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.