On Nov 14, 2:55 am, Graeme Dice <grd....TakeThisOut@NOSPAM.sasktel.net> wrote:
> Jeff Lait wrote:
> > On Nov 13, 4:14 pm, Graeme Dice <grd....TakeThisOut@NOSPAM.sasktel.net> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> >> No, but it is often arbitrary and completely unavoidable. Random
> >> unavoidable deaths are not one of the more attractive features of
> >> roguelikes.
>
> > Not only are they not one of the attractive features, they are not
> > even a feature. If random unavoidable deaths were at all common in
> > Roguelikes, I wouldn't be playing them. Roguelike authors can get
> > away with a heck of a lot less random and unavoidable deaths than
> > traditional game designers precisely because there is no save game
> > safety net.
>
> I'm sorry, but you're either massively underestimating the number of
> times you die in Roguelike games, are absolutely terrible at playing
> other non-roguelike CRPGs, or are one of the 1% (Probably much much
> less) of the worldwide population that's able to play an average
> Roguelike such as ADOM, Nethack, or Crawl without 95% of their
> characters dying.
And you are assuming that "death" implies "random and unavoidable
death".
I never said that frequent deaths is not a feature of roguelikes. It
certainly is. I even state that explicitly in the tutorial for
POWDER.
I agree with you that characters dying from random, unavoidable,
causes is unacceptable. I disagree that it is common.
> > I think the sort of people that claim that deaths are random and
> > unavoidable are the sort that attack every kiwi on sight, never
> > considering the possibility of *not* attacking it. Well established
> > psychological principles work against the roguelike. Faced with the
> > choice of blaming themselves for getting into a tight spot or blaming
> > the game for creating a tight spot, they target the game.
>
> Why shouldn't the player blame the game for killing their character?
Because they should also seriously consider the possibility that it
was user error. Otherwise they can't learn and improve their play.
Sometimes the game will be at fault. Sometimes the bug in my program
is a compiler error. But the first target of the blame should be
oneself.
> After all, it is the game that decides to place a Storm Dragon on level
> 2 in Crawl. (Or any of the vast array of monsters in Crawl that can kill
> a level 1-2 character from range in a single turn.) Or gnome with a
> wand of death in the Gnomish mines in Nethack. Or a claw bug that
> fights to the death in a blind rage in ADOM. How is careful play
> supposed to avoid these and the other common low-level instadeath
> situations that crop up in Roguelikes?
First, I don't think any of those situations are *common* instadeaths.
Second, those situations are frequently raised by roguelike players as
"bugs". This should be a clue that they are not normal ways for
players to die. If all deaths were equally random and unavoidable,
you wouldn't see people singling out those. IIRC, the nethack
tournament keeps showing Soldier Ants as the number one monster
killing players.
Consider off-screen breath attacks in Angband, for example. A good
example of an unavoidable instadeath. Or the potion of death. Or
monsters killing you when you first step into a level. One thing
these have in common is designers trying to *fix* these problems.
> >> Diablo II in hardcore
> >> mode is not a different game from Diablo II in normal mode.
>
> > Diablo II suffers in hardcore mode because the starting levels are way
> > too easy.
>
> The above statement is nothing more than you attempting to dodge the
> point. I claim that both modes are the same game, and you bring up some
> irrelevancy about the game being "too easy" in one mode.
I'm sorry. I misunderstood the purpose of your Diablo II comment. I
didn't realize it was an attempt to state that RPG == Roguelike by
saying that Diablo II normal is an RPG and hardcore a Roguelike.
Diablo II, in both modes, is a roguelike in the *Band model. It is,
despite any quest pop-up trappings, played as a roguelike, not an
RPG. Note that while Diablo II lacks permadeath in normal mode, it
also lacks savescumming. You Quit and Save. Not save. Your decision
to gamble $10k on that item? Permanent. Chose those stats? No going
back.
> >>> The problem is that people have been taught by RPGs that the correct
> >>> process is to save & reload until they get past each obstacle. There
> >>> is nothing wrong with games designed to play this way - it works well
> >>> with static content games designed to be consumed and "won".
> >>> Roguelikes, for all their RPG trappings, are not this sort of game.
> >> Yes, they most certainly are exactly that type of game.
>
> > If you are under the delusion that you should savescum your way to
> > completing roguelikes, no wonder you would consider them filled with
> > arbitrary and random deaths.
>
> Why would you bring up savescumming, except to attempt to discredit my
> argument by associating it with a behaviour that you dislike?
> Roguelikes, at least modern ones that have any kind of following, play
> almost exactly like a traditional CRPG. They have a well-defined goal
> that the player is attempting to reach. Upon reaching this goal, the
> game is finished.
Well, I guess Soccer is an RPG as well. It also has a well defined
goal (scoring the most points) that the player is trying to reach. On
reaching this goal, the game is finished.
I brought up savescumming because it is a concise shorthand to
describe the difference between the two play styles.
An RPG provides a series of fixed challenges to be overcome. For each
challenge, one saves/restores to until that challenge is surpassed.
Starting from the beginning each time would be silly as the earlier
challenges are already solved.
A roguelike randomizes the challenges. Overcoming one particular
challenge isn't the goal, rather it is learning how to overcome the
class of challenges. Starting from the beginning presents new
challenges and different slices of the class of challenges, so is a
valuable learning activity.
> > In my first exposure to Nethack I approached it like a standard RPG.
> > Something to be "won". Frustrated with "random and arbitrary" early
> > deaths, I turned to explore mode. Soon I found myself having to hit
> > the "Yes, I want to cheat death" key every other turn.
>
> Nethack is hardly a good example to use in any discussion where you want
> to claim that a game doesn't have random and arbitrary deaths. The
> number of spoilers that are required to make playing Nethack anything
> other than an exercise in utterly futility is immense. I certainly hope
> you aren't going to suggest playing Nethack spoiler free, since I doubt
> you'd enjoy trying to figure out what items give you magic resistance,
> and that magic resistance allows you to avoid death attacks.
If spoilers allow people to avoid these deaths, the deaths can't
really be called "random and arbitrary" can they? Just because I
can't solve a rubiks cube without consulting a spoiler doesn't mean
that the rubiks cube solution is "random and arbitrary".
> >> Why else would
> >> nearly every roguelike have a well-defined winning state?
>
> > To complete the Hero's Journey, of course. The fact the game has a
> > "You can get on with life now" state says nothing about how that state
> > is supposed to be achieved.
>
> > An RPG is won when you chew through the set encounters and get to the
> > final scene.
>
> > A roguelike is won when you figure out how to manage your resources,
> > your tactical position, and the quirks of the game to return the
> > foozle to the surface. Despite the RPG trappings, a roguelike is more
> > like Chess and an RPG more like a novel. An RPG is consumed, a
> > roguelike is learned.
>
> Actually, for the vast majority of Roguelike players that I know, a
> Roguelike is consumed in exactly the same manner that a traditional RPG
> is consumed. It is played until it is completed once.
You have pointed out that the end-state is the same. The foozle is on
the surface, the world is saved. This does not reflect on how someone
GOT to the end state. That is the difference in consumption I'm
talking about.
To get to the end of the RPG you have to play through considerable
static content to reach the end. To get to the end of a roguelike,
you have to learn the underlying system and then apply that on a
successful run to the end.
> At that point,
> the player sets the game down, and ignores it, since they have plenty of
> other games to play and don't see any reason to bother beating a puzzle
> that they have already figured out.
Exactly. And this is a very good thing. People shouldn't waste their
times on puzzles that they have figured out. I'm a big proponent of
their being a "Win" state in roguelikes for just this reason. It is
the blessing of the developer to the player that they can go on with
their life.
> >> It's not a good game decision just because the designer meant for the
> >> player to die hundreds of times on the first level (or more likely never
> >> bothered to balance the game in the first place).
>
> > I think you got confused. Playing the first level hundreds of times
> > doesn't necessarily mean dying on the first level hundreds of times.
> > I must be in my thousands of games of POWDER which means I've run
> > through that first level thousands of times. And it is still
> > interesting.
>
> Who, besides the developer, would be the least bit interested in
> completing a game hundreds of times?
I'm not sure if I'd want to complete POWDER hundreds of times. If I
solved the puzzle to that extent it would be time to move to a new
puzzle. I know of POWDER players who have moved on for just this
reason - they solved the puzzle of the game.
> For the average player, every
> character that doesn't complete the game simply adds to total of number
> of hours wasted on pointless characters.
Surprise. Shock. The hours spent on a successful character are
wasted as well. There is no $10,000 prize. If all you want is a
YAVP, you can just go post one. No need to waste any time playing the
game.
Playing games is supposed to be a waste of time.
If you want to put a notch in your belt for having "won" a roguelike,
you have to win it on its terms. This means not just brute forcing
your way to the win page. It means learning the system of the
roguelike so you can make it to the win page. Breaking open a Rubiks
Cube and reassembling it in the correct configuration means I reach
the "win" page. It doesn't mean I've won the game, however.
BTW, thank you for providing such a strong foil to my arguments. Your
comments have helped clarify my own understanding of the differences
between roguelikes and RPGs.
--
Jeff Lait
(POWDER:
http://www.zincland.com/powder)
FAQ
Search
Profile
Private Messages
Log in/Register/Password
