable that if you dont
eat rations and ony corpses that you would also need water on the side.
If you eat only rations anyway.. then there is much less of a change
for you.

-Thomas
RL: CHAZM
July 21, 2005 2:11:47 PM

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

Wow, Those tables didn't turn out so well ;) 

The formatting is terriable! Hmm ill shutup now i think.

-Thomas
RL: CHAZM
July 21, 2005 3:05:22 PM

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

Yeah. I think this can only be resolved in testing. I feel that i would
be able to come up with a system where water is rarely needed because
it is in food and the air. However it may be an occational problem and
also on like a plane of fire you might take regular small doses of fire
damage which may also happen to dehydrate you so it could add a fun
aspect to the game when on the plane of fire or fighting a fire
elemental. ;) . Good ideas! thanks.

-Thomas
RL: CHAZM
Anonymous
July 21, 2005 3:49:16 PM

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

Krice wrote:
> R. Dan Henry wrote:
> > So unless you have some *reason* to add thirst, such
> > as setting-flavor for an environment as suggested above, please don't.
>
> I can think two reasons to add water. The first one is that it acts
> like eating: you have to find water supply to survive and it's a
> gameplay component itself. No better or worse than anything else.
> The second reason is realism. If you have eating, why not drinking
> too? It's more realistic.
> One of my favourite games Dungeon Master has food and water. It adds
> micromanagement, but that's the whole point. It IS micromanagement
> just like playing around with your gear and getting better stuff.

I think it is unfair to categorize Dungeon Master's food and water as
"micro management". Dungeon Master is, firstly, not a roguelike, but
more of a puzzle game. Second, the refilling of water and food is part
of the topographical puzzle, rather than being something you just
run-to-town to do.

Dungeon Master is a game that had some gameplay *reason* to add thirst.

(Interesting aside: Dungeon Master also did damage to your characters
if you bumped into walls.)
--
Jeff Lait
(POWDER: http://www.zincland.com/powder)
Anonymous
July 21, 2005 5:45:18 PM

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

Quoting Krice <paulkp@mbnet.fi>:
>R. Dan Henry wrote:
>>So unless you have some *reason* to add thirst, such
>>as setting-flavor for an environment as suggested above, please don't.
>The second reason is realism. If you have eating, why not drinking
>too? It's more realistic.

Then better not have any dragons, goblins, or any sort of underground
labyrinth full of loot at all. That would be more realistic.
--
David Damerell <damerell@chiark.greenend.org.uk> Distortion Field!
Today is First Mania, July.
Anonymous
July 21, 2005 8:37:25 PM

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

stu a écrit :
> The problem I had, is my town level has a night and day, but the food
> cycle lasted for several days before the player gets 'hungry'. Any
> less time and the player is always eating, refactoring town time to
> food time, means day/night last.. well last for ever, and when your
> waiting for an event to happen, thats a looooong time.
>
> -stu
>

Refactor the day time and give the player a way to pass time maybe ?
Like, you go to the nearest pub and have the option to spend a few hours.
Anonymous
July 21, 2005 8:47:11 PM

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

At 21 Jul 2005 07:22:06 -0700,
Krice wrote:

> David Damerell wrote:
>> Then better not have any dragons, goblins, or any sort of underground
>> labyrinth full of loot at all. That would be more realistic.
>
> The word "realistic" can be interpreted in many ways.. In a way
> dragons and goblins are realistic, they are creatures which might
> exist. Not including their possible magical properties, but magic
> is equally unrealistic to all creatures.
> Maybe "logical" is better word in this case. Three options:
>
> 1. No food or water
> 2. Food or water
> 3. Food and water
>
> Option 2 is least logical from those three. It doesn't make sense
> that you need to eat, but there is no need to drink. But I guess
> some people think it's a proper rule for roguelikes:) 

I alwyas assumed that when my character eats in a roguelike game, he also
drinks. That is, he eats his regular meal, with all the stuff like salt
and pepper, somethng to drink, a napkin, etc.

--
Radomir `The Sheep' Dopieralski @**@_
(Qq) 3 Sob?
. . . ..v.vVvVVvVvv.v.. .
Anonymous
July 21, 2005 8:49:01 PM

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

Krice a écrit :
> gatti@dsdata.it wrote:
>
>>Micromanagement is bad
>
>
> This must be one of the most repeated game design mantras..:) 
> It's not bad if it stays manageable. It's just a matter of how
> detailed the micromanagement is. Too detailed can make the game
> ridiculous.

It would also mean that all RTS out there are bad since they are nearly
always micromanagement games :) 
Anonymous
July 21, 2005 9:47:50 PM

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

At 21 Jul 2005 10:00:54 -0700,
Thomas wrote:

> I dont know why you would be walking around not wearing armor until
> battle but.. yeah ;) .. its just an example.

I can imagine a dozen reason taken from reality... ;) 
But reality is a poor advisor.

> Really i dont want water or drink in my game to be a huge deal.

If you're creating a flight simulator, you don't make the landing
procedures very detailed/complicated -- you can usually pick any runway
you want and as long as you do everuthing technically good -- it's
alright.

On the other hand, when you're crerating an airport simulator, where you
can sit in the tower and manage all the planes, the procedure becomes
detailed and complicated, but the technical aspects of landing, on the
other hand, are usually skipped.

The point is, you want to concentrate on things that your game is about.
I see nothing wrong with including water counters and drinking in
a survival game. But it's an overkill for a roguelike (in my opinion,
ofcourse). And it becomes unrealistic if your environment should contain
lots of ways to get the water, but all of them are impossible or awkward
to implement.

Note that normal, healthy people don't need to drink when it's not hot,
the air is not dry and they don't sweat too much. The water you absorb
from the air and food is usually enough.

However, you could use water and drinking in some special circumstances
(ie. on lava levels you might be required to drink regularly, or you'd
choke). But I'm not sure whether it's worth to do it using generic rules
and adding a 'water' counter to all food items (think about who is going
to type in all that data). Simply having 'dry throat' state, similar to
poisoning, and a potion of water to cure it seems enough.

Anyways, questions like this are best answered by testing ;) 

--
Radomir `The Sheep' Dopieralski @**@_
(..) 3 Bee!
. . . ..v.vVvVVvVvv.v.. .
July 21, 2005 9:48:02 PM

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

Krice <paulkp@mbnet.fi> wrote:
> I can think two reasons to add water. The first one is that it acts
> like eating:

I would tolerate such a feature but I wouldn't like it, for precisely
the reason you just stated; they act the same way.
Having said that, I am considering including both food and water in my
game. Water is required on a regular basis, and a certain degree of
micro-managing would be required there. Food, on the other hand, will
give you bonuses if it's good or special, but is never required.
The water is the time-limiter (as is realistic) and the food is
something you want because of its potential benefits.

> The second reason is realism. If you have eating, why not drinking
> too? It's more realistic.

RLs have drinking. Drink speed, drink mutagens, drink instant healing...
Sorry, I am being facetious.

Although realism is part of my choice of water instead of food for
time/resource management, realism isn't enough to push me to require
both; the resource management issue can be solved by one, so I'm happy
to let the player imagine the other one, or to assign it a different
purpose.
It's also important to differentiate between realism and consistency. We
are already accepting a world of dragons or rayguns; why should such a
world require its inhabitants to drink just because we
ugly-bags-of-mostly-water (ref Star Trek: NG) need to?

--jude hungerford.
Anonymous
July 21, 2005 9:57:33 PM

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

At Thu, 21 Jul 2005 17:48:02 GMT,
<edward@lore.net> wrote:

> Krice <paulkp@mbnet.fi> wrote:
> We
> are already accepting a world of dragons or rayguns;

Hey! Rayguns *do* exist!

--
Radomir `The Sheep' Dopieralski @**@_
(^^) 3 Bee!
. . . ..v.vVvVVvVvv.v.. .
Anonymous
July 22, 2005 3:37:20 AM

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

On 21 Jul 2005 01:41:22 -0700, "Krice" <paulkp@mbnet.fi> wrote:

>R. Dan Henry wrote:
>> So unless you have some *reason* to add thirst, such
>> as setting-flavor for an environment as suggested above, please don't.
>
>I can think two reasons to add water.

I can think of more, but that's irrelevant. What's relevant is whether
the OP has a actual gameplay enhancement in mind or is just thinking
of adding thirst because it sounded like a good idea at the time.

>The first one is that it acts
>like eating: you have to find water supply to survive and it's a
>gameplay component itself.

And I pointed out, that's redundancy if it is just serving the same
purpose as eating -- forcing the player to do the same thing twice
over isn't a really good idea, especially if it isn't one of the more
interesting aspects of the game to begin with.

>The second reason is realism. If you have eating, why not drinking
>too?

Because the purpose of having eating isn't realism. Certainly, no RL
uses anything remotely like a realistic model of hunger and food. The
purpose in Nethack, the only RL the OP is really familiar with is, is
to have a loose clock on the player and make him go explore. Adding
drinking does not improve this function.

>It's more realistic.

Which is important if you are making a dining simulation instead of a
game. Now in a gameplay neutral situation, such as choosing to
*substitute* a thirst clock for a hunger clock, realism is an adequate
consideration to ditch food for water, the need for which more closely
matching the game-time clock for nourishment demands. Running around
fighting monsters would actually get you into thirst requirements
fairly frequently, so making the @ need a drink every couple of game
hours would track reality much better than the starve-to-death-in-day
model.

--
R. Dan Henry = danhenry@inreach.com
Anonymous
July 22, 2005 6:45:46 AM

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

"Thomas" <comments@foresightsagas.com> wrote in
news:1121902327.014663.150470@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:

> I wanted to get some opinons on this idea. Making the food system on an
> RL more sophisticated by adding hunger and thirst veriables.
>
> Drink might quench thrist and food might quench hunger and some mgiht
> both. Fruit Juice might subtract 2 from hunger and 9 from thirst. Just
> an idea. I came up with today and thought i might want to implement in
> my RL. I havent given it much thought so ill post back later to either
> expand on the idea or realize it was a bad one. Any thoughts from
> everyone else?
>

Meh. My first reaction is what's already been said: if it fulfills the
same game function of hunger (prompting the player to continue onwards)
then it's redundant.

But it doesn't have to be. Perhaps some character species need food and
others need water. Different sources, different rates, that would make for
interesting gameplay.

The troll needs a lot of meat to support regen, the clay golem needs water
to stay moist and pliable. Neither needs the other consumable, but the
effects, sources, and rates are different. The player is challenged, and
goodness results.

JSwing
Anonymous
July 22, 2005 7:47:08 AM

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

R. Dan Henry wrote:
> Which is important if you are making a dining simulation instead of a
> game.

If you continue that logic (of stripping anything not "useful")
you end up making a Zelda clone:) 

> Now in a gameplay neutral situation, such as choosing to
> *substitute* a thirst clock for a hunger clock

What is that clock you keep talking about? I'm going to follow
Dungeon Master's style anyway, rather than a typical roguelike
style, where taking ten steps makes the character hungry. That's
ridiculous.
Anonymous
July 22, 2005 7:53:34 AM

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

Erik Piper wrote:
> Have you ever heard of the theory of the uncanny valley?

Yes, it has nothing to do with RL development:) 

> any attempt at greater realism in roguelikes has to wrestle with this
> and probably will suffer for it.

You must be joking? Roguelikes are so near to realistic?
I can't believe this..
Anonymous
July 22, 2005 8:10:44 AM

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

Chris Morris wrote:
> Well, why implement something useless?

Water isn't useless. In fact, if there are just some decorative
items they aren't useless either. It's for decorative reasons:) 
And water can be added for realism:) 
July 22, 2005 9:10:40 AM

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

funny!! my town level already has a pub where you can drink and hear
gossip as well as lodge for as many days as you have gold for and rest
up ;) 

way ahead of you on that one.

-stu
Anonymous
July 22, 2005 4:02:25 PM

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

"Krice" <paulkp@mbnet.fi> writes:
> R. Dan Henry wrote:
> > Which is important if you are making a dining simulation instead of a
> > game.
>
> If you continue that logic (of stripping anything not "useful")
> you end up making a Zelda clone:) 

Well, why implement something useless? Even ADoM's scroll of cure
blindness has humour value the first time.

That's not to say that tracking hunger and thirst separately is always
useless, of course. Sometimes it may be appropriate.

--
Chris
Anonymous
July 22, 2005 4:20:06 PM

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

At 22 Jul 2005 03:47:08 -0700,
Krice wrote:

> R. Dan Henry wrote:
>> Which is important if you are making a dining simulation instead of a
>> game.
> If you continue that logic (of stripping anything not "useful")
> you end up making a Zelda clone:) 

On the other hand, if you keep adding irrelevant things because you think
they are 'cool', you end up with no game at all.

>> Now in a gameplay neutral situation, such as choosing to
>> *substitute* a thirst clock for a hunger clock
> What is that clock you keep talking about?

The one that limits the number of turns you can hang around a level
without advancing before you starve to death.

> I'm going to follow
> Dungeon Master's style anyway, rather than a typical roguelike
> style, where taking ten steps makes the character hungry. That's
> ridiculous.

It's a GAME, you know. It has it's rules that make it interesting --
nothing ridiculous here.
On the other hand, a game without clear rules, with just a bunch of
sillyfeatures patched together, giving no challenge is pretty ridiculous.


--
Radomir `The Sheep' Dopieralski @**@_
(^^) 3 Bee!
. . . ..v.vVvVVvVvv.v.. .
Anonymous
July 22, 2005 5:04:57 PM

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

Quoting Thomas <comments@foresightsagas.com>:
>I just dont understand why most RLs have only food and not water.

There's lots of different kinds of food, but essentially for drinking
there's water.

Potions have sideeffects, but it's hard to imagine a system where water
doesn't come in either constant units (potion bottles) or unlimited supply
(fountains). Conversely food in most RLs comes in all shapes and sizes.

Another problem is that either you're going to have unlikely-sounding
timescales, or drinking will always be the problem and eating never. So to
add drinking to most RLs, we'd either have to have people thinking "why
can't I go longer without food than without water", or turn the
interesting food game with lots of different kinds of food into a minor
facet and replace it with an uninteresting drinking game.
--
David Damerell <damerell@chiark.greenend.org.uk> Kill the tomato!
Today is First Aponoia, July.
Anonymous
July 22, 2005 5:07:58 PM

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

Quoting Krice <paulkp@mbnet.fi>:
>R. Dan Henry wrote:
>>Now in a gameplay neutral situation, such as choosing to
>>*substitute* a thirst clock for a hunger clock
>What is that clock you keep talking about?

A "clock" means something that gives the player a reason to hurry up.
NetHack has an early-game clock - food - and a clock once the Wizard is
dead (bad stuff keeps happening), but no intermediate clock, which I think
is a deficiency. Once your Angband character is minimally established, the
game has no clock at all.

>I'm going to follow
>Dungeon Master's style anyway, rather than a typical roguelike
>style, where taking ten steps makes the character hungry.

Gosh, which roguelike is like that?
--
David Damerell <damerell@chiark.greenend.org.uk> Kill the tomato!
Today is First Aponoia, July.
Anonymous
July 22, 2005 5:25:35 PM

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

In article <slrnddvnu0.v56.thesheep@atos.wmid.amu.edu.pl>, The Sheep
<thesheep@ sheep.prv.pl> says...

> Note that normal, healthy people don't need to drink when it's not hot,
> the air is not dry and they don't sweat too much. The water you absorb
> from the air and food is usually enough.

If you're climbing through a dungeon periodically fighting monsters,
you'll need plenty.

My feelings on this are that food and/or water are valid options for a
roguelike, but not necessary.

We could just assume that corpses are edible, and the dungeon is damp
with at least water dripping down stalactites here and there. (No food
or water needed.)

Or that corpses are generally edible but the dungeon is dry. (Need
water only.)

Or that corpses are generally inedible but the dungeon is wet. (Need
food only.)

The rule is: just so long as it's interesting. It can be made
interesting in several ways:

- food/water you find has side effects (good and/or bad)
- food/water is hard to find (pack tradeoffs, searching)
- good food/water is hard to find (choose between the above)

- Gerry Quinn
Anonymous
July 22, 2005 5:32:46 PM

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

In article <1121971756.768658.20860@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
torespondisfutile@hotmail.com says...
> Krice wrote:

> I think it is unfair to categorize Dungeon Master's food and water as
> "micro management". Dungeon Master is, firstly, not a roguelike, but
> more of a puzzle game. Second, the refilling of water and food is part
> of the topographical puzzle, rather than being something you just
> run-to-town to do.

If I recall correctly, there was never any real problem with water
(plenty of fountains).

Occasionally you had to retreat to Level I or III to kill screamers or
worms (the best easy sources of food). But that was easy enough too,
once you knew what you were doing. And they spawned endlessly. [Chaos
Strikes Back upped the ante with a dragon level. Was this the only
CRPG in which dragons were a standard food source?]

From Level VII or VIII of DM on, the levels all had a door onto a
central stairwell - so once you had found the exit, you essentially had
a WOR to that level. I remember having a big cache of junk at the
level with golems that you had to go back to repeatedly.

- Gerry Quinn
Anonymous
July 22, 2005 8:20:02 PM

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

On 2005-07-22, Krice <paulkp@mbnet.fi> wrote:
> Erik Piper wrote:
>> Have you ever heard of the theory of the uncanny valley?
>
> Yes, it has nothing to do with RL development:) 

I think he's got a point about something similar affecting game engines,
though. If the game isn't very realistic at all, like current roguelikes
tend to be, the player often just accepts the strange, abstract world as
it is. But when the game starts to become more realistic, the player's
expectations rise.

Most of the added realism that is proposed seems to have the purpose of
making things harder for the player. The player should manage the
character's fluid intake. The player should manage facing. The player
should practice skills and the skills should decay if not practiced.
Swords should need to be sharpened and wounds checked for infection.

But a truly realistic world would also mean that the player can
negotiate with other characters, ask for information about anything in
the world and quite possibly get useful answers, bargain for cooperation
and receive it. The player could also expect to be able to do all sorts
of physical feats like vaulting over a pit with a pole weapon, creating
an avalance to bury the army of giants in a pass instead of fighting
through it. There are all sorts of useful things you can do with simple
mechanics and chemistry, ropes and fire for example, which are very
difficult to model with a game engine. But if the game engine tries to
be as realistic as possible, the player is entitled to expect these
things to be possible as well as expected to be wary of dying of thirst
or infected wounds.

Since we basically don't know how to produce this useful realism, maybe
we shouldn't be too eager to add the annoying realism either and focus
more on games that work well in their own terms.

--
Risto Saarelma
Anonymous
July 22, 2005 8:22:26 PM

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

On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 17:47:50 +0000 (UTC), The Sheep <thesheep@
sheep.prv.pl> wrote:

>Note that normal, healthy people don't need to drink when it's not hot,
>the air is not dry and they don't sweat too much. The water you absorb
>from the air and food is usually enough.

That isn't true at all; you appear to have confused humans with
specialized desert creatures. Even if it were, you don't fight
monsters without working up a sweat.

--
R. Dan Henry = danhenry@inreach.com
Anonymous
July 22, 2005 11:59:57 PM

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

On Thu, 21 Jul 2005, edward@lore.net wrote:
> Krice <paulkp@mbnet.fi> wrote:
> > I can think two reasons to add water. The first one is that it acts
> > like eating:
>
> I would tolerate such a feature but I wouldn't like it, for precisely
> the reason you just stated; they act the same way.

Food and Water are quite different tactically in real life. Food is
generally expensive (in some way) no matter where you go. Water is often
available freely or nearly free, but in specific locations -- in some
locations it's simply unavailable (to someone with a given level of
survival skill).

These facts immediately imply different uses in game balance. Water can
be a short-term clock that limits the length of each foray into a
water-poor region. The player is encouraged to accomplish as much as he
can before he must return to town (or oasis, fountain, etc.) to refill his
canteens.

Depending on game style, food can either be a long-term master clock (a
finite amount of food in the game), or it can force the player to
consistently "turn a profit" on his exploration so he can keep buying
food.

---- Michael Deutschmann <michael@talamasca.ocis.net>
Anonymous
July 23, 2005 3:56:09 AM

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

At Fri, 22 Jul 2005 16:22:26 -0700,
R Dan Henry wrote:

> On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 17:47:50 +0000 (UTC), The Sheep <thesheep@
> sheep.prv.pl> wrote:

>>Note that normal, healthy people don't need to drink when it's not hot,
>>the air is not dry and they don't sweat too much. The water you absorb
>>from the air and food is usually enough.
> That isn't true at all; you appear to have confused humans with
> specialized desert creatures.

I can only talk from my own experience, and it's like this, at least for
reasonably short time spans, like several days. Of course, it also depends
on what kind of food it is -- you won't get far with salty bisquits...

Not sure whether there are any medical records for `normal' circumstances,
not some Guiness records of living without any water. Quick googling
didn't bring anything interesting.

> Even if it were, you don't fight
> monsters without working up a sweat.

You've got a point here. :) 

--
Radomir `The Sheep' Dopieralski @**@_
(Oo) 3 Eh?
. . . ..v.vVvVVvVvv.v.. .
Anonymous
July 23, 2005 6:14:23 AM

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

R. Dan Henry <danhenry@inreach.com> wrote in
news:a221e19mg1fa2ejth7im1bfujoettnirsi@4ax.com:

>
> Which is important if you are making a dining simulation ...

That is a briliant idea.

One part Burger Time, one part RL. Levels that contain ever finer quality
foods and dishes that must be created by hunting down the ingredients.

"The Firestorm hits the side of beef! Oh no it's cooked to charcoal!" -
should have used the lower temperature fireball.

"The onion hits! You are blinded by tears!"

"Dip asparagus into? (a-b, g, *)"

"You successfully create the Clam Chowder. To complete the ritual, add the
appropriate wine." -Do you hunt the red or the white?



In my defense, I was hungry when I read your post.

JSwing
Anonymous
July 23, 2005 11:25:11 AM

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

JSwing <JSwing@no.spam.please> writes:

> "You successfully create the Clam Chowder. To complete the ritual, add the
> appropriate wine." -Do you hunt the red or the white?

You pour the red wine.
The Angry Gourmand appears.
The Angry Gourmand says "Red wine with seafood????"
The Angry Gourmand summons the Soup Nazi.
The Angry Gourmand summons Martha Stewart.
The Angry Gourmand summons Julia Child.
The Angry Gourmand summons Emeril Agassi.
The Angry Gourmand summons Bobby Flay.
The Angry Gourmand summons Homer Simpson.
The Soup Nazi says "No soup for you!"
The Soup Nazi hits you with a stock pot.
Martha Stewart says "Philistine!"
Martha Stewart hits you with an attractive flower arrangement.
Julia Child bashes you with a ladle.
Emeril Agassi says "Bam!"
Emeril Agassi bashes you with a tureen.
Bobby Flay pours hot soup over your head.
Homer Simpson says "Mmmm... Clam Chowder..."
Homer Simpson drools on you.
You die.

sherm--

--
Cocoa programming in Perl: http://camelbones.sourceforge.net
Hire me! My resume: http://www.dot-app.org
Anonymous
July 23, 2005 9:01:51 PM

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

On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 23:56:09 +0000 (UTC), The Sheep <thesheep@
sheep.prv.pl> wrote:

>At Fri, 22 Jul 2005 16:22:26 -0700,
> R Dan Henry wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 17:47:50 +0000 (UTC), The Sheep <thesheep@
>> sheep.prv.pl> wrote:
>
>>>Note that normal, healthy people don't need to drink when it's not hot,
>>>the air is not dry and they don't sweat too much. The water you absorb
>>>from the air and food is usually enough.
>> That isn't true at all; you appear to have confused humans with
>> specialized desert creatures.
>
>I can only talk from my own experience, and it's like this, at least for
>reasonably short time spans, like several days. Of course, it also depends
>on what kind of food it is -- you won't get far with salty bisquits...

Well, you won't die in several days. Even dehydration takes about a
week to kill, as opposed to a month to starve, but the recommended
intake of water is from 2 to 4.5 liters per day. I'm glad you had no
(obvious) problems as a result, but that isn't healthy.

--
R. Dan Henry = danhenry@inreach.com
Anonymous
July 23, 2005 9:20:43 PM

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

Thomas wrote:

> Food/Drink -toHunger -toThirst
> ************ ************ ***********

Just to let you now - this is not a brand new idea.
It has already been implemented in a MUD codebase
called ROM 2.4 and probably in few others as well.
Particularly, each drink does three things:
- adds to your satiation level (actually to
"HoursUntilHungry" variable)
- add to your thirst level (sometimes subtracts -
in the case of salt water)
- modifies your alcohol level (Dwarven Ale +10 or
something, coffee -5 ;-) and so on...


Misza
Anonymous
July 24, 2005 1:31:06 AM

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

Thomas wrote:
> I wanted to get some opinons on this idea. Making the food system on an
> RL more sophisticated by adding hunger and thirst veriables.

You could augment or replace the food system with a similar water
system, but a food system by any other name...

Instead, why not take the idea of a water resource and turn it into a
unique gameplay feature? Theres no reason that water should be treated
in the same way as food, with consumable items like water bottles,
juice jugs, or whatever.

Picture this: A dungeon populated by sporadic puddles, ponds, streams,
lakes etc. To survive, the player must drink directly from these life
giving pools. The key difference is thus: as opposed to discreet items,
like food, water exists as a geographical location which does not
disappear when drank from (at least not right away). The player would
be safe staying close to a known water source, at least until a herd of
Gargantuan Bladderbeasts showed up for a sip. When she decided to
venture out, however, she would need to move quickly and efficiently or
risk dehydration and eventual death. Perhaps the player would be forced
to compete with the local fauna for the precious water. Maybe she would
have to sneak ever so stealthily past a pack of vicious mega-jaguars
for a quick gulp, or else use her cunning to distract them for a few
minutes, or even lure another pack of beasties over to weaken or
disperse them. The player might be forced to defend a particularly
crucial waterhole against attack, leave behind traps before venturing
out, or even dig a well herself. The deeper she goes, the scarcer the
water becomes. It is used up quickly, and replenishes slowly or not at
all. The monsters become more desperate (as well as bigger and meaner).
Several groups or species might depend on the same waterhole. The
player might scuttle or poison the drinking spot of a particularly
nasty beast in order to drive it away or kill it.

The possibilites are numerous. Perhaps strange dungeon plants grow
around water, or even above hidden underground streams. One can imagine
epic battles being fought over a crucial waterhole. It is said the
world war will be fought over water. Maybe the next roguelike?
Anonymous
July 24, 2005 1:54:39 AM

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

On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 16:20:02 +0000, Risto Saarelma wrote:

> On 2005-07-22, Krice <paulkp@mbnet.fi> wrote:
>> Erik Piper wrote:
>>> Have you ever heard of the theory of the uncanny valley?
>>
>> Yes, it has nothing to do with RL development:) 
>
> I think he's got a point about something similar affecting game engines,
> though. If the game isn't very realistic at all, like current roguelikes
> tend to be, the player often just accepts the strange, abstract world as
> it is. But when the game starts to become more realistic, the player's
> expectations rise.

Then again, I like to play transport simulations even though I acknowledge
that details are often wrong. Racing simulations are quite popular though
all of them have some odd quirks, not to mention whole franchises such as
Sim* and various MMOGs.

The way I see it, it's more about credibility and immersion rather than
creating some ridiculously detailed parallel "the Matrix" world. Immersion
is all about appearance, whereas you seem to require an internally
complete world simulation.

I may be crazy, but I think a "hardcore realism" roguelike might
actually be a fun idea: put the player into the usual absurd medieval
fantasy setting, but let things have more spartan consequences. Let's see
how the player carries on after the first dungeon levels with dozens of
little goblin knife wounds on his legs, for instance. With a proper
sardonic twist to it it just might work.
July 24, 2005 4:42:24 PM

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

R. Dan Henry <danhenry@inreach.com> wrote:
> intake of water is from 2 to 4.5 liters per day. I'm glad you had no
> (obvious) problems as a result, but that isn't healthy.

I didn't even realise how permanently dehydrated I was until I started
drinking lots of water every day. If you're used to being dehydrated,
you won't even be consciously aware of that permanent headache and
mental fuzziness until it's gone.

I'm still deliberating on whether to include n/either food n/or water or
both in my game. I've got some development to go before it becomes a
real consideration; I'm currently wanting to have both, but with
vastly different, and non-overlapping functions. Still I am concerned
that I'd just make it into more of a "dining simulation" (good joke)
than a roguelike.
I would think, though, that even with overlapping purposes of food and
drink, it could be tolerable with a sufficiently friendly interface.

I still plan only to include both if they have a clearly differentiated
game purpose.

--jude hungerford.
July 25, 2005 2:18:16 PM

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

Great. There are some really great ideas comming from people now.

Sorry about not posting... long weekend.

First, I really liked what David Damerell said about using realistic
scales turning the game into an uniteresting drinking game and making
food never a problem. Because it seems to me that most people are
saying that it would only be good if it made the game more fun, i will
explain how i hope to do that.

First, As i have already explained, if you stick to just food rations
you will get both food and water. Water will only be an issue if you
only eat corpses--when it would be reasonable that you would then need
water on the side. Also, the scale for water would be larger and
faster. You depleate water faster but a cateen would give more. Also,
Food depletes while walking around and no more when fighting while
water would deplete very slowely during the game and fast while
fighting because you begin to sweat.
It would be easy to find water but it would act as a clock when
veturing into hell, the plane of fire, while fighting constantly, or
into the winderness away from lakes and rivers.
Also inside the very large area of there is no water problem the water
number scale there would be most of it as a very small penalty while
the very top would be a bonus. As edw said above, You can survive just
fine for extended periods of time without water but you mind is clouded
if you dont have enough. So you might get slight minues if you are not
entirly satiated but there is no way for the player to know when that
is because they are reported as the same... as edw said, you dont
notice it until you stop... i know what thats like!
Further, in my game niether water nor food will kill you as easily by
starvation and dehydration but will instead incure larger and larger
minues. You right that someone can survie more than 2 weeks starving
but i doubt that person would be very good roles... and eventually they
would die. Lack of water could incur hallucination and lack of food
could give large minues to strength roles. There could be a penalty to
casting spells with a dry mouth as there are penalties for melee
strength roles for lack of food... but then again most of this would
seldom come up because a food ration takes care of both and has a low
chance of being poisoned or rotton also. But bringing a jug of water
onto the plane of fire might be a good idea....

-Thomas
RL: CHAZM
Anonymous
July 25, 2005 4:58:09 PM

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

On Mon, 25 Jul 2005 15:30:28 +0000 (UTC), The Sheep <thesheep@
sheep.prv.pl> wrote:

>Almost 5 liters seems a lot!

It is. Move to a hot climate and get active and see how much you sweat
out, though.

--
R. Dan Henry = danhenry@inreach.com
Anonymous
July 25, 2005 7:24:20 PM

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

At 23 Jul 2005 21:31:06 -0700,
Seco One wrote:

> Instead, why not take the idea of a water resource and turn it into a
> unique gameplay feature? Theres no reason that water should be treated
> in the same way as food, with consumable items like water bottles,
> juice jugs, or whatever.

<snip>

Another approach -- don't keep a counter on the amount of water, instead
add a 'dry throat' state. It seems interesting at the first thought:

The 'dry throat' may be inflicted by various events: eating spicy/salty
food, stepping on lava, falling for a dust trap, couching on a dust from
cursed scroll, being hit with a "mute" spell, quaffing potion of thirst,
being hit by special attacks of some monsters, haggling too much, etc.

Some weapons (a whip maybe?) could also cause this effect on critical hit
(strangling).

When you're in this state, you can't cast any spells or issue orders to
your pets. You also can't talk to NPC and haggle in stores (altrough you
can still buy things by point-and-grunt techinque). Depending on the
game's mechanics, you might be unable to read scrolls (they may be
required to be red aloud). You may be also unable to eat anything.

Depending on the game mechanics again, you can heal this state by drinking
a potion of water, drinking any potion (but the effect of that potion is
disabled, since you only "flush your throat"), or just drinking any
potion with it's "normal" effect.

It could add pretty much to the game. You'd probably always carry some
kind of potion with you. You could try to acquire "dry throat" on purpose,
just to safely identify some potions (the ones that can be recognized "by
taste" while flushing your throat). You'd have choices like: should
I sacrifice this potion of stat gain to clear my dry throat and be able to
cast some powerful spell?

--
Radomir `The Sheep' Dopieralski @**@_
(><) 3 Ouch!
. . . ..v.vVvVVvVvv.v.. .
!