Article about CRPGs at Escapist Magazine

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

There's a good article about RPG design at Escapist Magazine. Although
it's not directly relevant to this ng, it does touch on several topics
which are frequently discussed here: role playing, permadeath, and
immersiveness to name a few. Plus it's a fun read. Here's the link:

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/issue/4/31

- JH.
43 answers Last reply
More about article crpgs escapist magazine
  1. Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

    Looks very interesting!

    I read though the article and am not sure if i totally agree with what
    he is saying. I like his CRPG manifesto and agree with most of the
    points he makes early in the article. I can see why his projects failed
    and it is because of a major flaw that I have always found in
    paper-and-pencil games. They are far too subjective.

    As DM I always hated to kill off characters (players) and would
    sometimes find ways to allow them to extend their life. If you're DMin
    for a gorup of multiple characters, death could be an adventure. The
    rest of the characters could seek out the help of local powerful
    clerics for resurrection services. They could seek out a powerful item
    or other means to resurrect their fallen comrade. In a single player
    CRPG or in a situation in which all players die, it would be tough for
    a human to say "oops, now we need to start over."

    A computer, however, can be objective, and permadeath can allow a
    player to grow form game to game as they're forced to restart instead
    of relying on DMs fondness for the game to be resurrected and
    trivialize death. I am not trying to say that what happened ot the
    author of the article was not a problem, but that this does not exist
    in RLs. In an RL, permadeath is a perfect solution because each time
    the game restarts, a random world is created from a pattern or set of
    patterns. These patterns, because they are in such a basic form, have
    been tested many times, erase the problem of replaying a game.

    If a DM is planning his (her) game, they may think "Hey, ____ might be
    a really coll idea!" but the truth is that this idea is flawed, like
    the recurring spiders in the author's cave. I think that at teh center
    of an RL is the idea that the pattern can be perfect, generating
    perfect (near perfect :) ) worlds. This pattern can be fine-tuned,
    whereas if every single world in a CRPG needs to be fine-tuned by hand,
    as an RL's pattern would be, testers/players will experience flawed
    versions of the game and have the surprises of playing a virgin game.

    What this all boils down to, is my opinion that while the article is
    very interesting and, in my opinion, makes good points for using
    permadeath, also points out problems of CRPGs that do not exist in the
    CRPG subset: Rogue-likes. or...

    "RLs arrr kool 'cuz they dont have these problems... keep playing 'em!"

    Well... that was my two cents. I hope it didn't turn into (entirely) a
    rant supporting permadeath and RLs... ;)....

    Any other thoughts?...

    -Thomas
    RL: CHAZM
  2. Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

    Chris Morris:
    > - don't replace monsters that are killed

    I really agree with this one! In CHAZM, monsters will basically never
    spawn and be set at the begging. Then again, i am really going for
    realism.

    I think that the subjectivness of Dnd, and such pnp games, is more of a
    curse then a blessing. In MY opinon pnp games are more then anything
    else, social games. Why even fight in a game like that!? Why not just
    roleplay. Leave hack 'n slash for computers and just walk around
    talking with people, exploring, and solving mysteries and puzzles....
    or at least over fighting. Roleplaying is the great blessing of a
    subjective game. Problems can be fixed in CRPGs/RLs but subjectivness
    never can unless you get a heartless DM ;).... Isn't that what a
    computer sortof is?!

    Again, just my opinion... and i am sure i am in many ways very wrong
    but these are more then thoughts, observations without much processing
    ;)!

    I like these ideas....

    I think the most important thing is. In nethack you CANT slaughter
    hundreds of deer because there arn't hundreds of deer to kill!

    I think scenery is great and a few deer around for sceenery or
    emergincy food might be good but if you are putting hundreds there then
    i dont think that your EXP system is most at fault.

    > * Limited experience per species. Once you've killed your
    > hundredth deer, you've learned all about fighting that you
    > can be taught by killing deer. No more experience from
    > killing deer.

    Cool idea.... i really like this one. When i was much younger a GM
    (this was not dnd...) had to tell me that picking the same lock over
    and over would not keep giving me skill points (EXP...)! Really i was
    just being stupid! This would probably be unnessessary to actually
    implement but... its a cool thought!

    Well... gotta Go!

    -Thomas
    RL: CHAZM
  3. Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

    Lauri Vallo ha escrito:

    > On 07 Aug 2005 19:10:31 +0100, Chris Morris wrote:
    >
    > > - the more monsters that are killed in an area, the more likely a
    > > *really* out-of-depth monster will come to investigate.
    >
    > Anyone remember Wizball?

    Remember the game, but didn't play it so much :P

    Now that you mention an old C64 game, I remember another one with a
    (maybe?) similar behavior. In Soldier of Fortune, when you stayed too
    long walking an area, Death itself came directly after you. Likewise,
    when you abused the gold pots, they threw monsters at you instead of
    coins.

    Behaviors like these could be imported into a RL to prevent scumming.
  4. Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

    "Thomas" <comments@foresightsagas.com> writes:
    > I read though the article and am not sure if i totally agree with what
    > he is saying. I like his CRPG manifesto and agree with most of the
    > points he makes early in the article. I can see why his projects failed
    > and it is because of a major flaw that I have always found in
    > paper-and-pencil games. They are far too subjective.

    I'd hardly call that a flaw... it's more a flaw of computer games that
    they *can't* be subjective. This means that the unintended
    consequences of a particular design decision can go haywire because
    you *can't* code "don't be silly" into the game.

    For example, it should be impossible to use wishes to get more
    wishes. In ADoM, all the direct ways to do this are blocked, as are
    most of the indirect ways (recharging wands of wishing). However,
    there is still a way to do it. If anyone tried that one in a pen and
    paper game, even if technically the rules said it would work, the GM
    would just quietly re-roll the crucial roll to avoid horribly
    unbalancing everything, whereas in ADoM the objectivity of the RNG
    means that it *will* work eventually.

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

    Thomas wrote:
    > Looks very interesting!
    >
    > I read though the article and am not sure if i totally agree with what
    > he is saying. I like his CRPG manifesto and agree with most of the
    > points he makes early in the article. I can see why his projects failed


    His projects failed because he first used a system that
    rewarded inappropriate behavior, and second kept
    resurrecting everyone!

    The guy starts with a decent idea; run a CRPG as a serious
    game. But the execution fails because the players have
    acquired "munchkin" reflexes from CRPGs that aren't serious
    games. A period of training was required, where they run
    first-level characters and death sticks, and he didn't give
    it to 'em. Most RL's do give people that period of training.

    In defense of his players, he also made several entities in
    the game too powerful for a permadeath dungeon, such that
    those entities, when they became enemies to the party, could
    simply slaughter the entire party. UberPowerful Druids and
    bugs on endless respawn are overpowered for a permadeath
    game. MOST RL's don't do this, but some do.

    He needed to be able to intervene as GM and stop time when
    something bad happened while somebody was AFK getting a
    soda. From the tabletop game, this is "A Wyvern?! Okay,
    we're going to meelee. Mike, we need to get you in here to
    roll initiative!" This is not a problem in turn-based
    games like RL's.

    His last major problem though, is one that *is* shared by
    most RL games. He needed to take away more of the "munchkin"
    awards if he wanted his players to get into a non-munchkin
    headspace. No sane GM makes experience awards for senseless
    killing of natural animals incidental to the quest, and he
    shouldn't have done so either. In fact, 1/10thx experience
    would have been a better choice than 2.5x experience.

    And this brings up a central problem; the structure of
    experience awards. Given that CRPG players will game the
    experience system whenever they can, because they are like
    junkies and leveling up is crack; how do you arrange the
    experience awards so that they don't do nonsensical things
    that destroy or destructure the adventure?

    I think:

    * Experience awards for exploration (seeing territory
    not seen before) is less subject to abuse than most systems,
    assuming your game doesn't offer endless risk-free territory
    to explore.

    * Limited experience per species. Once you've killed your
    hundredth deer, you've learned all about fighting that you
    can be taught by killing deer. No more experience from
    killing deer.

    * Big awards tied to accomplishing missions. Maybe even
    limit other kinds of experience-taking for the duration
    of the mission. So when you accept a quest to go kill
    the orcish chieftian, you forego leveling up until you
    get him.

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

    > (The only problem I had was with the typical crpg saving and loading,
    > which Is another double edged sword. Give me a mode where I get a
    > penalty for "dying" and only the roguelike quit and come back -saving
    > and I'm happy. But if you let me die that would also break immersion.
    > So I hope there is some way to make battles tough and let you try them
    > again a few times without breaking immersion with saving and loading,
    > or make me start the whole game again, or anything strap-on and
    > cheesy)

    Do you mean 'bolted on'? 'Strap-on' means something a bit different in
    English...

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

    Ray Dillinger <bear@sonic.net> writes:
    > And this brings up a central problem; the structure of
    > experience awards. Given that CRPG players will game the
    > experience system whenever they can, because they are like
    > junkies and leveling up is crack; how do you arrange the
    > experience awards so that they don't do nonsensical things
    > that destroy or destructure the adventure?
    >
    > * Experience awards for exploration
    > * Limited experience per species.
    > * Big awards tied to accomplishing missions.

    Additional possibilities
    - make monsters tougher the more of their kind that have been killed
    previously (ADoM does this, though with some well-known bugs)
    - use a game clock (literal, or hunger, or corruption) to keep PCs
    moving instead of hanging around in the Room of Very Easy Monsters
    - the more monsters that are killed in an area, the more likely a
    *really* out-of-depth monster will come to investigate.
    - don't replace monsters that are killed

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

    Chris Morris wrote:
    > Additional possibilities
    > - make monsters tougher the more of their kind that have been killed
    > previously (ADoM does this, though with some well-known bugs)

    Meh. That doesn't really stop munchkining, and is a bit of a kludgey
    hack to a serious problem.

    > - use a game clock (literal, or hunger, or corruption) to keep PCs
    > moving instead of hanging around in the Room of Very Easy Monsters

    Definitely. This is one of the reasons (IMO) that RLs are such great
    games. Especially the way ADoM does it, with corruption. Methods of
    curing corruption are rare, and there are a limited number of
    guaranteed sources, forcing players to keep moving. Whereas food
    typically isn't too hard to obtain.

    > - the more monsters that are killed in an area, the more likely a
    > *really* out-of-depth monster will come to investigate.

    Eh, maybe. It really seems silly, except in certain situations.
    Also, it'd be kind of silly if the monster who comes to investigate is
    uber-powerful. Hell, why couldn't he be weaker occasionally? Maybe a
    retarded little goblin who is wondering why he hasn't seen any deer in
    the woods for a long time.

    As to sending in uber-monsters to investigate, I'm for it as long as
    it makes sense and doesn't occur to often. Like, having the powerful
    Captain of the Guard investigate why his men haven't shown up for
    their shift yet. Or the Necromancer checking his laboratory, to see
    why the screams have stopped.

    > - don't replace monsters that are killed

    This might be interesting, to an extent. Let the player's see the
    consequences of their actions.


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

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

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

    On 07 Aug 2005 19:10:31 +0100, Chris Morris wrote:

    > - the more monsters that are killed in an area, the more likely a
    > *really* out-of-depth monster will come to investigate.

    Anyone remember Wizball?
  10. Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

    Chris Morris wrote:
    >Ray Dillinger writes:
    >> And this brings up a central problem; the structure of
    >> experience awards. Given that CRPG players will game the
    >> experience system whenever they can, because they are like
    >> junkies and leveling up is crack; how do you arrange the
    >> experience awards so that they don't do nonsensical things
    >> that destroy or destructure the adventure?
    >>
    >> * Experience awards for exploration
    >> * Limited experience per species.
    >> * Big awards tied to accomplishing missions.
    >
    >Additional possibilities
    > - make monsters tougher the more of their kind that have been killed
    > previously (ADoM does this, though with some well-known bugs)
    > - use a game clock (literal, or hunger, or corruption) to keep PCs
    > moving instead of hanging around in the Room of Very Easy Monsters
    > - the more monsters that are killed in an area, the more likely a
    > *really* out-of-depth monster will come to investigate.
    > - don't replace monsters that are killed

    One way is to throw out the numbers and make it an adventure game,
    your power is your equipment. We have enough of these crpg math games.

    Another way is to just take out all the exploitable bugs out of the
    system so that even a munchkin plays like everyone else.

    Limited exp per species could work if the limit is low enough (5-50),
    so repetitive behaviour isn't encouraged.
    Monsters getting tougher doesn't always make sense and won't fix the
    problem completely.
    A game clock is good, but too often exploitable, and can make the game
    stressful if the game is open ended.
    Out of depth surprises don't always make sense.
    Permanently dead monsters make the game feel static.

    So I would give exp for exploring By giving exp only for killing the
    first few times. This exp I would rather not call "exp", but some sort
    of fighting or spellcasting skill, whatever was used. No reason to
    keep the "math game" stamp if the game isn't about it. Getting items
    would be the other way to power. They'd come through quests, boss
    monsters and secret stashes, which would mean exploring.

    The best adventure game I've played is fairy tale adventure 2. Most of
    the game is open ended exploring in a very nice amount of content, few
    quests (no stressful lists), a weak story with not much guidance. I
    don't remember it having exp, but it had weapon skills that rose
    slowly. It was good as you weren't pushed anywhere, and couldn't get
    lost as things would kill you fast, but you had many ways to explore
    still. Things respawned, but slowly. You felt weak in the beginning,
    but got bits of items here and there, always trying your limits. I
    didn't feel like doing anything repetitive as there was so much
    content.
    (The only problem I had was with the typical crpg saving and loading,
    which Is another double edged sword. Give me a mode where I get a
    penalty for "dying" and only the roguelike quit and come back -saving
    and I'm happy. But if you let me die that would also break immersion.
    So I hope there is some way to make battles tough and let you try them
    again a few times without breaking immersion with saving and loading,
    or make me start the whole game again, or anything strap-on and
    cheesy)
  11. Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

    "Timothy Pruett" <drakalor.tourist@gmail.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
    news:StuJe.4143$Mq4.3768@fe05.lga...
    > Chris Morris wrote:
    >> Additional possibilities
    >> - make monsters tougher the more of their kind that have been killed
    >> previously (ADoM does this, though with some well-known bugs)
    >
    > Meh. That doesn't really stop munchkining, and is a bit of a kludgey hack
    > to a serious problem.
    >
    >> - use a game clock (literal, or hunger, or corruption) to keep PCs
    >> moving instead of hanging around in the Room of Very Easy Monsters
    >
    > Definitely. This is one of the reasons (IMO) that RLs are such great
    > games. Especially the way ADoM does it, with corruption. Methods of
    > curing corruption are rare, and there are a limited number of guaranteed
    > sources, forcing players to keep moving. Whereas food

    Please no! I hate games with time limits. It's the reason why I never really
    got into games like Adom or Fallout.

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

    > Because you know better than them what is entertaining for them.

    I agree. Everyone would rather play an exciting game with easy moments
    and hard moments regulated by your play and not a game where you can
    cheat the RNG and the game's setup by becoming far too powerful too
    fast. If the developer makes it so that killing sheep over and over
    doesent infact skyrocket your exp points then he is doing you a
    service. Just like preventing save-scumming, the developer SHOULD make
    ingame scumming not worthwhile. A player doesent want to keep a list of
    actions in mind that they could do but shouldn't do for the playability
    of the game just like a player shouldn't just kill sheep 500 times to
    get to level 15....
    Its the developers job to make a balenced game.... If you want to cheat
    i could name a hundred commercial games that have that function whithin
    easy grasp....

    But seriously. Preventing scumming is just like part of game
    balence.... its not unnatural.... The game should be balenced shouldn't
    it.

    Quaffing from fountains/sinks in nethack is a good example. quaffing
    can be really good... or really bad. if instead of there being a 10%
    chance for a bad effect and a 10% chance for a good one there was just
    a 5% chance for a good one and no chance for a bad effect... Then the
    player could just sit there Quaffing until he has all the rings and
    whishs available in the game!

    thats not balenced is it.... A game is supposed to be fun but for most
    of us, balanced means--more fun!

    -Thomas
    RL: CHAZM
  13. Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

    Ray Dillinger <bear@sonic.net> schrieb:
    > His projects failed because he first used a system that rewarded
    > inappropriate behavior, and second kept resurrecting everyone!

    > * Experience awards for exploration
    > * Limited experience per species
    > * Big awards tied to accomplishing missions

    You have, of course, left out 'do away with the experience system'.

    --
    Jim Strathmeyer
  14. Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

    Bear:
    > It should come slower.

    Mhmm. Definitly. I dont see the biggest problem being to 10-500 hp
    problem.... Sure the difference between first and twentyith level is
    huge but it is a fantasy and hopefully in a given game a 10th level
    player with great items and good stratagy could beat a 15th level
    player with average items and not as good stratagy.... Maybe its old
    fashined now but i like the levels system from ADnD. I do agree the
    leveling needs to be slower. In a lot of RLs it seems like it takes ten
    minutes to get your first levelup...! What. In nethack i've done that
    in under two minutes many times! It makes levels trivial. Your first
    level should come after 3-5 hours of play and many monsters killed and
    most importantly lots of terrain explored! and then the levels should
    keep comming SLOWER after that... not faster like often! In my opinion
    the main (only?) big problem with the leveling system is the way it is
    trivialized by speed leveling....

    As far as 20th level being too powerful and too different from first
    level, call it suspending disbelief, call it magic, call it a
    representation of their skills of taking damage in smaller quantities
    (taking arrows on the shoulder not the chest!) or whatever.... but i
    think it makes the game more fun!

    *Note: i dont think it should be the only system... Chazm will have
    levels, specialized classes, and a comprehensive skills system also....

    -Thomas
    RL: CHAZM
  15. Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

    "copx" <invalid@invalid.com> wrote:
    >"Timothy Pruett" <drakalor.tourist@gmail.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
    >news:StuJe.4143$Mq4.3768@fe05.lga...
    >> Definitely. This is one of the reasons (IMO) that RLs are such great
    >> games. Especially the way ADoM does it, with corruption. Methods of
    >> curing corruption are rare, and there are a limited number of guaranteed
    >> sources, forcing players to keep moving. Whereas food
    >
    >Please no! I hate games with time limits. It's the reason why I never really
    >got into games like Adom or Fallout.

    ADOM does *not* have a hard time limit for its main quest. People have
    posted YAVPs with game-clock times in excess of one year and relatively
    modest lists of corruptions, and not all of them were lawfuls born under
    the Unicorn who saved their cashing-in of the Unicorn quest reward until
    after they'd closed the gate. Also, scoring an Ultra ending, while it
    requires you to do *some* things relatively quickly, also requires you to
    do some things that are relatively hard to achieve until quite a lot of
    game time has elapsed. For that matter, anyone who does the quickling
    tree adds quite a lot of elapsed time to their game clock; time passes
    strangely in there.

    Basically: In ADOM, you have far more than enough time to win the game
    without major risk, unless you decide to fritter away several game-months
    farming the lower (deeply chaos-irradiated) reaches of the dungeon for
    potions of gain attributes.
    --
    Martin Read - my opinions are my own. share them if you wish.
    illusion/kinetics controlling is love
  16. Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

    laEEKSPMAva@kolumbus.fi (Lauri Vallo) wrote:
    >Another way is to just take out all the exploitable bugs out of the
    >system so that even a munchkin plays like everyone else.

    If you somehow achieve this, please let Statesman and Positron know :)
    --
    Martin Read - my opinions are my own. share them if you wish.
    illusion/kinetics controlling is love
  17. Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

    Martin Read <mpread@chiark.greenend.org.uk> writes:
    > laEEKSPMAva@kolumbus.fi (Lauri Vallo) wrote:
    > >Another way is to just take out all the exploitable bugs out of the
    > >system so that even a munchkin plays like everyone else.
    >
    > If you somehow achieve this, please let Statesman and Positron know :)

    What's the exploitable bug in Rogue?

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

    The Sheep <thesheep@ sheep.prv.pl> writes:

    > Well, it's not that we lacks the ways to punish scumming.

    Perhaps I'm missing some crucial point here, but I don't understand just why
    scumming must be punished. (In normal individual play, that is - it's obvious
    that for competitions and the like, you need to have a fair situation for all
    your contestants.)

    So anyway, let's say I make a roguelike, and three people play it. One plays
    it "straight", and finishes it with a record-low turn count. One "scums" for
    good items and waits until he can descend from level to level in absolute
    safety. When he finishes, his turn count is 100x that of the first player.
    The third player "cheats", backing up his save files and restoring them to
    avoid dying and other negative situations.

    Now here's what I don't understand. My goal in writing an RL is to entertain
    people. Let's suppose that all three of these guys enjoyed playing my game,
    even though they each had their own way of playing it. I think of that as a
    success. So, why would I want to "punish" the player(s) who chose the "wrong"
    way to play?

    sherm--

    --
    Cocoa programming in Perl: http://camelbones.sourceforge.net
    Hire me! My resume: http://www.dot-app.org
  19. Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

    Thomas wrote:
    > Bear:
    > > It should come slower.
    > Your first level should come after 3-5 hours of play and many monsters
    > killed and most importantly lots of terrain explored!

    Allow me to play devil's advocate here, but I am going to disagree. I
    think that your character should be able to achieve their first level
    up in around 30-60 minutes of actual dungeon exploration. If we were
    talking about conventional CRPGs such as Morrowind, I would be inclined
    to agree with you on this point, but RLs are a different class
    entirely, something I've quickly learned as I shifted my game from
    conventional CRPG to RL. Most RLs are low on plot and high on
    adventure. Spending 3-5 hours battling bats and orcs just so my
    personified '@' can reach level 2 isn't my idea of fun. It feels more
    like a forced version of scumming to me.

    > and then the levels should keep comming SLOWER after that... not faster
    > like often! In my opinion the main (only?) big problem with the leveling
    > system is the way it is trivialized by speed leveling....

    Im not disagreeing here. Speed leveling spoils a game's balance,
    assuming that the game had balance to begin with. The first few levels
    of any RPG are dull and unenlightening, but once a character has some
    expanded abilities, some options on where to go and what monsters to
    fight, and some equipment to help distinguish them from the rest of the
    level n fighters, that's when you want to have 3-5 hours per level.

    Keep in mind the attention spans of many players though, you'll need to
    make sure your game world is big enough and packed with enough content
    to keep a level 10 character happy challenged as he tries to make his
    way to level 11. If my lvl 10 character is having trouble battling the
    snow beasts of the ice cave, and the only real leveling option is the
    vile crypt, I dont want to have to spend 6-10 hours in the crypt
    wandering around battling the same 3-4 creatures with little feeling of
    accomplishment.

    > As far as 20th level being too powerful and too different from first
    > level, call it suspending disbelief, call it magic, call it a
    > representation of their skills of taking damage in smaller quantities
    > (taking arrows on the shoulder not the chest!) or whatever.... but i
    > think it makes the game more fun!

    Im peachy with suspending my disbelief also. Realism is all well and
    good, but part of RPGs for me has always been "get more hit points,
    kill things with more hit points, etc." Sometimes Im a very
    numbers-oriented person, and seeing an extra digit of HP on my
    character gives me a REAL feeling of accomplishment.

    > *Note: i dont think it should be the only system... Chazm will have
    > levels, specialized classes, and a comprehensive skills system also....

    Good luck merging classes and skills! (non-sarcastic good luck, btw. Im
    looking forward to seeing how it turns out)
  20. Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

    At 7 Aug 2005 15:53:54 -0700,
    Kaleth wrote:

    > Lauri Vallo ha escrito:
    >> On 07 Aug 2005 19:10:31 +0100, Chris Morris wrote:
    > Now that you mention an old C64 game, I remember another one with a
    > (maybe?) similar behavior. In Soldier of Fortune, when you stayed too
    > long walking an area, Death itself came directly after you. Likewise,
    > when you abused the gold pots, they threw monsters at you instead of
    > coins.

    > Behaviors like these could be imported into a RL to prevent scumming.

    Well, it's not that we lacks the ways to punish scumming.
    There seems to be some problems with *detecting* scumming, so that
    you won't punish fo something which is not scumming, for example
    the player having extraordinary luck.

    You don't want to strip the 1-in-1000 exceptions, because they make the
    game interesting (and with lots of different exceptions, their chances are
    a lot greater than 1-in-1000).


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

    At 08 Aug 2005 11:02:35 +0100,
    Chris Morris wrote:

    > Martin Read <mpread@chiark.greenend.org.uk> writes:
    >> laEEKSPMAva@kolumbus.fi (Lauri Vallo) wrote:
    >> >Another way is to just take out all the exploitable bugs out of the
    >> >system so that even a munchkin plays like everyone else.
    >>
    >> If you somehow achieve this, please let Statesman and Positron know :)
    >
    > What's the exploitable bug in Rogue?

    You could exploit dragon's fireballs, for example.


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

    Yeah. I like the typical hack 'n slash of Rl's but to me the most
    important parts of an rl are ADnD style system, Ascii interface and
    graphics, Permadeath, and strange magic and effects. I dont see hack 'n
    slash as a requirment. I always liked the BG style storylines and being
    able to talk to people. Many have pointed out how an RL needs to focus
    more on exploration then kill everything in sight and i think that is
    how it needs to happen. Sure, its fun to go off and kill 25 skelletons
    in a gravyard and then fight the master lich, but finding cities and
    talking with people, fighting in taverns, and joining theives guilds
    would be far more fun as the majority of the game....

    > Im looking forward to seeing how it turns out

    Thanks!

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

    The Sheep <thesheep@ sheep.prv.pl> writes:
    > At 08 Aug 2005 11:02:35 +0100,
    > Chris Morris wrote:
    > > Martin Read <mpread@chiark.greenend.org.uk> writes:
    > >> laEEKSPMAva@kolumbus.fi (Lauri Vallo) wrote:
    > >> >Another way is to just take out all the exploitable bugs out of the
    > >> >system so that even a munchkin plays like everyone else.
    > >>
    > >> If you somehow achieve this, please let Statesman and Positron know :)
    > >
    > > What's the exploitable bug in Rogue?
    >
    > You could exploit dragon's fireballs, for example.

    Great. Now I'm going to have to go back to playing Rogue to see if I
    can get as far as the dragons... (I never got further than L18)

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

    The Sheep wrote:
    > At Mon, 08 Aug 2005 11:23:50 -0400,
    > Sherm Pendley wrote:
    >
    > > The Sheep <thesheep@ sheep.prv.pl> writes:
    > >
    > >> Well, it's not that we lacks the ways to punish scumming.
    > >
    > > Perhaps I'm missing some crucial point here, but I don't understand just why
    > > scumming must be punished. (In normal individual play, that is - it's obvious
    > > that for competitions and the like, you need to have a fair situation for all
    > > your contestants.)
    >

    > I tend to agree that the other way, that is increasing the outcome from
    > interesting play, could give you much better results.

    I think this is the thing designers should work towards. If your game
    is boring enough for a significant majority of the players to get more
    fun out of watching herbs grow for an appreciable amount of time,
    rather than exploring the dungeon environment, you've got yourself an
    issue.

    Granted, there are certain players that, even if there's an exciting
    world out there, will still pick the activities that maximized the
    game. Its not something that can be avoided in a hard-coded game, and
    its difficult at best to avoid it in a truly random one as well.
  25. Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

    On Mon, 08 Aug 2005 11:23:50 -0400, Sherm Pendley wrote:

    >Now here's what I don't understand. My goal in writing an RL is to entertain
    >people. Let's suppose that all three of these guys enjoyed playing my game,
    >even though they each had their own way of playing it. I think of that as a
    >success. So, why would I want to "punish" the player(s) who chose the "wrong"
    >way to play?

    Because you know better than them what is entertaining for them.

    I know that sounds stupid, but it just might be true.

    It's the munchkin and gamist in most of us that wants to finish the
    game. That part of us does not care about the path to finishing. It
    has its goal: to win. But repetitive gameplay isn't fun for the other
    part of us, the explorer and adventurer. Some human brains are more
    adventurous than others, and do less of that, but you as a developer
    can help crush the munchkin in us, and play a fun game.
  26. Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

    Jim Strathmeyer wrote:
    > Ray Dillinger <bear@sonic.net> schrieb:
    >
    >>* Experience awards for exploration
    >>* Limited experience per species
    >>* Big awards tied to accomplishing missions
    >
    >
    > You have, of course, left out 'do away with the experience system'.

    You keep sayin' that. I haven't yet heard anything
    convincing to replace it with.

    I agree that experience as interpreted by most RL's
    (and D&D which seems to have inspired some of the first
    RL's) is kind of silly. It needs some toning down. It
    should come slower, and the differences between characters
    of different levels shouldn't be as great as they mostly
    are.

    But going completely without it? I don't understand
    why the beginning character doesn't just instantly dive
    straight to the better equipment on the bottom of the
    dungeon. I mean, sure it's risky, but if he finds good
    equipment before he gets killed, his cumulative risk is
    less than trying to do all the stuff inbetween and he
    misses nothing by missing experience, right?

    So instead of telling us what's wrong with the idea
    of experience, why not explain how you propose a game
    without it to work?

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

    Sherm Pendley wrote:
    > The Sheep <thesheep@ sheep.prv.pl> writes:
    >
    >
    >>Well, it's not that we lacks the ways to punish scumming.
    >
    >
    > Perhaps I'm missing some crucial point here, but I don't understand just why
    > scumming must be punished. (In normal individual play, that is - it's obvious
    > that for competitions and the like, you need to have a fair situation for all
    > your contestants.)
    >
    > So anyway, let's say I make a roguelike, and three people play it. One plays
    > it "straight", and finishes it with a record-low turn count. One "scums" for
    > good items and waits until he can descend from level to level in absolute
    > safety. When he finishes, his turn count is 100x that of the first player.
    > The third player "cheats", backing up his save files and restoring them to
    > avoid dying and other negative situations.
    >
    > Now here's what I don't understand. My goal in writing an RL is to entertain
    > people. Let's suppose that all three of these guys enjoyed playing my game,
    > even though they each had their own way of playing it. I think of that as a
    > success. So, why would I want to "punish" the player(s) who chose the "wrong"
    > way to play?
    >
    > sherm--
    >

    Because many of us - myself included - feel compelled to scum as long as
    it gives an unequivocally positive result - even though it isn't
    entertaining at all. In ADoM, I feel compelled to herb scum, even though
    I am not very good at it. It's boring and makes the rest of the game
    less exciting, and I die from overconfidence. Crawl is a much more fun
    game to me, as it doesn't reward scummy behaviour (unless you play a Sif
    Muna worshipping mummy). I find myself actually spending most of the
    time I play Crawl actually playing the game, rather than sitting and
    doing low-risk high-reward actions over and over.

    Yes, sure, I could stop myself from scumming, but it requires effort to
    resist the compulsion to have as powerful a character as possible with
    as low a risk as possible - expending this effort makes for a less
    entertaining time playing the game. If the game itself punishes such
    behaviour, or doesn't present the opportunity to engage in such
    behaviour at all, the compulsion is non-existent and I can enjoy the
    game that much more.

    Sure it's selfish of me to demand that a game punishes behaviour that
    *I* find ruins enjoyment, when other people find such behaviour is
    entertaining in and of itself, but that's just the way I am.
  28. Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

    You guys seems to be mixing up uses of the word scumming. I've only ever
    heard it used like 'save scumming', in which it describes blatant
    cheating behavior. Others seem to be using 'scumming' to mean
    'exploiting'.

    Exploits are also bad because the player may not know what is and isn't
    an expoit. A very recent version of nethack had an exploit where you
    could dupe any item (including wands of wishing) with two loadstones.
    This is an obvious example of where the players knows an action is an
    exploit, but the 'being completely safe but taking a hundred times more
    game-turns' example is fuzzy. What's wrong with the player taking
    actions that will cause the highest percent chance of victory? I always
    found Morrowind to be trivial (and thus unplayable) because I would
    always wait to level up until I got the max bonuses. Is this what the
    designers expected the players to do? How am I supposed to know when I'm
    supposed to level up? It seems like the answer is 'as soon as given the
    chance to', but then why not add that constraint to the game?

    --
    Jim Strathmeyer
  29. Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

    Jim Strathmeyer a écrit :
    > You guys seems to be mixing up uses of the word scumming. I've only ever
    > heard it used like 'save scumming', in which it describes blatant
    > cheating behavior. Others seem to be using 'scumming' to mean
    > 'exploiting'.
    >
    > Exploits are also bad because the player may not know what is and isn't
    > an expoit. A very recent version of nethack had an exploit where you
    > could dupe any item (including wands of wishing) with two loadstones.
    > This is an obvious example of where the players knows an action is an
    > exploit, but the 'being completely safe but taking a hundred times more
    > game-turns' example is fuzzy. What's wrong with the player taking
    > actions that will cause the highest percent chance of victory? I always
    > found Morrowind to be trivial (and thus unplayable) because I would
    > always wait to level up until I got the max bonuses. Is this what the
    > designers expected the players to do? How am I supposed to know when I'm
    > supposed to level up? It seems like the answer is 'as soon as given the
    > chance to', but then why not add that constraint to the game?
    >

    Yeah, Morrowind would have been a better experience without that stupid
    leveling system. There was so much difference in the power level on a PC
    depending on the "way" you trained your skills.

    - Edurance change isn't retroactive on the max hp computed at each level
    up. Since you can upgrade the Endurance at level up, it makes maxing
    that stat early very important
    - If you level without training a few non important skills, you get a
    massive cut back on the stat boost at level up
    - If you level while training a lot your non important skills, you get a
    massive loss on the potential stat boost on the long run

    They should have got rid of the levelup part in the first place. Or
    maybe they shouldn't have tied the stat boost with the level up.
  30. Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

    Jim Strathmeyer wrote:
    > You guys seems to be mixing up uses of the word scumming. I've only ever
    > heard it used like 'save scumming', in which it describes blatant
    > cheating behavior. Others seem to be using 'scumming' to mean
    > 'exploiting'.

    Well, I've heard it used about other low-risk high-reward repetitive
    actions as well. That's why I provided an example of scummy behaviour in
    my post (which you neglected to quote. Why?) that is obviously within
    the rules of the game, and not an exploit at all; herb scumming in ADoM.
    This is where you just pick a hell of a lot of herbs, for sacrificing
    and stat boosting.

    You can, of course, use exploits to increase the effectiveness of said
    stat boosting, but that's a different thing. Scumming, to me, is all
    low-risk high-reward repetitive activity, and it's not just me and two
    other guys who employ the word in this sense.


    > Exploits are also bad because the player may not know what is and isn't
    > an expoit. A very recent version of nethack had an exploit where you
    > could dupe any item (including wands of wishing) with two loadstones.
    > This is an obvious example of where the players knows an action is an
    > exploit, but the 'being completely safe but taking a hundred times more
    > game-turns' example is fuzzy. What's wrong with the player taking
    > actions that will cause the highest percent chance of victory? I always
    > found Morrowind to be trivial (and thus unplayable) because I would
    > always wait to level up until I got the max bonuses. Is this what the
    > designers expected the players to do? How am I supposed to know when I'm
    > supposed to level up? It seems like the answer is 'as soon as given the
    > chance to', but then why not add that constraint to the game?
    >

    Of course you'd wait to level in Morrowind until you could get the max
    bonus - and to maximise your stats you'd want to train endurance to the
    max first, which probably means a lot of being bit by a rat or Kwama
    Forager or antagonised Scrib while wearing medium or heavy armour. Is
    this fun? No. Does it yield the most powerful character possible? Well,
    not technically -- alchemy exploits are waaaaaaay more effective (It is
    trivial to finish the game in under two hours if you know your way
    around and know how to do good alchemy exploits. In fact, it's been done
    in about 15 minutes, see http://speeddemosarchive.com/Morrowind.html ).
    But it yields a much more powerful character than if you just walked
    around doing what NPCs told you to or whatever else you thought was fun.
    Morrowind rewards repetitive low-risk gameplay - "scumming" - more than
    it rewards fun, and that is its single greatest weakness -- for
    powergamers. Any powergamer will trivialise the game -- but I know
    several people who aren't powergamers and who get lots of fun out of
    Morrowind. For them, the leveling system in Morrowind is great; it makes
    them better at what they think is fun to do in the game.
  31. Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

    On Mon, 08 Aug 2005 17:01:45 GMT, Ray Dillinger wrote:

    >I agree that experience as interpreted by most RL's
    >(and D&D which seems to have inspired some of the first
    >RL's) is kind of silly. It needs some toning down. It
    >should come slower, and the differences between characters
    >of different levels shouldn't be as great as they mostly
    >are.

    Of course, things can work nicely with exp, if you balance things with
    food or other limits.

    >But going completely without it? I don't understand
    >why the beginning character doesn't just instantly dive
    >straight to the better equipment on the bottom of the
    >dungeon. I mean, sure it's risky, but if he finds good
    >equipment before he gets killed, his cumulative risk is
    >less than trying to do all the stuff inbetween and he
    >misses nothing by missing experience, right?

    That can be made impossible. Just make the monsters strong enough and
    don't let him save and reload (cheaters always can, yes yes), and add
    traps that can't be disarmed, etc. etc.

    >So instead of telling us what's wrong with the idea
    >of experience, why not explain how you propose a game
    >without it to work?

    If you want some new system for progression that could maybe possibly
    be easier to balance than exp then try
    The 'exp for exploring' idea,
    Weapon skill that is learned by killing a type of creature.
    Combine those two and make it 500 squares explored and 10 of 3 types
    of monsters killed for one weapon skill increase.
    5 pockets picked, 3 secret doors found or 10 stealth attacks for a
    thieving skillup.

    I think you just need to try out some of those crazy idas, and let
    some mistake in the code make it perfect. *smile*

    But whatever you make, put it on top of a basic game which has
    Items items items, in dangerous areas that can't be snuck into, on
    impossibly dangerous creatures.
    Items should be your power. That's how I see it, and I know it can
    work, because it works in FPS games and many cRPGs where the levels
    are there just for extra complication, and to make the game have "rpg
    elements". Final fantasy 3, 6, 7, faery tale adventure 2, Zeldas
  32. Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

    Killing of same typ of lower level monsters again and again is boring too
    and without levelup you can't win against stronger ones without a
    unpropotional high risk,there is only so much tactic can do.I would play
    every game that forces me to fight rats and kobolds for the first 2 hours to
    only fight Kobols ,bigger rats and goblins for the next 2 hours only once.
  33. Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

    Lauri Vallo wrote:

    > On Mon, 08 Aug 2005 17:01:45 GMT, Ray Dillinger wrote:
    >
    >>I agree that experience as interpreted by most RL's
    >>(and D&D which seems to have inspired some of the first
    >>RL's) is kind of silly. It needs some toning down. It
    >>should come slower, and the differences between characters
    >>of different levels shouldn't be as great as they mostly
    >>are.
    >
    > Of course, things can work nicely with exp, if you balance things with
    > food or other limits.
    >
    >>But going completely without it? I don't understand
    >>why the beginning character doesn't just instantly dive
    >>straight to the better equipment on the bottom of the
    >>dungeon. I mean, sure it's risky, but if he finds good
    >>equipment before he gets killed, his cumulative risk is
    >>less than trying to do all the stuff inbetween and he
    >>misses nothing by missing experience, right?
    >
    > That can be made impossible. Just make the monsters strong enough and
    > don't let him save and reload (cheaters always can, yes yes), and add
    > traps that can't be disarmed, etc. etc.
    >
    >>So instead of telling us what's wrong with the idea
    >>of experience, why not explain how you propose a game
    >>without it to work?
    >
    > If you want some new system for progression that could maybe possibly
    > be easier to balance than exp then try
    > The 'exp for exploring' idea,
    > Weapon skill that is learned by killing a type of creature.
    > Combine those two and make it 500 squares explored and 10 of 3 types
    > of monsters killed for one weapon skill increase.
    > 5 pockets picked, 3 secret doors found or 10 stealth attacks for a
    > thieving skillup.
    >
    > I think you just need to try out some of those crazy idas, and let
    > some mistake in the code make it perfect. *smile*
    >
    > But whatever you make, put it on top of a basic game which has
    > Items items items, in dangerous areas that can't be snuck into, on
    > impossibly dangerous creatures.

    And why that ? What if you want to play a real stealh rogue for once. You
    got half that was needed right : xp not from killing monsters but from
    exploration/going forward but got the other half wrong : no items if you
    don't kill monsters :)

    If I play a sneaky char and I get inside that room with lots of items
    undetected, I deserve the xp and the items as much as the barbarian who
    pressed himself the alamr button to kill more monsters.
  34. Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

    On Mon, 08 Aug 2005 21:50:03 +0200, Christophe Cavalaria wrote:
    >Lauri Vallo wrote:

    >> But whatever you make, put it on top of a basic game which has
    >> Items items items, in dangerous areas that can't be snuck into, on
    >> impossibly dangerous creatures.
    >
    >And why that ? What if you want to play a real stealh rogue for once. You
    >got half that was needed right : xp not from killing monsters but from
    >exploration/going forward but got the other half wrong : no items if you
    >don't kill monsters :)

    True I forgot about those thieves for a moment, but the system allows
    for that.
    When I talked about traps that can't be disarmed, I was thinking about
    the case where a level 1 thief can sneak straigth to a level 10
    treasure vault to steal the best items. In that case you need
    something, an item, or thieving skill, to disarm the trap. Plain
    exploring shouldn't net you thieving levels, and I gave a hasty idea
    on how that could work earlier.

    >If I play a sneaky char and I get inside that room with lots of items
    >undetected, I deserve the xp and the items as much as the barbarian who
    >pressed himself the alamr button to kill more monsters.

    Yep, but you should learn to be quiet and gain courage to sneak into a
    nasty place, possibly learning through some mistakes in earlier
    places, otherwise you would be too nervous and set off a bunch of
    traps.
  35. Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

    At Mon, 08 Aug 2005 11:23:50 -0400,
    Sherm Pendley wrote:

    > The Sheep <thesheep@ sheep.prv.pl> writes:
    >
    >> Well, it's not that we lacks the ways to punish scumming.
    >
    > Perhaps I'm missing some crucial point here, but I don't understand just why
    > scumming must be punished. (In normal individual play, that is - it's obvious
    > that for competitions and the like, you need to have a fair situation for all
    > your contestants.)

    Well, it's a simplification, of course. It's not scumming (or exploiting)
    you want to punish, and it's not the player that deserves punishment.

    What you really want to do, is to discourage repetitive and boring
    behaviors, usually by making them less revardning than those genuine and
    exciting ones.

    One way to do it is by detecting repetitive and boring actions and
    artifically lowering their outcome ("punishing"). The problem is -- how to
    decide when the game becomes boring (maybe a "booooriiiing" key could
    help).

    I tend to agree that the other way, that is increasing the outcome from
    interesting play, could give you much better results.

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

    In article <slrndfeqcv.j3p.thesheep@atos.wmid.amu.edu.pl>, The Sheep
    <thesheep@ sheep.prv.pl> says...
    > At 08 Aug 2005 11:02:35 +0100,
    > Chris Morris wrote:

    > >> If you somehow achieve this, please let Statesman and Positron know :)
    > >
    > > What's the exploitable bug in Rogue?
    >
    > You could exploit dragon's fireballs, for example.

    How can you do that? I know they bounce sometimes, but I didn't know
    it was predictable.

    - Gerry Quinn
  37. Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

    In article <42f794fa$1@news.broadpark.no>, kkkk@lllllll.mmmm says...

    > Morrowind rewards repetitive low-risk gameplay - "scumming" - more than
    > it rewards fun, and that is its single greatest weakness -- for
    > powergamers. Any powergamer will trivialise the game -- but I know
    > several people who aren't powergamers and who get lots of fun out of
    > Morrowind. For them, the leveling system in Morrowind is great; it makes
    > them better at what they think is fun to do in the game.

    Exactly - the game is easy enough that you don't have to optimise your
    character anyway.

    - Gerry Quinn
  38. Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

    At Tue, 9 Aug 2005 13:45:40 +0100,
    Gerry Quinn wrote:

    > In article <slrndfeqcv.j3p.thesheep@atos.wmid.amu.edu.pl>, The Sheep
    ><thesheep@ sheep.prv.pl> says...
    >> At 08 Aug 2005 11:02:35 +0100,
    >> Chris Morris wrote:
    >> >> If you somehow achieve this, please let Statesman and Positron know :)
    >> > What's the exploitable bug in Rogue?
    >> You could exploit dragon's fireballs, for example.
    > How can you do that? I know they bounce sometimes, but I didn't know
    > it was predictable.

    I can't remember exactly, but when I was playing the DOS version of Rogue
    (there's only one that's fairly popular, AFAIK), I used some strange
    behavior of dragons to my advantage.

    Basically, you would have to lure the dragon into a maze or a corner, and
    then it would do something stupid instead of attacking you -- I can't
    remember what. Silly me. Anybody can remeber this?

    There's also the possibility that I got it mixed up with some other game
    (Larn maybe) or just imagined the whole thing and now it comes back as
    a reflection :/.

    But surely there are other exploits, you only have to look carefully :)
    Fairly small levels and inability to come back make it surely harder.
    I mean the actions can't be very repetitive (most of them will use up
    your resources), so they can be called a 'smart moves' rather than
    exploits.
    --
    Radomir `The Sheep' Dopieralski @**@_
    (nn) 3 Grin
    . . . ..v.vVvVVvVvv.v.. .
  39. Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

    At 8 Aug 2005 10:26:48 -0700,
    Thomas wrote:

    > Bear:
    >> It should come slower.
    >
    > Mhmm. Definitly. I dont see the biggest problem being to 10-500 hp
    > problem.... Sure the difference between first and twentyith level is
    > huge but it is a fantasy and hopefully in a given game a 10th level
    > player with great items and good stratagy could beat a 15th level
    > player with average items and not as good stratagy.... Maybe its old
    > fashined now but i like the levels system from ADnD. I do agree the
    > leveling needs to be slower. In a lot of RLs it seems like it takes ten
    > minutes to get your first levelup...! What. In nethack i've done that
    > in under two minutes many times! It makes levels trivial. Your first
    > level should come after 3-5 hours of play and many monsters killed and
    > most importantly lots of terrain explored! and then the levels should
    > keep comming SLOWER after that... not faster like often! In my opinion
    > the main (only?) big problem with the leveling system is the way it is
    > trivialized by speed leveling....

    CRPGs are usually played in much shorter sessions than RPGs. I mean how
    long do you sit in front of your computer playing the game? 2-3 hours is
    the maximum for me, and it's only for really good games. With this pace,
    you're going to level up in a week of playing.

    But playing a low-level character isn't usually fun (well, it could be
    made fun). You need a feeling of progess, at the very least.

    Ideally, the character should advance around the time when the player
    has done most of fun things he could do with this level. But it's
    a dream, since there's no way of measuring the fun of doing things, and
    it changes from player to player and from game to game (some things are
    only fun the first couple of times).

    Some time ago there was an idea to include some half- and fully developed
    characters to pick at the beginning, instead of generating your own. You
    could choose which part of the game you want to play, without waiting for
    your character to advance enough for the things you wanted to do. Anyone
    tried this?

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

    On Mon, 08 Aug 2005 11:18:46 -0500,
    strathWHATEVERIGETENOUGHSPAMANYWAYS@ipass.net (Jim Strathmeyer) wrote:

    >You guys seems to be mixing up uses of the word scumming. I've only ever
    >heard it used like 'save scumming', in which it describes blatant
    >cheating behavior. Others seem to be using 'scumming' to mean
    >'exploiting'.

    http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.roguelike.development/msg/b7ef74acf6b834ab?dmode=source&hl=en
    http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.roguelike.development/msg/1dcdab9e8cd942a3?dmode=source&hl=en

    --
    R. Dan Henry = danhenry@inreach.com
  41. Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

    Quoting Ray Dillinger <bear@sonic.net>:
    >Jim Strathmeyer wrote:
    >>Ray Dillinger <bear@sonic.net> schrieb:
    >>>* Experience awards for exploration
    >>>* Limited experience per species
    >>>* Big awards tied to accomplishing missions
    >>You have, of course, left out 'do away with the experience system'.
    >You keep sayin' that. I haven't yet heard anything
    >convincing to replace it with.

    Well, if he's trying to emulate tabletop roleplaying in NVN, he should do
    what most sensible tabletop groups do; award experience purely at the
    human whim of the DM.
    --
    David Damerell <damerell@chiark.greenend.org.uk> Distortion Field!
    Today is Potmos, August.
  42. Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

    Quoting Thomas <comments@foresightsagas.com>:
    >leveling needs to be slower. In a lot of RLs it seems like it takes ten
    >minutes to get your first levelup...! What. In nethack i've done that
    >in under two minutes many times! It makes levels trivial. Your first
    >level should come after 3-5 hours of play and many monsters killed and
    >most importantly lots of terrain explored! and then the levels should
    >keep comming SLOWER after that... not faster like often!

    So you want a, say, 20-level progression to take about 100-150 hours.

    Sure, no-one's going to get bored of *that*. That isn't an impractical
    length of time for a permadeath game at all. [1] Oh, no.

    You're making a big mistake confusing a tabletop RPG campaign - where a
    human is thinking of all sorts of interesting things for you to do, and
    where running through the full character progression range of an RPG
    is something gamers do rarely if ever in their lifetime - with a roguelike
    that you may want to play hundreds of games of.

    [1] Yes, Angband, but Angband has been forced into its depth-based
    clockless complete-safety grind by this.
    --
    David Damerell <damerell@chiark.greenend.org.uk> Distortion Field!
    Today is Potmos, August.
  43. Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

    On 16 Aug 2005 17:25:41 +0100 (BST), David Damerell
    <damerell@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:

    >Quoting Thomas <comments@foresightsagas.com>:
    >>leveling needs to be slower. In a lot of RLs it seems like it takes ten
    >>minutes to get your first levelup...! What. In nethack i've done that
    >>in under two minutes many times! It makes levels trivial. Your first
    >>level should come after 3-5 hours of play and many monsters killed and
    >>most importantly lots of terrain explored! and then the levels should
    >>keep comming SLOWER after that... not faster like often!
    >
    >So you want a, say, 20-level progression to take about 100-150 hours.
    >
    >Sure, no-one's going to get bored of *that*. That isn't an impractical
    >length of time for a permadeath game at all. [1] Oh, no.

    >[1] Yes, Angband, but Angband has been forced into its depth-based
    >clockless complete-safety grind by this.

    Angband can be finished in an afternoon. Admittedly, this is at the high
    end of speed, but I would consider a hundred hour game terribly slow and
    likely a sign that one was trying to play like the Borg rather than a
    human. Of course, this only strengthens your argument. Angband is
    considered an epic-length roguelike and it go through 50 levels in maybe
    about 50 hours for a winner unconcerned with speed (and I think many
    are).

    --
    R. Dan Henry = danhenry@inreach.com
Ask a new question

Read More

Development Video Games