RFD: rec.games.dungeon.* hierarchy
Andrew Solovay
I would like to propose formally that a new hierarchy be created,
namely rec.games.dungeon. This hierarchy would contain groups
dedicated to discussion of rogue-type games. These games share the
following characteristics:
* They are character-based; that is, the game generally presents a map
of the current playing area, with different characters representing
the player, opponents, objects, etc. Text is a secondary element at
most. This is in contradistinction to other, "text-based" adventure
games, such as Adventure, Zork (a.k.a. "Dungeon"), etc.
* They are very portable. The games are usually written in a
high-level langauge, and as noted, they use character graphics; this
makes them easy to port to various architectures (mainframes,
workstations, and different types of personal computers). As a
result, they don't fit into any of the comp.sys.*.games groups,
which are machine-specific.
There are several advantages to having such a hierarchy, notably:
* Most people who play any of these games are interested in other
games of the type. Thus, if the newsgroups were grouped together,
people could easily find other groups that interested them.
* It would provide an area for discussing dungeon games that do not
currently have a USENET group (e.g. larn), and for discussing the
relative merits of different games.
* It would provide a uniform framework for adding new groups for
dungeon-type games that become popular.
The reorganization would rename three existing groups thus:
rec.games.rogue -> rec.games.dungeon.rogue
rec.games.hack -> rec.games.dungeon.nethack(*)
rec.games.moria -> rec.games.dungeon.moria
All of these groups would remain unmoderated.
(*) The rec.games.hack newsgroup has long been exclusively for the
discussion of "nethack", not of "hack". Accordingly, this seems like a
good time to rename it. If people on rec.games.hack object to this
renaming, we can instead change it to rec.games.dungeon.hack.
Two additional groups would be created:
rec.games.dungeon.info (moderated)
rec.games.dungeon.misc (unmoderated)
rec.games.dungeon.info would be a forum for informational postings
about games (well-maintained spoiler files, announcements of new
revisions or patches, etc.). Every posting to this group would be
cross-posted to the most appropriate other rec.games.dungeon group,
and follows-up would be directed to that group. The moderator could,
at his/her discretion, change the subject line of postings (esp. to
add the word [SPOILERS] where appropriate).
I would be willing, though not eager, to moderate this group, but if
someone else wants to volunteer, that would be fine by me. A moderator
could be removed by a public vote with a two-thirds majority in favor
of removal.
rec.games.dungeon.misc would be a forum for discussion of dungeon-type
games that do not yet have mainstream groups (e.g. larn). It would
also be used for discussion that, e.g., compares different dungeon
games ("NetHack sucks! Moria rules!" "No, MORIA sucks! NETHACK rules!"
"No, *NETHACK* sucks..."). Postings to rec.games.dungeon.misc ought to
contain the name of the game in question in the subject line (e.g.
"Subject: [larn] How to I kill the Evil Frozzle?")
Things to Decide
================
First: Should the hierarchy actually be named "rec.games.dungeon"?
Some have expressed concerns about this name. They note that many
text-based adventure games (e.g. "Zork") are set in dungeons; indeed,
one early version of Zork was named "dungeon". Another concern: The
unifying characteristic of these games is *not* that they're set in
dungeons, but rather the style of interface. There is no reason one of
these games couldn't be set, e.g., on the Death Star or in a gulag,
and yet remain appropriate for the hierarchy. Again, perhaps
"dungeon" is a misleading name.
Perhaps, since "rogue" is the granddaddy of these games, the hierarchy
ought to be called "rec.games.roguelike". Or perhaps some other name
would be better. Any ideas?
Second: rec.games.dungeon.nethack, or rec.games.dungeon.hack? I think
"nethack", but I could be wrong.
What else?
FYI: I've contacted David Grabiner, the man who posted the RFD for
rec.games.angband. He and I agree that we should hold the reorg vote
first. WHen the reorg vote is concluded, he will restart the RFD for
rec.games.angband or rec.games.dungeon.angband, depending on how the
vote turns out.
--
Andrew Solovay
"But that was in another country;
and besides, the wench is dead." ---Marlowe
Rich Walker
I got into nethack by accident, ported it to my machine, then found three
other people were porting it as well... Then found a copy of moria, then
ported angband. And now I hear (accidentally) of a couple of others.
Perhaps rec.games.whatever.porting as well, which would probably end up
with some of the flavour of gnu.utils.bugs...
--
--- Rich! Walker (gr...@cus.cam.ac.uk)
"In a way, we're a kind of Peace Corps."
- Maj. A. Lincoln German, Training Director of the
Green Beret Special Warfare School, Ft. Bragg, N.C.
kenneth r lipka
In article <211gvm...@rodan.UU.NET>, sol...@netcom.com (Andrew Solovay) writes:
> Request for discussion: Creation of a rec.games.dungeon hierarchy
>
>
> of the current playing area, with different characters representing
> the player, opponents, objects, etc. Text is a secondary element at
> most. This is in contradistinction to other, "text-based" adventure
> games, such as Adventure, Zork (a.k.a. "Dungeon"), etc.
>
Just to be a nit-picker, but it is an important nit.
This note should be changed to "ASCII Graphics-Based". Because just
about any game out there is "character" based. The EOB series is based on
characters (four in fact) and there is a map (from the first person point of
view). Many of the SSI games of the AD&D variety have a map that is more
overhead, with an individual figure for each character in the party.
But with the ASCII name, it shows much more readily what we are actually
so taken with. And as a question, would we all be playing these games if they
were done with hi-res VGA graphics but still the same "cheap" set-up? (i.e.
no sound, overhead view, no motions on the characters, etc)
/> Ken Lipka
/< fer...@engin.umich.edu
[\\\\\\(O):::<======================================-
\< Graduate Student - Mechanical Engineering
\> University of Michigan, Ann Arbor USA
Eiji Hirai
: rec.games.rogue -> rec.games.dungeon.rogue
: rec.games.hack -> rec.games.dungeon.nethack(*)
: rec.games.moria -> rec.games.dungeon.moria
: rec.games.dungeon.info (moderated)
: rec.games.dungeon.misc (unmoderated)
I think all the proposals are great ideas! If I were to vote after a
CFV, I'd vote yes to all the proposals!
--
hi...@cc.swarthmore.edu (Eiji Hirai) | Unix Geek for Swarthmore College
I don't speak for Swarthmore College | Computing Center, Swarthmore, PA, USA
"I post, therefore I am." -Rene Descartes on Usenet
mne...@jupiter.cse.utoledo.edu
> Request for discussion: Creation of a rec.games.dungeon hierarchy
> I would like to propose formally that a new hierarchy be created,
> namely rec.games.dungeon. This hierarchy would contain groups
> dedicated to discussion of rogue-type games. These games share the
> following characteristics:
[deleted]
> There are several advantages to having such a hierarchy, notably:
[deleted]
> The reorganization would rename three existing groups thus:
> rec.games.rogue -> rec.games.dungeon.rogue
> rec.games.hack -> rec.games.dungeon.nethack(*)
> rec.games.moria -> rec.games.dungeon.moria
> All of these groups would remain unmoderated.
> (*) The rec.games.hack newsgroup has long been exclusively for the
> discussion of "nethack", not of "hack". Accordingly, this seems like a
> good time to rename it. If people on rec.games.hack object to this
> renaming, we can instead change it to rec.games.dungeon.hack.
Nethack IS hack, but Hack isnt NetHack. Keep it as r.g.d.hack.
[more deleted]
> Things to Decide
> ================
> First: Should the hierarchy actually be named "rec.games.dungeon"?
> Some have expressed concerns about this name. They note that many
> text-based adventure games (e.g. "Zork") are set in dungeons; indeed,
> one early version of Zork was named "dungeon". Another concern: The
> unifying characteristic of these games is *not* that they're set in
> dungeons, but rather the style of interface. There is no reason one of
> these games couldn't be set, e.g., on the Death Star or in a gulag,
> and yet remain appropriate for the hierarchy. Again, perhaps
> "dungeon" is a misleading name.
The other problem with dungeon is that some D&D'er who cant find r.g.rpg
may assume this group to be for them.
How about "Single-User Computer Role Playing Game" or .sucrpg. That is
what Hack, Moria, and the rest share. Only problem is that the name
is not descriptive, but as long as there is a .info group which
keeps a weekly FAQ, this should cause no problems with new reader.
--
+---------------------------------------+------------+-----------------------+
| Michael Neylon - Masem the Thermo God | How do | Phys Chem - An attempt|
| BS Chem Eng (UT), Grad (UM), NASA | YOU spell | to apply 'y=mx+b' to |
| ONLY THE AMIGA! | 'potato?' | everything in the uni.|
+---------------------------------------+------------+-----------------------+
Tom O Breton
> First: Should the hierarchy actually be named "rec.games.dungeon"?
I consider the existence of another game called "dungeon" pretty much a
killer. I favor "roguelike".
> Second: rec.games.dungeon.nethack, or rec.games.dungeon.hack? I think
> "nethack", but I could be wrong.
Of course I'll yield to the more frequent players, but it looks like
"nethack" to me.
> rec.games.dungeon.misc would be a forum for discussion of dungeon-type
> games that do not yet have mainstream groups (e.g. larn). It would
> also be used for discussion that, e.g., compares different dungeon
> games ("NetHack sucks! Moria rules!" "No, MORIA sucks! NETHACK rules!"
> "No, *NETHACK* sucks..."). Postings to rec.games.dungeon.misc ought to
> contain the name of the game in question in the subject line (e.g.
> "Subject: [larn] How to I kill the Evil Frozzle?")
Sounds like it's doing two different things.
How about creating an *.advocacy group for the fights, and also creating
an *.other group for lesser-known games. To my mind *.other states the
purpose more clearly than *.misc
Tom
--
The Tom spreads its huge, scaly wings and soars into the sky...
(t...@world.std.com, TomB...@delphi.com)
Charles Bertrand
games>
Several problems with this, aside choosing from a name that will
clearly let people know what the group is about.
Have you seen the traffic on r.g.hack, r.g.moria, and I would
assume r.g.rogue? I am a hacker, born and bread. I don't want to try
to plow through hundreds of posts on the other games just to get to
the ones on Nethack.
More critically: Nethack already eats too much of my
productivity. I don't _want_ to know about other games which might do
the same thing to me. :-)
Question: What is the procedure for terminating and creating new
groups? Is it a vote? How is the vote handled? Do I have any
influence at all? Am I just a nameless speck floating in a universe
that would be uneffected by my cessation of existance? God, I'm
depressed.
/>
/<
[\\\\\\(O):::<======================================-
\<
\>
Ben Coleman
> How about "Single-User Computer Role Playing Game" or .sucrpg. That is
> what Hack, Moria, and the rest share.
Or, more accurately, "Single-User Text-Based Computer Role Playing Game",
or .sutbcrpg. Except that someone seeing that in a newsgroups list is
liable to conclude that the list has an 8-byte corruption in it.
Ben
+---------------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| Ben Coleman NJ8J | "All that is not eternal is |
| AX.25: NJ8J@W4QO.#EAL.#ATL.GA.USA.NA | eternally irrelevant." |
| Internet: b...@nj8j.atl.ga.us | C. S. Lewis |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Magnus Olsson
><New news group to collectively include info from all rogue like
>games>
>
>
>Several problems with this, aside choosing from a name that will
>clearly let people know what the group is about.
>
> Have you seen the traffic on r.g.hack, r.g.moria, and I would
>assume r.g.rogue? I am a hacker, born and bread. I don't want to try
>to plow through hundreds of posts on the other games just to get to
>the ones on Nethack.
Charles, would you *please* go back and *read* the article to which you are
responding? Thanks. Now, did you see that the proposal is *not* about
one "New news group to collectively include info from all rogue like
games", but about an entire *hierarchy* (if you don't know what that is,
there are excellent dictionaries) of groups. Each of the games that has
its own group today will continue to have it under the new scheme -
it will just be renamed. Rec.games.hack will be renamed to rec.games.
dungeon.nethack, or something like that.
>Question: What is the procedure for terminating and creating new
>groups?
Go read news.announce.newusers. It's all explained there. And please
kick your newsadmin from me for not telling you to read
news.announce.newusers before you start posting.
>God, I'm
>depressed.
\begin {flame}
I'm depressed, too. Is the reading comprehension of rogue-like game
players significantly worse than average or someting? (And I'm not
referring just to Charles' post above, but to many other recent posts
- such as the ones in rec.games.moria flaming me for things I've never
said. Sheesh.
\end {flame}
Magnus Olsson | \e+ /_
Department of Theoretical Physics | \ Z / q
University of Lund, Sweden | >----<
mag...@thep.lu.se, the...@selund.bitnet | / \===== g
PGP key available via finger or on request | /e- \q
mil...@wharton.upenn.edu
How would this affect other newsgroups such as
comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.adventure and comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg which
discuss exactly the same issues as your proposed hierarchy?
--
whoah,
+++++++++++++++++++++++23
Loren Miller internet: MIL...@wharton.upenn.edu
"Science" does not remove the terror of the gods.
Andrew Solovay
>In article <211gvm...@rodan.UU.NET>, sol...@netcom.com (Andrew Solovay) writes:
>> Request for discussion: Creation of a rec.games.dungeon hierarchy
>
>How would this affect other newsgroups such as
>comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.adventure and comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg which
>discuss exactly the same issues as your proposed hierarchy?
Very little. I don't believe NetHack, for example, is discussed much
in either group, even though NetHack has been ported to the IBM PC.
The games discussed in this hierarchy are available on many
architectures, only one of which is the IBM PC; and most of the
"adventure" and "frp" games for the IBM are completely beyond the
scope of the proposed hierarchy.
So I think it's simply wrong to say those newsfroups "discuss exactly
the same issues as [my] proposed hierarchy".
But I'll take this as further evidence that "dungeon" is a bad name
for the hierarchy; it just leads to far too much confusion. So what
should the hierarchy be called? I think "roguelike" is clearest and
most informative. Other suggestions have included "ascii" (which I
find not very informative), "termcap" (ditto), "tty" (ditto),
"hacking" (ditto ditto), and "text-adventure" (???).
Any other suggestions? Should I issue a 2nd RFD for
"rec.games.roguelike"?
Ron Asbestos Dippold
>In article <211gvm...@rodan.UU.NET>, sol...@netcom.com (Andrew Solovay) writes:
>> Request for discussion: Creation of a rec.games.dungeon hierarchy
>How would this affect other newsgroups such as
>comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.adventure and comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg which
>discuss exactly the same issues as your proposed hierarchy?
Little, I think. It's already pretty accepted that rogue-like games
are a special category of their own, and questions about Nethack, etc.
are already referred to existing groups such as rec.games.hack.
--
You have a massage. (From the Swedish prime minister.)
David Grabiner
> In article <1993Jul6...@wharton.upenn.edu> mil...@wharton.upenn.edu writes:
> But I'll take this as further evidence that "dungeon" is a bad name
> for the hierarchy; it just leads to far too much confusion. So what
> should the hierarchy be called? I think "roguelike" is clearest and
> most informative. Other suggestions have included "ascii" (which I
> find not very informative), "termcap" (ditto), "tty" (ditto),
> "hacking" (ditto ditto), and "text-adventure" (???).
"Roguelike" identifies the class of game properly, which "dungeon" does
not. In particular, "rec.games.roguelike.misc" is a good name for a
group dealing with general Rogue-like games.
The problem with a "roguelike" hierarchy is that new users may never
have heard of Rogue, and may have trouble finding
rec.games.roguelike.hack to deal with their Nethack questions. I would
prefer to create only a misc group, and leave the other groups where
they are.
--
David Grabiner, grab...@zariski.harvard.edu
"We are sorry, but the number you have dialed is imaginary."
"Please rotate your phone 90 degrees and try again."
Disclaimer: I speak for no one and no one speaks for me.
Andrew Solovay
>
>The problem with a "roguelike" hierarchy is that new users may never
>have heard of Rogue, and may have trouble finding
>rec.games.roguelike.hack to deal with their Nethack questions. I would
>prefer to create only a misc group, and leave the other groups where
>they are.
Hoom. Surely "rec.games.roguelike.moria" is at least as easy to find
as "rec.games.moria". And "rec.games.roguelike.nethack" would be much
easier for a nethack player to find than "rec.games.hack". How many
new nethack players-- players who haven't heard of rogue-- know about
nethack's ancestry as "hack"?
Juha Laiho
>> First: Should the hierarchy actually be named "rec.games.dungeon"?
>
>I consider the existence of another game called "dungeon" pretty much a
>killer. I favor "roguelike".
>
After all, rogue is quite an old game, and not very common any more.
But as there's also the classic 'dungeon' text adventure, the choice is
quite hard..
>> rec.games.dungeon.misc would be a forum for discussion of dungeon-type
>> games that do not yet have mainstream groups (e.g. larn). It would
>> also be used for discussion that, e.g., compares different dungeon
>> games ("NetHack sucks! Moria rules!" "No, MORIA sucks! NETHACK rules!"
>> "No, *NETHACK* sucks..."). Postings to rec.games.dungeon.misc ought to
>> contain the name of the game in question in the subject line (e.g.
>> "Subject: [larn] How to I kill the Evil Frozzle?")
>
>Sounds like it's doing two different things.
>
>How about creating an *.advocacy group for the fights, and also creating
>an *.other group for lesser-known games. To my mind *.other states the
>purpose more clearly than *.misc
>
Well, if (because?) there has to be fights, .advocacy is quite good trashcan
to have.
.misc seems still better than .other to me, since .other would limit the
group to be about other games only, but .misc could be used to discuss general
game mechanics and design points as well.
Andrew Solovay
I dunno. I think we really only need to create one group now, .misc
(as the general catch-all). If there turns out to be a lot of traffic,
and there are a lot of fights, we can easily create an .advocacy
group; but I don't think that'll be a problem. No point in creating an
.advocacy group if we don't know there'll be a demand.
I mentioned the fights in my RFD, not to make sure that there would be
fights in .misc (oy), but rather to make clear that those fights, if
they happen, should not be in the single-game newsfroups. But I'll
happily remove all mention of fights from the CFV/charter, if it would
give people bad ideas...
David Seal
>Question: What is the procedure for terminating and creating new
>groups? Is it a vote? How is the vote handled? Do I have any
>influence at all? Am I just a nameless speck floating in a universe
>that would be uneffected by my cessation of existance? God, I'm
>depressed.
Yes, the procedure is like that for creating new groups - i.e. a discussion
period followed by a vote. Or to be more accurate, by several votes: each
individual group creation or renaming has to be voted on separately. They're
usually done all together on one ballot, but you can vote individually on
each item, and each item passes or fails independenetly of the rest. So the
ballot for this proposal (as originally stated) would be something like:
Q1) Rename rec.games.hack as rec.games.dungeon.nethack? YES/NO/ABSTAIN
Q2) Rename rec.games.moria as rec.games.dungeon.moria? YES/NO/ABSTAIN
Q3) Rename rec.games.rogue as rec.games.dungeon.rogue? YES/NO/ABSTAIN
Q4) Create rec.games.misc? YES/NO/ABSTAIN
Q5) Create rec.games.info? YES/NO/ABSTAIN
If the proposals pass, the creations are treated just like ordinary
newsgroup creations. The renamings are somewhat more complicated: first a
group with the new name is created, with recommendations to sysadmins to
shift over to it, then the old group is removed about three months later.
David Seal
ds...@armltd.co.uk
All opinions are mine only...
David Seal
writes:
>How about creating an *.advocacy group for the fights, and also creating
>an *.other group for lesser-known games. To my mind *.other states the
>purpose more clearly than *.misc
Are fights about which game is best common? If so, a *.advocacy group would
be a good idea; if not, don't encourage them!
Quite possibly *.other would be better than *.misc considered purely from
the point of view of the new hierarchy. However, using *.misc has become the
Usenet standard for the name of the "all other postings" group in a
hierarchy: I would recommend not breaking this standard.
Peter Glen Berger
rec.games.[hack,rogue,moria,omega,larn] to
rec.games.dungeon[rogue,etc.] with the exception of a few minor
quibbles:
1) I do worry about confusion between "dungeon" and dungeon and
dragons type people. "Roguelike" is the most accurate description
anyone has yet come up with for these games. Unless someone comes up
with a better suggestion, I would support "roguelike" before
"dungeon."
2) The tree for nethack should be rec.games.roguelike.nethack, NOT
.hack. Why? Because it will reduce the quite common occurrence of a
newbie blundering in and saying, "hi guys, how can I break into a
[system type] at [important government installation]?"
That's all for now.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Peter Glen Berger <pet...@cmu.edu>
Carnegie Mellon University / University of Pittsburgh School of Law
Listen to "Swing Low Sweet Cadillac," 3-5 pm Tuesdays 88.3fm Pittsburgh!
= = = = = = = = = =
PGP 2.2 public key available on request.
A8A641 / 79 88 13 38 B3 44 E6 BD C3 2E B1 66 47 38 D6 13
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dale Eckart
>I wholeheartedly support the change from
>rec.games.[hack,rogue,moria,omega,larn] to
>rec.games.dungeon[rogue,etc.] with the exception of a few minor
>quibbles:
>
>1) I do worry about confusion between "dungeon" and dungeon and
>dragons type people. "Roguelike" is the most accurate description
>anyone has yet come up with for these games. Unless someone comes up
>with a better suggestion, I would support "roguelike" before
>"dungeon."
angband (or larn or nethack), it is no more difficult to find under
rec.games.roguelike.* than rec.games.*. This also sidesteps the
"dungeon" confusion.
>
>2) The tree for nethack should be rec.games.roguelike.nethack, NOT
>.hack. Why? Because it will reduce the quite common occurrence of a
>newbie blundering in and saying, "hi guys, how can I break into a
>[system type] at [important government installation]?"
these sorts of messages in a rec.games.* hierarchy? Maybe if it were
"alt.games.hack" or "comp.games.hack" but not "rec.games.roguelike.nethack."
>
>That's all for now.
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Peter Glen Berger <pet...@cmu.edu>
>Carnegie Mellon University / University of Pittsburgh School of Law
>Listen to "Swing Low Sweet Cadillac," 3-5 pm Tuesdays 88.3fm Pittsburgh!
>= = = = = = = = = =
>PGP 2.2 public key available on request.
>A8A641 / 79 88 13 38 B3 44 E6 BD C3 2E B1 66 47 38 D6 13
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
Dale E. Eckart "Oh, it's a *UNIX* system!"
Chemical Engineering Analyst -- Lex, in _Jurassic Park_
eck...@cray.com (317) 477-4031
--
-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-
Dale E. Eckart "Oh, it's a *UNIX* system!"
Chemical Engineering Analyst -- Lex, in _Jurassic Park_
eck...@cray.com (317) 477-4031
Andrew Solovay
[This is a second RFD, proposing a different name for the hierarchy.
The first RFD was issued for a rec.games.dungeon hierarchy.]
NEW STUFF
=========
There is general consenus that "rec.games.dungeon" would be a bad name
for the hierarchy. The main problem is that "dungeon" describes far
too wide a variety of games, including pencil-and-paper FRP games,
games like ZORK (one version of which was actually called "dungeon"),
graphic-oriented computer games, etc.
"roguelike" seems to me much superior. It describes all the games in
the proposed hierarchy, and no other games. The one thing all these
games have in common is that they're descended from "rogue", and have
a basically rogue-style interface.
Some object that "roguelike" is a mystifying term to new players, who
may not know that (for example) Moria is descended from a game like
"rogue". But this shouldn't be a real problem.
rec.games.roguelike.moria will be at least as easy to find as
rec.games.moria, so even if people don't know what "roguelike" means,
they'll still be able to participate. And "rec.games.roguelike.misc"
is a much more accurate and descriptive name for a group than are any
of the alternatives I've seen.
Also: In the first RFD, I offered to be the moderator of the proposed
.info group. I wish to retract and recant that offer; I just don't
think I'll have time. So, if anyone wants to moderate this group, let
me know. If no potential moderator comes forward by the time of the
CFV, I will not issue a CFV for rec.games.roguelike.info; but anyone
who wants to do so, at a later date, may feel free.
The rest of the RFD is mostly the same as the first RFD. There seems
to be a consensus to name the Nethack group ".nethack", not ".hack";
that's reflected in this RFD.
OLD STUFF
=========
I would like to propose formally that a new hierarchy be created,
namely rec.games.roguelike. This hierarchy would contain groups
dedicated to discussion of rogue-type games. These games share the
following characteristics:
* They are usually ASCII-character-based; that is, the game generally
presents a map of the current playing area, with different
characters representing the player, opponents, objects, etc. Text is
a secondary element at most. This is in contradistinction to other,
"text-based" adventure games, such as Adventure, Zork (a.k.a.
"Dungeon"), etc.
* They are very portable. The games are usually written in a
high-level langauge, and as noted, they use character graphics; this
makes them easy to port to various architectures (mainframes,
workstations, and different types of personal computers). As a
result, they don't fit into any of the comp.sys.*.games groups,
which are machine-specific.
There are several advantages to having such a hierarchy, notably:
* Most people who play any of these games are interested in other
games of the type. Thus, if the newsgroups were grouped together,
people could easily find other groups that interested them.
* It would provide an area for discussing dungeon games that do not
currently have a USENET group (e.g. larn), and for discussing the
relative merits of different games.
* It would provide a uniform framework for adding new groups for
dungeon-type games that become popular.
The reorganization would rename three existing groups thus:
rec.games.rogue -> rec.games.roguelike.rogue
rec.games.hack -> rec.games.roguelike.nethack(*)
rec.games.moria -> rec.games.roguelike.moria
All of these groups would remain unmoderated.
(*) The rec.games.hack newsgroup has long been exclusively for the
discussion of "nethack", not of "hack". Accordingly, this seems like a
good time to rename it.
Two additional groups would be created:
rec.games.roguelike.info (moderated)
rec.games.roguelike.misc (unmoderated)
rec.games.roguelike.info would be a forum for informational postings
about games (well-maintained spoiler files, announcements of new
revisions or patches, etc.). Every posting to this group would be
cross-posted to the most appropriate other rec.games.roguelike group,
and follows-up would be directed to that group. The moderator could,
at his/her discretion, change the subject line of postings (esp. to
add the word [SPOILERS] where appropriate). A moderator could be
removed by a public vote with a two-thirds majority in favor of
removal.
As yet, nobody has offered to moderate the .info group. If no
volunteer comes forward by the time the CFV is issued, I will not put
the .info group on the CFV. So act now! Fame and adulation as an
Official Usenet Moderator await!
rec.games.roguelike.misc would be a forum for discussion of
dungeon-type games that do not yet have mainstream groups (e.g. larn).
It would also be used for discussion that, e.g., compares different
dungeon games. Postings to rec.games.roguelike.misc ought to contain
the name of the game in question in the subject line (e.g.
"Subject: [larn] How to I kill the Evil Frozzle?")
The Grim Reaper
>Request for discussion: Creation of a rec.games.roguelike hierarchy
>
>[This is a second RFD, proposing a different name for the hierarchy.
>The first RFD was issued for a rec.games.dungeon hierarchy.]
>
>The reorganization would rename three existing groups thus:
>
>rec.games.rogue -> rec.games.roguelike.rogue
>rec.games.hack -> rec.games.roguelike.nethack(*)
>rec.games.moria -> rec.games.roguelike.moria
>
>All of these groups would remain unmoderated.
>
>(*) The rec.games.hack newsgroup has long been exclusively for the
>discussion of "nethack", not of "hack". Accordingly, this seems like a
>good time to rename it.
>
>Two additional groups would be created:
>
>rec.games.roguelike.info (moderated)
>rec.games.roguelike.misc (unmoderated)
>
>rec.games.roguelike.info would be a forum for informational postings
>about games (well-maintained spoiler files, announcements of new
>revisions or patches, etc.). Every posting to this group would be
>cross-posted to the most appropriate other rec.games.roguelike group,
>and follows-up would be directed to that group. The moderator could,
>at his/her discretion, change the subject line of postings (esp. to
>add the word [SPOILERS] where appropriate). A moderator could be
>removed by a public vote with a two-thirds majority in favor of
>removal.
I see no real reason for this group. Anyone interested in Nethack spoilers
or patches (for example) would be reading the nethack group. There is no real
reason to use this group besides comparing the merits of the various games,
and this could be handled by crossposting.
[More stuff killed]
+----------------------------------------------------------+
| One .sig to rule them all, one .sig to find them... |
| One .sig to bring them all and in the darkness bind them |
+----------------------------------------------------------+
| The Grim Reaper (Reaper of Souls, Stealer of .sigs) |
| scy...@u.washington.edu |
+----------------------------------------------------------+
Robert A. Hayden
I've never seen rogue. Played rogue. Or even heard of rogue until this
RFD and the name just rubs me the wrong way.
what about: r.g.ascii-dungeon.*
or just: rec.games.*
ascii-dungeon is perfectly discriptive, shows newbies that it is both for
computers AND simplistic (in display) and shows the theme of the games
without anyone having to know anything about rogue.
--
{[> Robert A. Hayden ____ hay...@krypton.mankato.msus.edu <]}
{[> \ /__ hay...@att2.cs.mankato.msus.edu <]}
{[> \/ / aq...@slc4.INS.CWRU.Edu <]}
{[> #include <std_disclaimer.h> \/ <]}
-=-=-
(GEEK CODE 0.3): GSS d- p--/-p+ c++ l++ m+/* s-/++ g+ w++ t++ r++ x+
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Random Thought:
"Oh yeah, laugh now! But when the millions start pouring in, I'll be the one
at Burger King, sucking down Whoppers at my own private table!"
-- Al Bundy
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Zodiac
How about rec.games.hack'n'slash?
I don't like the idea of having this group of games named after a single one
of them, I recall when I was sifting through the groups that I deleted such
groups because I thought they referred to games I wasn't using.
I know that my suggested title will raise some quibbling from the mage-based
characters, but hey! That's the way I play the game, even with a mage.
Carl.
Joe Slater
The unifying feature of these games is that they are designed to run with
tty-style graphics. Admittedly there are non-rogue style games that also
use this interface, but I don't know if that would be a problem - perhaps
it would be an advantage. A person who doesn't know what "tty" means won't
have heard of Rogue, anyway.
jds
--
j...@zikzak.apana.org.au | "A sick feeling of repugnance and
Fax: +61-3-562-0756 | apprehension grows in me as I near
Tel: +61-3-525-8728 | Australia."
If all else fails try Fidonet: | Diary of Sir Robert Menzies, Prime
joe_s...@f351.n632.z3.fidonet.org | Minister of Australia, May 23 1941
Rebecca Harris
wrote:
>
> There is general consenus that "rec.games.dungeon" would be a bad name
> for the hierarchy.
> The rest of the RFD is mostly the same as the first RFD. There seems
> to be a consensus to name the Nethack group ".nethack", not ".hack";
> that's reflected in this RFD.
> games of the type.
I, for one, read this group regularly and have not seen any discussion of
Andrew's proposal. Perhaps he has received some e-mail which has led him
to believe that the consensus he mentions exists, and has given him a sense
of what "most people" want. Personally, I prefer the group as is, and am
not the least interested in having my spoilers (or anything else, for that
matter) moderated.
Axl
>I just plain don't like 'roguelike'.
>
>I've never seen rogue. Played rogue. Or even heard of rogue until this
>RFD and the name just rubs me the wrong way.
>
>what about: r.g.ascii-dungeon.*
>or just: rec.games.*
>
omegas, morias, hacks, etc...have diverged too far from each other to
be unified into 1 hierarchy.
-axl
Per Abrahamsen
>>>>> "Robert" == Robert A. Hayden <hay...@krypton.mankato.msus.edu> writes:
Robert> what about: r.g.ascii-dungeon.*
Pretty confusing to those who does not play the ASCII variants of the
games. The text-adventure named `dungeon' is also purely ASCII.
Robert> or just: rec.games.*
Has no group for larn, omega, and the other minor games in the genre.
We might try creating a single group if (when) the vote for the
hierarchy fails, but I think the hierarchy would have been better for
players who would like to learn about other games in the genre.
Tom O Breton
> I, for one, read this group regularly and have not seen any discussion of
> Andrew's proposal.
I can't understand how you missed it. There've been about two dozen
messages on it. "roguelike" seems to be the consensus.
Ron Asbestos Dippold
>Request for discussion: Creation of a rec.games.roguelike hierarchy
Looks good! Gopher it...
--
May you have many friends and very few living enemies.
David Seal
writes:
>How about rec.games.hack'n'slash?
Won't do - hack'n'slash is a playing style that extends well beyond this
class of games - e.g. I've seen it in role-playing games and in many
arcade-style games.
I like rec.games.ascii-dungeon better than anything else I've seen. I
realise that some of these games have acquired somewhat more sophisticated
interfaces than ASCII graphics. At least in the ones I've seen, this is
simply a matter of substituting coloured ASCII characters or small graphical
images for the original plain ASCII characters, and the game still feels
very much like an ASCII graphics one.
I'm willing to go along with rec.games.roguelike, though.
Magnus Olsson
>I think a better name would be rec.games.tty.
>
>The unifying feature of these games is that they are designed to run with
>tty-style graphics.
IMHO, this (rec.games.tty) is a BAD idea.
Firstly: it suffers from exactly the same disadvantage as
rec.games.ascii: there are lots of other games that could be described
as "tty games" - Star Trek (which was actually written for "real"
TTY:s), for example, not to speak of all the other text-based games.
Secondly: Do you really know what a tty is? A tty used to be a
teletype - a huge, noisy, electromechanical,printing terminal that
works at a ridiculously slow speed. It's hard to find a terminal
*less* suitable for playing a rogue-like game. Even though the term
tty has a broader meaning today, it is still widely used to denote a
"dumb" terminal ("glass tty") which is not very suitable either for
playing rogue.
One thing in common for all the rogue-like games is that they rely
extensively on cursor-addressing, so that the terminal doesn't have to
redraw the entire map for every move.
(But I have actually received a letter from one person who's played
hack on a hard-copy terminal, but it didn't sound like an experience
I'd like to share... :-)).
Vincent Archer
>I, for one, read this group regularly and have not seen any discussion of
>Andrew's proposal. Perhaps he has received some e-mail which has led him
>to believe that the consensus he mentions exists, and has given him a sense
>of what "most people" want. Personally, I prefer the group as is, and am
>not the least interested in having my spoilers (or anything else, for that
>matter) moderated.
I also oppose any moderation in games newsgroup... except for a .info
newsgroup. But the purpose of the info newsgroup should NOT include
posting of spoilers, but only posting by various game authors/maintainers
about new versions, patches, posting to comp.sources, compiled binaries
and so on.
I'm in favor of a .info groupe because, when I've got work to do (which
happens, even if you cannot believe it :-), I tend to stop reading most
news, and catch-up later. If there was an info group, I would keep on
reading it for these kind of posts... (for example, I totally missed NH3.1)
If the rec.games.roguelike hierarchy fails, I'll probably try to launch a
generic rec.games.info for that purpose...
--
Vincent Archer Email: arc...@frmug.fr.net
Talking much about oneself can also be a means to conceal oneself.
Andrew Solovay
>I also oppose any moderation in games newsgroup... except for a .info
>newsgroup. But the purpose of the info newsgroup should NOT include
>posting of spoilers, but only posting by various game authors/maintainers
>about new versions, patches, posting to comp.sources, compiled binaries
>and so on.
>
>I'm in favor of a .info groupe because, when I've got work to do (which
>happens, even if you cannot believe it :-), I tend to stop reading most
>news, and catch-up later. If there was an info group, I would keep on
>reading it for these kind of posts... (for example, I totally missed NH3.1)
I'm much the same way. I tend to play a game till I beat it, then drop
the game till a new version comes out. When I drop the game, I usually
drop the group it's in; this means that I find out about new versions
largely by accident (e.g. I first heard of Angband when someone posted
an RFD for rec.games.angband here).
I think other players of rogueish games are much like that, so an
.info (or .announce) group would serve a valid purpose. Nobody seems
interested in having a group for spoilers postings, so perhaps we
should just drop that from the charter (if & when there is such a
thing).
Also: One person suggested that .announce might be a better name for
the group. This appeals to me, for the reasons I mentioned above. Food
for thought.
Note that this is all still hypothetical; I won't include the group in
the CFV unless a moderator steps forward.
David Grabiner
>Robert> or just: rec.games.*
>Has no group for larn, omega, and the other minor games in the genre.
>We might try creating a single group if (when) the vote for the
>hierarchy fails, but I think the hierarchy would have been better for
>players who would like to learn about other games in the genre.
You can do this; vote against the rest of the groups, but vote for the
creation of rec.games.roguelike.misc. This would leave the current
hierarchy intact, but create a separate place to put Larn and Omega.
--
David Grabiner, grab...@math.harvard.edu (temporarily grabiner@husc10)
"We are sorry, but the number you have dialed is imaginary."
"Please rotate your phone 90 degrees and try again."
Disclaimer: I speak for no one and no one speaks for me...
Eiji Hirai
Sigh. I thought we discussed this not one week ago. Sigh.
rec.games.ascii-dungeon.* includes games like Zork Zero (to use one example)
and similar games which are "dungeon" game and use ascii graphics, but
aren't related to moria/hack/larn/omega/etc at all.
Also, rec.games.ascii-dungeon.* doesn't include games like Xmoria, which
is definitely related to moria/hack/larn/omega/etc.
Yes, rec.games.roguelike.* may not be a pretty name but it just so happens
that this is a precise definition of the relationship between all these
games.
--
hi...@cc.swarthmore.edu (Eiji Hirai) | Unix Geek for Swarthmore College
I don't speak for Swarthmore College | Computing Center, Swarthmore, PA, USA
"I post, therefore I am." -Rene Descartes on Usenet
Eiji Hirai
: I like rec.games.ascii-dungeon better than anything else I've seen.
This still includes games that aren't related to moria/hack/etc and doesn't
include some games which are related to moria/hack/etc.
: simly a matter of substituting coloured ASCII characters or small graphical
: images for the original plain ASCII characters
An example of non-ascii based moria/hack game: Xmoria.
Eiji Hirai
: I think a better name would be rec.games.tty.
Sigh, this was discussed about a week ago. Sigh.
: there are non-rogue style games that also
: use this interface
precisely. What's to prevent me from thinking that this hiearchy is
for discussing ascii tetris?
The rec.games.tty.* name is just too ambiguous to be useful.
Eiji Hirai
: I, for one, read this group regularly and have not seen any discussion of
: Andrew's proposal.
That's because he made Followup-To: news.groups, which is where all the
discussion has been taking place. Andrew was just following the newsgroup
creation guidelines. If he didn't, he'd get flamed and rightly so. You
shouldn't fault him for doing the right thing.
Eiji Hirai
: I also oppose any moderation in games newsgroup... except for a .info
: newsgroup.
Which is precisely what the proposal says. You don't need to oppose anything.
Eiji Hirai
: Also: One person suggested that .announce might be a better name for
: the group. This appeals to me
This appeals to me too. I'd also like a moderated .announce group (instead
of the .info) group for just announcements of new versions.
Rebecca Harris
wrote:
>
> Rebecca:
>
> > I, for one, read this group regularly and have not seen any discussion of
> > Andrew's proposal.
>
> I can't understand how you missed it. There've been about two dozen
> messages on it. "roguelike" seems to be the consensus.
I read Andrew's cross-posting in rec.games.hack, which is the group I read
regularly. His postings did not indicate that discussion was to take place
in news.groups (a convention he e-mailed me about) and then HE posted my
message in news.groups...clearly out of my original context. I think that
changes to existing groups should be discussed by posting to the affected
groups themselves, and that this convention creates a situation where
parties who are unaware of the content and interests of a group become part
of a consensus which does not concern them. I find the naming discussions
trivial, and am profoundly disinterested in creating yet another "moderator
fiefdom." If I don't want to read something, I am completely capable of
not reading it myself. Andrew's behavior in cross-posting someone else's
message (mine in this case) is a good example of how someone can be
misrepresented by a volunteer censor. I'm sure he had my best interests in
mind.
& & & & & & & & & & &
& & & & & & & & & & & & & & &
help!
& & & & & & & & & & & & & & && & \
& & & && & & & & & & & & & & @
& & && & & & & & & & & & & & &
& & & & && & & & & & & & &&& & & & &
Andrew Solovay
>
>I read Andrew's cross-posting in rec.games.hack, which is the group I read
>regularly. His postings did not indicate that discussion was to take place
>in news.groups (a convention he e-mailed me about)
Well, they directed follow-ups to news.groups, not to rec.games.hack.
That could serve as a hint.
> and then HE posted my
>message in news.groups...clearly out of my original context.
This is patently untrue. My RFDs directed follow-ups to news.groups.
You posted a follow-up, so it went to news.groups. I reposted
nothing. You did it all by yourself.
#ifdef FLAME
If you'd get the most minimal freaking clue about how USENET works,
you'd save yourself a lot of embarassment and the rest of us a lot of
line noise.
#else
This is a natural mistake; don't sweat it.
#endif
Look through rec.games.hack. See your post anywhere? Now look through
news.groups. See it there? Check the header; you posted it, not me.
> Andrew's behavior in cross-posting someone else's
>message (mine in this case) is a good example of how someone can be
>misrepresented by a volunteer censor.
See above.
>& & & & & & & & & & &
> & & & & & & & & & & & & & & &
>help!
> & & & & & & & & & & & & & & && & \
> & & & && & & & & & & & & & & @
>& & && & & & & & & & & & & & &
> & & & & && & & & & & & & &&& & & & &
*Love* your .sig, honey.
Per Abrahamsen
>>>>> "David" == David Grabiner <grab...@husc10.harvard.edu> writes:
David> You can do this; vote against the rest of the groups, but vote for the
David> creation of rec.games.roguelike.misc. This would leave the current
David> hierarchy intact, but create a separate place to put Larn and Omega.
I could, but I think it is even better to vote yes to all of them.
This would make it obvious for people who know moria, nethack, or
angband what kind of games are discussed in rec.games.roguelike.misc,
even if they don't know rogue. It would also make it easier for
people who know one of the games to find other games in the same
genre.
Rebecca Harris
> --
> Andrew Solovay
>
> "But that was in another country;
> and besides, the wench is dead." ---Marlowe
Part flame, part mistake, part honest belief in a process wherein
discussion takes place within the forum being discussed, and that decision
be made by those affected. It makes sense to use news.groups to discuss NEW
groups, not existing groups. Conventions are agreed upon within a society,
and when they do not function, they are changed. Conventions change when
they are not honored.
I would apologize for my abject ignorance had your reactions, both here and
in the e-mail I've received from you, not been unbearably arrogant. Now you
"compliment" me on my sig, and include an endearment which seems designed
to diminish, much as does your commentary (PARTICULARLY in your e-mail).
I'll bet you call all the boys honey too. Can't say I love your sig. Does
your sig love you?
Brian J. Dunford
Could someone please explain how a RFD for rec.games.angband(IMHO not
really a great idea to start with) has suddenly turned into trying to
re-name all the rec.games.{moria,hack,etc} in r.g.{roguelike,tty,ascii,
whatever else}. There has been little confusion in the past on what the
various groups are for(except hack but those seem to be rare). Do we
really need to add roguelike to all the current newsgroups? Is this really
going to make it easier for people to find the groups. It seems all this
will do is add more confusion onto the r.g.* groups with no benefit that
I can see.
Dun...@lictor.acsu.buffalo.edu
Andrew Solovay
>in the e-mail I've received from you, not been unbearably arrogant. Now you
>"compliment" me on my sig, and include an endearment which seems designed
>to diminish, much as does your commentary (PARTICULARLY in your e-mail).
>I'll bet you call all the boys honey too. Can't say I love your sig. Does
>your sig love you?
As a matter of fact, I do (call the boys honey, that is). If you read
soc.motss, you'd know that.
And I assure you, I would "diminish" any male who was so singularly
and publicly clueless, quite as much as I have you. Read the SRIA
thread, and you'll see that, as well.
Thirdly: My tone did, I admit, get somewhat more snide, PARTICULARLY
in my e-mail, after you publicly accused me of quoting you out of
context and subjecting you to flaming thereby. You quoted yourself out
of context, as it were, and that's nobody's fault but your own.
Fourthly: If that was a .sig, it was a deucedly ugly one.
Fifthly: Well, I suppose not everyone's up to Marlowe.
Patricia Evans
>You can do this; vote against the rest of the groups, but vote for the
>creation of rec.games.roguelike.misc. This would leave the current
>hierarchy intact, but create a separate place to put Larn and Omega.
>
>David Grabiner, grab...@math.harvard.edu (temporarily grabiner@husc10)
If only rec.games.roguelike.misc passes, will it be obvious that this group
is where discussion of omega and larn takes place? At least with the .moria
and .nethack groups as well, some further indication of what games are
considered "roguelike" is given.
Patricia Evans
pev...@sanjuan.uvic.ca
David Seal
>Part flame, part mistake, part honest belief in a process wherein
>discussion takes place within the forum being discussed, and that decision
>be made by those affected. It makes sense to use news.groups to discuss NEW
>groups, not existing groups. Conventions are agreed upon within a society,
>and when they do not function, they are changed. Conventions change when
>they are not honored.
Changes to an existing group can affect and be affected by other existing
groups, so news.groups should be involved. There is a case to be made that
proposals which change existing groups should be discussed in the groups
concerned, with RFDs and CFVs being sent to news.announce.newgroups and
news.groups as well, while proposals which create new groups should be done
as at present (i.e. discussion in news.groups, with RFDs and CFVs being sent
to news.announce.newgroups and affected groups). But I don't think it's a
very good case.
The main problem is the confusion that it would cause. The present rule is
simple - all discussion of group proposals in news.groups - and people still
get it wrong. (BTW, this isn't a flame directed at Rebecca, just an
observation of what does in fact happen. I have a suspicion that a lot of
these cases are caused by new users either not being advised to read
news.announce.newusers, or not taking that advice.) A more complicated rule
will probably just cause more mistakes...
On top of that, what should happen when (as in many re-organisations,
including this one) some old groups are being renamed and some new ones are
being created? If the discussion is supposed to take place in each of the
existing groups *and* in news.groups, it will just become hopelessly
fragmented. Partly due to the way different newsreaders work and partly due
to people's different crossposting habits, different messages will be sent
to different subsets of the full set of groups.
This could be settled by an even more complicated rule - e.g. "if a proposal
is only about new groups, discussion should take place in news.groups; if it
changes just one existing group, discussion should take place in that group;
if it changes 2 or more existing groups, discussion should take place in the
(hypothetical) news.reorgs group". But this just gives yet more opportunity
for confusion...
The "discussion in news.groups" convention has been agreed for the very good
reason that, by and large, it works. Any convention about where discussion
takes place is almost certainly going to fail at some point for some reason:
if we're to replace the existing one, we need an alternative that looks
likely to fail significantly less often than the existing one. I can't see
such an alternative.
Magnus Olsson
>
> Could someone please explain how a RFD for rec.games.angband(IMHO not
>really a great idea to start with) has suddenly turned into trying to
>re-name all the rec.games.{moria,hack,etc} in r.g.{roguelike,tty,ascii,
>whatever else}.
It hasn't. They are two separate proposals, but the proposer of
rec.games.angband (David Grabiner, if I'm not mistaken) has agreed to
postpone the discussion on the rec.games.angband proposal until after
the rec.games.roguelike.* vote.
Eiji Hirai
: There is a case to be made that
: proposals which change existing groups should be discussed in the groups
Andew was only following the news.announce.newgroup guideline on creating
new newsgroups and making followups to news.groups. If he didn't do this,
he'd be violating those guidelines.
If you want to change the guidelines, you should propose that as an entirely
different proposal on news.groups. However, you shouldn't criticize Andrew
or his RFD just because he was correctly following the guidelines.
BTW, you should read the "How to Create a New Usenet Newsgroup FAQ" in
rtfm.mit.edu:/pub/usenet-by-groups/news.announce.newsgroups/
Tom O Breton
> Could someone please explain how a RFD for rec.games.angband(IMHO not
> really a great idea to start with) has suddenly turned into trying to
> re-name all the rec.games.{moria,hack,etc} in r.g.{roguelike,tty,ascii,
> whatever else}.
That's not exactly what happened. The "rec.games.angband" discussion
inspired Aliza to make a larger suggestion, and after it bounced around
a bit, it got serious, Andrew Solovay picked it up, and here we are
on 2nd RFD, nearing a CFV.
I was against it at first, because I felt that the work of getting it
done outwieghed the benefits. The main benefit is that people interested
in one roguelike game can easily find discussion of other roguelike
games.
However, now that some of the work has been done and people are taking
it seriously, I feel this changes the equation.
Incidentally, the rec.games[.|.roguelike].angband CFV is postponed until
the other is settled one way or the other.
Brian J. Dunford
>Brian:
>
>> Could someone please explain how a RFD for rec.games.angband(IMHO not
>> really a great idea to start with) has suddenly turned into trying to
>> re-name all the rec.games.{moria,hack,etc} in r.g.{roguelike,tty,ascii,
>> whatever else}.
>
>That's not exactly what happened. The "rec.games.angband" discussion
>inspired Aliza to make a larger suggestion, and after it bounced around
>a bit, it got serious, Andrew Solovay picked it up, and here we are
>on 2nd RFD, nearing a CFV.
I should have been more clear in my initial posting. I'm aware of the new
RFD proposed by Andrew Solovay. The point I was attempting to
get across is whether changing the organization of Rec.games.* by adding
{roguelike,ascii,dungeon,etc} will work better than the way it is now?
>I was against it at first, because I felt that the work of getting it
>done outwieghed the benefits. The main benefit is that people interested
>in one roguelike game can easily find discussion of other roguelike
>games.
I can understand this point but for people new to these programs may not
understand what the added name means, and how will a title be found that
will fit for a description equally well for Moria,Larn,Omega,Nethack,Angband,
Xmoria, etc. Also, how does Rec.Games.* not fit this already? Games is
somewhat generic, but does denote what all of these programs are. Roguelike
i could see applying to Larn and Nethack, but a program like Moria is somewhat
a different now(I understand it's origins in rogue).For example it is not
a single screen game, as Rogue is. Many of the programs are ascii based, but
then you have programs run under X. It just seems that any attempt at
narrowing the specifications of the groups will be either not completely
applicable or confusing to some people.
>
>However, now that some of the work has been done and people are taking
>it seriously, I feel this changes the equation.
> Tom
>--
>The Tom spreads its huge, scaly wings and soars into the sky...
>(t...@world.std.com, TomB...@delphi.com)
Dun...@lictor.acsu.buffalo.edu
(this will have to do for a .sig, i haven't bothered to make one, i'm just
one of those lurkers in the background who decided to say something)
Per Abrahamsen
>>>>> "Brian" == Brian J. Dunford <dun...@acsu.buffalo.edu> writes:
Brian> Do we really need to add roguelike to all the current
Brian> newsgroups? Is this really going to make it easier for people
Brian> to find the groups. It seems all this will do is add more
Brian> confusion onto the r.g.* groups with no benefit that I can
Brian> see.
Adding `roguelike' will not help those who look for a newsgroup for
moria or nethack and are not interested in other roguelike games, but
I don't think it will harm either.
Adding `roguelike' will help people who look for a newsgroup for larn
or omega or other roguelike games even if they don't know rogue. If
you know moria and see
rec.games.roguelike.moria
rec.games.roguelike.misc
it is pretty obvious that rec.games.roguelike.misc is the place to
talk about omega and larn.
Adding `roguelike' would also help people who play one of the games,
and would like to try other games in the genre.
Tom O Breton
> I can understand this point but for people new to these programs may not
> understand what the added name means
OK, but it can be explained in a sentence even to someone who never saw
rogue.
> Also, how does Rec.Games.* not fit this already?
Because they have a collection of feature in common which other games do
not.
Some attempts to enumerate these features have failed (IE, "ascii",
"dungeon", etc.) But for any of them you can look at the screen and say
"Duzzn't dat remind ya of rogue?" They don't each have every common
feature, but they form a reasonable grouping.
The Quixotic Ninja
>moria or nethack and are not interested in other roguelike games, but
>I don't think it will harm either.
Except for the fact that there will suddenly be a number of 'bogus'
groups (rec.games.moria and the rest) which will need to be rmgrouped.
Chances are, they will never completely vanish. (See 'rec.arts.startrek'
for an example of what I mean.)
>Adding `roguelike' will help people who look for a newsgroup for larn
>or omega or other roguelike games even if they don't know rogue. If
>you know moria and see
>
> rec.games.roguelike.moria
> rec.games.roguelike.misc
>
>it is pretty obvious that rec.games.roguelike.misc is the place to
>talk about omega and larn.
Sorry, I don't agree at all with the logic. If someone doesn't know
of rogue, the group names will just create a lot of added confusion.
--
:.:.:.: john n. trussell :.:.:.: Everything in the universe is a joke.
:.:.:. jtr...@wpi.wpi.edu .:.:.: Normally, you're intelligent enough to 'get'
:.:. dev...@ulthar.wpi.edu .:.: only the obvious ones. But go without sleep
devnull%hotb...@schunix.dmc.com for some time, and you gain the intelligence
:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:..:.:.:.:.:.:.:.: to 'get' them all. --Hyperintelligence Theory
The Quixotic Ninja
>
>Because they have a collection of feature in common which other games do
>not.
Pardon me for asking, but...
So what? It's not *necessary* to have a separate subheirarchy just
because the games have a similar distant ancestor. I don't see
rec.games.8x8board.chess and rec.games.8x8board.checkers out there,
either. And, considering how much the 'roguelike' (that has got to be
the worst heirarchy name I've ever seen) games have diverged since the
creation of rogue, they no longer need to be grouped together.
>Some attempts to enumerate these features have failed (IE, "ascii",
>"dungeon", etc.) But for any of them you can look at the screen and say
>"Duzzn't dat remind ya of rogue?" They don't each have every common
>feature, but they form a reasonable grouping.
Perhaps the difficulty in finding a unifying term for the games should
serve as a hint to you that there *aren't* enough similarities between
them anymore to justify a subheirarchy.
mil...@wharton.upenn.edu
> Perhaps the difficulty in finding a unifying term for the games should
> serve as a hint to you that there *aren't* enough similarities between
> them anymore to justify a subheirarchy.
Perhaps the problem is that the single characteristic which *best*
distinguishes them, that they are *computer* games, is nowhere mentioned
in the newsgroup name. Personally I find annoying the way that solo
computer games and games played face to face or over postal or e-mail
are mixed in the same hierarchy.
Maybe the advocates should step back a bit and make rec.games.comp.rogue
and rec.games.comp.nethack and rec.games.comp.misc, leaving plenty of
room for more computer games to be added to the hierarchy, rather than
creating a hierarchy with built in obsolescence...
Now *that* would be a change that the hierarchy purists (like me) could
support.
--
whoah,
+++++++++++++++++++++++23
Loren Miller internet: MIL...@wharton.upenn.edu
"Science" does not remove the terror of the gods.
Robert A. Hayden
-> Maybe the advocates should step back a bit and make rec.games.comp.rogue
-> and rec.games.comp.nethack and rec.games.comp.misc, leaving plenty of
-> room for more computer games to be added to the hierarchy, rather than
-> creating a hierarchy with built in obsolescence...
I agree. Not only is 'roguelike' a poor name, but it says nothing about
the fact that they are for the computer. rec.games.comp.* would work
great, and allow the addition of non-ASCII-Dungeon games also.
{[> Robert A. Hayden ____ hay...@krypton.mankato.msus.edu <]}
{[> \ /__ hay...@att2.cs.mankato.msus.edu <]}
{[> \/ / aq...@slc4.INS.CWRU.Edu <]}
{[> #include <std_disclaimer.h> \/ <]}
-=-=-
(GEEK CODE 0.3): GSS d- p--/-p+ c++ l++ m+/* s-/++ g+ w++ t++ r++ x+
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Random Thought:
"But are you not," he said, "a more fiendish disputant than the Great
Hyperlobic Omni-Cognate Neutron Wrangler of Ciceronicus Twelve, the Magic
and Indefatigable?"
"The Great Hyperlobic Omni-Cognate Neutron Wrangler," said Deep Thought,
thoroughly rolling the r's, "could talk all four legs off an Arcturan
Mega-Donkey -- but only I could persuade it to go for a walk afterward."
-- Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Per Abrahamsen
This has nothing to do with discussion of a `roguelike' hierarchy.
Tetris and Space Invaders hardly qualifies as roguelike.
Feel free to propose a `rec.games.computer' hierarchy in a separate
RFD (I will support it), but don't mix it with the current
discussion.
Andrew Solovay
this proposed hierarchy is taking place.]
Status report:
I have a volunteer to moderate the fifth group. Ms. Aliza Panitz
<bug...@bronze.lcs.mit.edu> has volunteered to moderate the group.
The group would be called rec.games.roguelike.announce; it would be
for annoncements of new releases and patches, postings of FAQ lists,
and similar informational material.
Second: The big unresolved question is, still, the name of the
hierarchy. (That is, the big, unresolvced question other than "should
we do this at all", which will be resolved by the vote. ;-) So far,
there have been a great many suggestions; but very few of these have
attracted support from anyone but the suggester. The only one which
has a reasonable following is the (admittedly ugly) compromise of
"rec.games.roguelike". This has the virtue of specifying the one thing
these games have in common with each other, and not with other games;
that is, rogueish ancestry and a rogue-like game interface.
I am willing to have a straw poll for the hierarchy name, if others
think it warranted. However, as I've said, I haven't seen any other
suggested group name gather any support, so I don't think a straw poll
will really be necessary.
--
Andrew Solovay
"What better proof of love can there be than money? A ten-shilling
note showed incontrovertibly just how mad about you a man is."
--- Quentin Crisp
Tom O Breton
In an earlier message I explained the benefit of grouping them together
-- people who play one could easily find discussions of others.
> I don't see rec.games.8x8board.chess and rec.games.8x8board.checkers out
> there, either.
The examples are not comparable. One grouping is too small to focus on,
the other is the right size.
> Perhaps the difficulty in finding a unifying term for the games should
> serve as a hint to you that there *aren't* enough similarities between
> them anymore to justify a subheirarchy.
I know half-a-dozen of them quite well and they are convincingly
similar, thank you. Have you played any of them?
Axl
That's what the current discussion IS, bud. The proposed
hierarchy. I see nothing wrong with suggesting another name for it,
since not everyone agrees to 'roguelike.'
-axl
Matthew Crosby
>I think a better name would be rec.games.tty.
>
>The unifying feature of these games is that they are designed to run with
>tty-style graphics. Admittedly there are non-rogue style games that also
>use this interface, but I don't know if that would be a problem - perhaps
>it would be an advantage. A person who doesn't know what "tty" means won't
>have heard of Rogue, anyway.
>
This has been gone over before. There are any number of games that use "tty"
style graphics, and many roguelike games that don't.
I want to put in my vote that roguelike is the best name. Not perfect, but
the best.
--
-Matt cro...@cs.colorado.edu
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the net!
Dave Schweisguth
[snip]
: Second: The big unresolved question is, still, the name of the
: hierarchy. (That is, the big, unresolvced question other than "should
: we do this at all", which will be resolved by the vote. ;-) So far,
: there have been a great many suggestions; but very few of these have
: attracted support from anyone but the suggester. The only one which
: has a reasonable following is the (admittedly ugly) compromise of
: "rec.games.roguelike". This has the virtue of specifying the one thing
: these games have in common with each other, and not with other games;
: that is, rogueish ancestry and a rogue-like game interface.
"rec.games.rogueish". Same meaning, ever so much more euphonious.
--
| Dave Schweisguth Yale MB&B & Chemistry Net: d...@neutron.chem.yale.edu |
| Lab phone: 203-432-5208 Fax: 203-432-6144 Home phone: 203-624-3866 |
| For complying with the NJ Right To Know Act: Contents partially unknown. |
rob
>In article <ABRAHAM.93...@loke.iesd.auc.dk> abr...@iesd.auc.dk (Per Abrahamsen) writes:
>>it is pretty obvious that rec.games.roguelike.misc is the place to
>>talk about omega and larn.
>
>Sorry, I don't agree at all with the logic. If someone doesn't know
>of rogue, the group names will just create a lot of added confusion.
While rec.games.roguelike.misc is certainly not obvious to an omega
player ignorant of the game's roots, it is not a major disaster. The
player will probably end up posting to rec.games.misc and will no doubt
be very promptly informed by a horde of friendly USENETers that the
appropriate forum is rec.games.roguelike.misc. Let's give these
rogue-ignoramuses a wee bit of credit and assume that they can find
rec.games.misc, ok? This is where omega and larn are currently
discussed, aren't they? (I don't know, since I don't read
rec.games.misc.)
rob
Andrew Solovay
>
>"rec.games.rogueish". Same meaning, ever so much more euphonious.
I dunno... the thing that worries me is, "rogueish" is a well-used
English word with an inappropriate meaning (i.e. "like a rogue", not
"like the game Rogue".) I think this could lead to confusion; after
all, aren't "Leisure Suit Larry" and "Leather Goddesses of Phobos"
much more "rogueish" than NetHack and Moria?
But I'm open to all suggestions. What do people think? Is "rogueish"
better than "roguelike"?
Oh, and if we go with "roguelike", should their be a hyphen
(rec.games.rogue-like.misc) or not (rec.games.roguelike.misc)? I don't
think a hyphen is necessary, but...
Robert A. Hayden
awful name.
There is no perfect name for this group, and personally I think it should
all go under either rec.games or create a new hierarchy of rec.games.comp.*.
By putting them all under r.g.comp, it allows us to designate that they
are computer games and doesn't require someone having some idea what rogue
is/was to know what the hierarchy is all about.
PLEASE, there has got to be something better that roguelike.
--
{[> Robert A. Hayden ____ hay...@krypton.mankato.msus.edu <]}
{[> \ /__ hay...@att2.cs.mankato.msus.edu <]}
{[> \/ / aq...@slc4.INS.CWRU.Edu <]}
{[> #include <std_disclaimer.h> \/ <]}
-=-=-
GEEK CODE v1.0.1: GSS d- -p+(---) c++(++++) l++ u++ e+/* m++(*)@ s-/++
n-(---) h+(*) f+ g+ w++ t++ r++ y+(*)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Random Thought:
Philosophy: A route of many roads leading from nowhere to nothing.
-- Ambrose Bierce
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Per Abrahamsen
>>>>> "Robert" == Robert A. Hayden <hay...@krypton.mankato.msus.edu> writes:
Robert> By putting them all under r.g.comp, it allows us to designate
Robert> that they are computer games and doesn't require someone
Robert> having some idea what rogue is/was to know what the hierarchy
Robert> is all about.
Not good enough, the proposal is for a hierarchy for rogue like
games. Rec.games.comp is a very misleading name for such a
hierarchy.
I personaly don't think you need to know about rogue to guess that
rec.games.roguelike.moria is the right group to talk about Moria in.
Andrew Solovay
>
>By putting them all under r.g.comp, it allows us to designate that they
>are computer games and doesn't require someone having some idea what rogue
>is/was to know what the hierarchy is all about.
The problem is, the whole point of having this hierarchy is that there
is a group of similar games, such that people who enjoy one are very
likely to enjoy the other. (This is certainly true for me; I started
on Rogue, have played Hack, Moria and Omega heavily, and currently
alternate between Nethack and Angband.)
This hierarchy would be useful for such people. They could easily find
discussion of other games that might interest them. "rec.games.comp"
would have no such advantage; it would include everything from
computer hangman to Ultima VII to Leisure Suit Larry, which is too
broad be useful (and also not the point of this RFD).
Furthermore, "rec.games.comp" would overlap far too heavily with the
"comp.sys.*.games" groups. On the other hand, NethHack, Moria, etc.,
are *not* discussed in the comp.sys.*.games groups, as they are not
closely tied to any one platform.
>PLEASE, there has got to be something better that roguelike.
I'm open to suggestions. Keep in mind that the hierarchy is for
discussion of (for lack of a better term) rogue-style games,
specifically Moria, Angband, Nethack, Rogue, Larn, Omega, and similar
games. Can you think of another possible hierarchy name?
(rec.games.comp doesn't cut it.)
How about rec.games.rogue-style? That seems as descriptive as
"roguelike", and is perhaps more euphonious. Any thoughts?
Tom O Breton
> But I'm open to all suggestions. What do people think? Is "rogueish"
> better than "roguelike"?
Well... the name discussion is already growing rather long and
unfruitful. I'd prefer to "sit on" roguelike as in the current RFD,
rather than play with variations.
Different if there's a real consensus building toward something else, of
course. But what little consensus there is seems already placed on
roguelike.
I also think roguelike is a trifle better than rogueish or rogue-like,
(and WAY better than the only non-rogue term I've heard, "alphabet-soup"
games) but my main point is that at some point we have to stop playing
with the name.
Tom O Breton
> By putting them all under r.g.comp, it allows us to designate that they
> are computer games and doesn't require someone having some idea what rogue
> is/was to know what the hierarchy is all about.
But the idea never was to designate all computer games.
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
>>The unifying feature of these games is that they are designed to run with
>>tty-style graphics. Admittedly there are non-rogue style games that also
>>use this interface, but I don't know if that would be a problem - perhaps
>>it would be an advantage. A person who doesn't know what "tty" means won't
>>have heard of Rogue, anyway.
>>
>This has been gone over before. There are any number of games that use "tty"
>style graphics, and many roguelike games that don't.
>I want to put in my vote that roguelike is the best name. Not perfect, but
>the best.
I know it won't have any effect this late in the debate, but I *will*
suggest rec.games.tty-dungeon.
(other possibilities *you* might like better: rec.games.terminal.dungeon.
rec.games.terminal.rougueish.
rec.games.rogueish.
rec.games.tty.dungeon. (has the advantage that other ancient tty-games also
profit)
Well, at least I don't have to carry these two pennies around...
----
jvh
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
>"rec.games.rogueish". Same meaning, ever so much more euphonious.
Hey. I just proposed that as well, independently. The flux is strong...
Well nobody can claim that to be a single opinion. Although my post does
express other alternatives that I consider even better than "rogueish",
I am positive, that it is better than "r-like".
----
jvh
Axl
>
>Robert> By putting them all under r.g.comp, it allows us to designate
>Robert> that they are computer games and doesn't require someone
>Robert> having some idea what rogue is/was to know what the hierarchy
>Robert> is all about.
>
>Not good enough, the proposal is for a hierarchy for rogue like
>games. Rec.games.comp is a very misleading name for such a
>hierarchy.
>
girls.
rec = recreation
games = games ;)
comp = computer.
Seems very straightforward, and non-misleading. Anyone with
an IQ over 19 will see this and say "Oh wow...I bet they talk about
computer games on here. Maybe that moria game I heard of will be in
this grouping somewhere..."
-axl
Per Abrahamsen
>>>>>> "Robert" == Robert A. Hayden <hay...@krypton.mankato.msus.edu> writes:
Robert> By putting them all under r.g.comp, it allows us to designate
Robert> that they are computer games and doesn't require someone
Robert> having some idea what rogue is/was to know what the hierarchy
Robert> is all about.
In article <ABRAHAM.93...@loke.iesd.auc.dk>
abr...@iesd.auc.dk (Per Abrahamsen) writes:
Abraham> Not good enough, the proposal is for a hierarchy for rogue like
Abraham> games. Rec.games.comp is a very misleading name for such a
Abraham> hierarchy.
>>>>> On Mon, 19 Jul 93 17:57:12 GMT, j_he...@oz.plymouth.edu (Axl) said:
Axl> And 'rougelike' is not?
No. Roguelike is a very precise name for a group for discussing rogue
like games.
Axl> Let's look at this carefully, boys & girls.
Axl> rec = recreation
Axl> games = games ;)
Axl> comp = computer.
Axl> Seems very straightforward, and non-misleading. Anyone with
Axl> an IQ over 19 will see this and say "Oh wow...I bet they talk about
Axl> computer games on here. Maybe that moria game I heard of will be in
Axl> this grouping somewhere..."
Anyone with IQ over over 19 would also think Tetris belong to that
hierarchy. But Tetris is not a rogue like game and does not belong in
a hierarchy for rogue like games, thus the group name is misleading.
Donald Tsang
In article <> abr...@iesd.auc.dk (Per Abrahamsen) writes:
>Feel free to propose a `rec.games.computer' hierarchy in a separate
>RFD (I will support it), but don't mix it with the current
>discussion.
Why not (comp.games.*) instead of (rec.games.comp.*)?
It's just as descriptive, fits within the current hierarchy, and
is only two levels deep, which is a REAL plus, IMHO.
Eventually we might move groups like comp.sys.ibmpc.games.misc and
rec.games.netrek to comp.games.ibmpc.misc and comp.games.netrek, etc...
(in many cases, doing GOOD by reducing hierarchy levels).
And rogue, hack, etc. could all be part of a "comp.games.dungeon.*"
hierarchy... a side benefit would be that cgd* would clearly refer to
computer-dungeon games, and not the games in the rec.games.frp
hierarchy.
Any opinions?
--
---
Donald Tsang | "Think it'll work?"
ts...@austin.ibm.com | "It would take a miracle."
| -- The Princess Bride
Ron Asbestos Dippold
> Seems very straightforward, and non-misleading. Anyone with
>an IQ over 19 will see this and say "Oh wow...I bet they talk about
>computer games on here. Maybe that moria game I heard of will be in
>this grouping somewhere..."
"Hey! Where's Ultima? And Populous? And Tetris? And Wing
Commander? And BLAZEMONGER?"
--
A mind is a terrible thing.
Kevin J. Barth
Nethack, Moria, Angband, Rogue...Just about everything in the category
of "Roguelike games." As such, I would have perhaps the most to gain from
a set of groups that are linked together and easy to find. However,
I think "roguelike" is a kludge - an ugly one, and one that is utterly
unnecessary.
People who know the name of the game that they are looking for will have little
problem finding rec.games.* if they are looking for it. Those who have no
idea what "hack" or "rogue" is will still know upon seeing "rec.games.*" that
the group is about a game called "rogue" or "hack". They may admittedly
not know what rogue or hack is all about.
BUT...
If someone _doesn't_ know what rogue is about, then "rec.games.roguelike.*"
will be of absolutely no use whatsoever. If someone _does_ know what
constitute a "roguelike game" the only purpose the hierarchy will serve
is to provide a list of other roguelike games for the reader to try and a
pointer to the groups where they are discussed. The same could be done with
an FAQ list posted to the various rec.games.* groups.
Unless someone can offer a suggestion as to an actual use for the proposed
groups, I plan on voting no to all proposed groups.
Kevin Barth
ba...@wam.umd.edu
Axl
Seeing how they are all computer games, then they all should
come under rec.games.comp.*, if anything. I happen to favor the
current rec.games.* myself...
-axl
Per Abrahamsen
>>>>> "Tsang" == Donald Tsang <ts...@genma.austin.ibm.com> writes:
Tsang> Why not (comp.games.*) instead of (rec.games.comp.*)?
Tsang> Any opinions?
I like it.
Per Abrahamsen
>>>>> "Kevin" == Kevin J. Barth <ba...@wam.umd.edu> writes:
[ Intelligent questions about the usefulness of a rec.games.roguelike
hierarchy deleted. ]
Kevin> Unless someone can offer a suggestion as to an actual use for
Kevin> the proposed groups, I plan on voting no to all proposed
Kevin> groups.
There group `rec.games.roguelike.misc' would be very useful for
discussing games like Larn and Omega that does not have their own
groups.
Moving the other games will make the purpose of
`rec.games.roguelike.misc' clear to people who does not know `rogue'.
I know the later is a weak argument, but I hope you at least will
consider voting yes to `rec.games.roguelike.misc' even if you are
against the other groups.
Donald Tsang
>Axl> an IQ over 19 will see this and say "Oh wow...I bet they talk about
>Axl> computer games on here. Maybe that moria game I heard of will be in
>Axl> this grouping somewhere..."
>
>Anyone with IQ over over 19 would also think Tetris belong to that
>hierarchy. But Tetris is not a rogue like game and does not belong in
>a hierarchy for rogue like games, thus the group name is misleading.
I think the point was that, once we defined it as "computer games",
we could safely use "dungeon" again without confusing rec.games.frp
people...
I still like "comp.games.dungeon.*" under a "comp.games" hierarchy better.
Andrew Solovay
Well, that's not the idea behind this (proposed) reorg. The idea is
this:
There is a group of closely related games, all descended from
"Rogue", which are ery popular and somewhat similar. People who play
one of these games often enjoy the others. Thus, putting them into a
single hierarchy would have two advantages:
(1) It would provide a natural place for newsgroups that apply to all
games of this type (i.e. .misc and .announce), and
(2) It would help people who enjoy one of these games find out about
other, similar games.
You may or may not think this is enough reason to create a hierarchy;
ultimately, the vote will settle that. But you are proposing a
completely different hierarchy, namely "rec.games.comp". This would,
it is true, encompass rogue-style games, but so would
"rec.games.indoor". That's not the point. The point is, your proposed
hierarchy would not serve either of the purposes behind the current
(proposed) reorg.
Tom Holub
) And 'rougelike' is not? Let's look at this carefully, boys &
)girls.
)
) rec = recreation
) games = games ;)
) comp = computer.
)
) Seems very straightforward, and non-misleading. Anyone with
)an IQ over 19 will see this and say "Oh wow...I bet they talk about
)computer games on here. Maybe that moria game I heard of will be in
)this grouping somewhere..."
Do you propose to move all the current non-rougelike rec.games groups to
this new heirarchy? The name of the heirarchy *is* misleading if there
are nothing but roguelike games in it while others like rec.games.xtank
and rec.games.netrek are not.
-Tom
Robert A. Hayden
-> I think the point was that, once we defined it as "computer games",
-> we could safely use "dungeon" again without confusing rec.games.frp
-> people...
-> I still like "comp.games.dungeon.*" under a "comp.games" hierarchy better.
Now THAT makes more sense than roguelike.
--
{[> Robert A. Hayden ____ hay...@krypton.mankato.msus.edu <]}
{[> \ /__ hay...@att2.cs.mankato.msus.edu <]}
{[> \/ / aq...@slc4.INS.CWRU.Edu <]}
{[> #include <std_disclaimer.h> \/ <]}
-=-=-
GEEK CODE v1.0.1: GSS d- -p+(---) c++(++++) l++ u++ e+/* m++(*)@ s-/++
n-(---) h+(*) f+ g+ w++ t++ r++ y+(*)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Random Thought:
"This will be dynamically handled, possibly correctly, in 4.1."
-- Dan Davison on streams configuration in SunOS 4.0
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Aliza R. Panitz
>
>Why not (comp.games.*) instead of (rec.games.comp.*)?
>
>It's just as descriptive, fits within the current hierarchy, and
>is only two levels deep, which is a REAL plus, IMHO.
Nice idea, but it doesn't really fit into the Usenet scheme of things, as
I see it. Of the 'big 7' (comp, rec, soc, talk, news, misc, sci), there
is a general (in some cases, *very* general) commonality among all the groups.
Recreational stuff goes in rec, and (theoretically) serious computer topics
go in comp. It would make more sense to move comp.sys.ibm.pc.games into
rec.games.comp.ibmpc, than to move rec.games.* into comp.games.*
Believe it or not, there are sites that choose not to pay their money on
getting rec groups. We shouldn't make it overly difficult for them to
differentiate among the groups...
- Aliza
Per Abrahamsen
>>>>> "Donald" == Donald Tsang <ts...@genma.austin.ibm.com> writes:
Donald> I think the point was that, once we defined it as "computer games",
Donald> we could safely use "dungeon" again without confusing rec.games.frp
Donald> people...
It still leaves the problem with text adventure games such as
`dungeon' (a.k.a Zork) and `adventure' (a.k.a Colossal Cave) which are
not very rogue like. However I wouldn't mind an occasional question
about those two classics :-) so `comp.games.dungeon' is fine with me.
Ron Asbestos Dippold
>I still like "comp.games.dungeon.*" under a "comp.games" hierarchy better.
Or rec.games.comp.dungeon.* if people are fixed on rec.games.*
--
Technique: A trick that works.
Sean O'Connell
> I think the point was that, once we defined it as "computer games",
> we could safely use "dungeon" again without confusing rec.games.frp
> people...
Which will still leave Ultima, Bard's Tale, Might & Magic, Zork, and all the
shareware games that have nothing to do with rogue/moria/nethack/larn/...
-------
Sean O'Connell I'm insane, but it keeps me from going crazy.
se...@hacks.arizona.edu
Death - Life's way of saying, "You can let go of your ankles now."
Tom O Breton
> [rec.games.comp.*] Seems very straightforward, and non-misleading.
Not if it's intended for roguelike games. It would be SO misleading for
rec.games.comp.* to mean only roguelike games that I think you cannot be
serious.
If you mean to propose a hierarchy for *all* computer games, please
don't confuse that discussion with the roguelike discussion.
I don't mean to single you out, because this is directed toward several
people in the thread: I get a strong impression that some of these
suggestions are put forth by people who have not played the games in
question much or at all, because people I meet in rec.games.moria et.
al. don't seem to share their viewpoints.
Tom O Breton
Whew, some actual intelligent commentary.
At the start of the discussion I felt as you did. Now I support it on
the balance.
The existence of .misc and .announce groups is a benefit, as has been
pointed out to me. And now that some amount of work is done, my initial
objection of "Good place to be, but is it worth the work of getting
there?" is weaker.
Kevin J. Barth
: >>>>> "Kevin" == Kevin J. Barth <ba...@wam.umd.edu> writes:
: [ Intelligent questions about the usefulness of a rec.games.roguelike
: hierarchy deleted. ]
: Kevin> Unless someone can offer a suggestion as to an actual use for
: Kevin> the proposed groups, I plan on voting no to all proposed
: Kevin> groups.
: There group `rec.games.roguelike.misc' would be very useful for
: discussing games like Larn and Omega that does not have their own
: groups.
My experience has been that Omega is pretty much dead in the water - There
have been occassional requests for information about the groups, but not
too many. I have never seen (to the best of my faulty recollection) a
request for info about Larn. If the main purpose for creating a new group
is specifically so these games (and others like them which don't generate
enough traffic to warrant their own groups) can be discussed, I can almost
see voting for the one group only, but not under rec.games.roguelike.*
I hope you'll agree that creating a new hierarchy for one general group
is rather a waste of time and effort.
: Moving the other games will make the purpose of
: `rec.games.roguelike.misc' clear to people who does not know `rogue'.
How so? Moving the groups will result in a bunch of groups that will still
have no meaning to the uninformed. They will be able to figure out that
larn, nethack, and the like are all "roguelike" games, whatever that is,
and that certain other games are also classified as "roguelike", as
indicated by r.g.r.m.
It also still does not help the user who plays a single one of these games
(NetHack, for example) and doesn't know about the roguelike hierarchy.
Instead of finding the information in rec.games.* (which in my mind is a logical
place to look for it) he would first have to figure out that a "roguelike"
hierarchy exists, then that NetHack fits in that hierarchy. Seems like
the proposed hierarchy is less likely to be stumbled across by chance.
: I know the later is a weak argument, but I hope you at least will
: consider voting yes to `rec.games.roguelike.misc' even if you are
: against the other groups.
I will consider voting for a dedicated group for the discussion of those
"roguelike games" that don't have their own groups, but not if you have
to create an entire new sub-hierarchy for it.
Kevin Barth
ba...@wam.umd.edu
Kevin J. Barth
: Kevin:
: Whew, some actual intelligent commentary.
Thanks, guy... :)
Some would disagree with you, apparantly, judging from some of the email that
I have gotten, but...
: At the start of the discussion I felt as you did. Now I support it on
: the balance.
: The existence of .misc and .announce groups is a benefit, as has been
: pointed out to me. And now that some amount of work is done, my initial
: objection of "Good place to be, but is it worth the work of getting
: there?" is weaker.
Actually, I agree that .misc and .announce groups are probably a good idea.
Actually, I think they could easily be combined into one group, but even as
two groups it probably beats having a single non-used group for every little
rogue-like game or variant that comes along. But see one of my previous
postings, in that most of the games that have sufficient traffic to warrant
a group at all already have their own groups. It is really worth creating
a new hierarchy for just the .misc and .announce groups?
Kevin Barth
barth.wam.umd.edu
: Tom
Tom O Breton
> My experience has been that Omega is pretty much dead in the water -
> There have been occassional requests for information about the groups,
> but not too many.
Whoa, I gotta correct that! While alt.games.omega has noticeably less
traffic than rec.games.moria or *.hack (way more than rec.games.rogue
though), it is surely not "dead in the water".
Dunno about Larn, though. I'm not much involved with that, but your
impression appears correct. Larn enthusiasts, correct me if I'm wrong?
Tom O Breton
> Instead of finding the information in rec.games.* (which in my mind is a
> logical place to look for it) he would first have to figure out that a
> "roguelike" hierarchy exists, then that NetHack fits in that hierarchy.
I'm not sure what you mean: "instead of"? If a person doesn't know
"roguelike", they'd look through all rec.games.* or key on
"moria"/"nethack"/etc., just like now.
It does allow people on some common newsreaders to say "a[dd ]roguelike"
and be show all such groups and only them, instead of hundreds of
rec.games.* groups. Marginal benefit? Perhaps.
In any case, whether changing *.moria and *.hack is worth doing, it
seems reasonable to create the general groups *.misc and *.announce, and
to create forthcoming groups (possibly *.angband) in that hierarchy. If
*.moria and *.hack are still outside the hierarchy, well, that can be
lived with.
Eiji Hirai
Do people ever read previous postings on this subject? This has been
discussed to death. Sigh.
Computer Dungeon games can include anything from Zork to Ultima, none of
which are the games we're talking about.
The name needs to specify Moria,Omega,Rogue,Angband,Nethack,Larn and
the only thing that binds them is their Rogue ancestry.
--
hi...@cc.swarthmore.edu (Eiji Hirai) | Unix Geek for Swarthmore College
I don't speak for Swarthmore College | Computing Center, Swarthmore, PA, USA
"I post, therefore I am." -Rene Descartes on Usenet
Eiji Hirai
: Eventually we might move groups like comp.sys.ibmpc.games.misc and
: rec.games.netrek to comp.games.ibmpc.misc and comp.games.netrek, etc...
: (in many cases, doing GOOD by reducing hierarchy levels).
This is entirely out of the scope of the proposal we're discussing. If you
want to official propose a comp.games.* hiearchy, please be my guest. But
discussing your proposal within the context of the RFD for
rec.games.roguelike is useless and clouds the issue.
Ralf Stephan
> Unless someone can offer a suggestion as to an actual use for the proposed
> groups, I plan on voting no to all proposed groups.
The same here.
--
--| Ralf Stephan, Augsburg, Bavaria, Germany |-------| ra...@ark.abg.sub.org |-
--| GO d* -p+ c++ l++ m* s--/+ g++ w++ t r+ |-------| IT'S ... |-
Andrew Solovay
>Kevin J. Barth writes:
>> Unless someone can offer a suggestion as to an actual use for the proposed
>> groups, I plan on voting no to all proposed groups.
>
>The same here.
Very well. The use of each of the proposed groups:
rec.games.roguelike.nethack,rec.games.roguelike.rogue,
rec.games.roguelike.moria: Exactly the same "use" as r.g.hack,
r.g.rogue,r.g.moria. You do grant that the original groups have a use?
As to the "use" of the renaming: Small, but to my mind significant. It
would group these groups together, which is a convenience for people
who are interested in one of the games and would like to find out
about the others. It would make the rec.games hierarchy slightly
better organized; as it is, the hierarchy seems awfully broad, and
could well stand to be a little deeper. It would also make the
functions of r.g.r.misc and r.g.r.announce clearer.
Remember, I'm not proposing creating new groups from scratch; the
"use" of the proposed groups has already been well net.established.
rec.games.roguelike.misc: The group would be a place to discuss
roguelike games which do not have mainstream groups (e.g. omega, larn,
other games yet to be written). It would be a place to compare and
contrast different roguelike games. It would be a useful forum for
people writing their own roguelike games.
rec.games.roguelike.announce: Many people, myself among them, play one
game until they beat it, then go off to another game until a new
version of the first game comes out. More generally, many people are
interested in finding out about new releases, patches, games, etc.,
but don't care about all the discussion about the games. They
currently have to wade through a lot of posts in which they have no
interest, looking for the announcements/patches/etc. r.g.r.announce
would cut through the noise and give them the signal.
There, now I've given "a suggestion as to an actual use" for each
proposed group. Everyone happy?