The Darkest Hour

90 views
Skip to first unread message

ShockFrost

unread,
Aug 4, 2003, 8:06:45 PM8/4/03
to
Midday, some day in August of 2003.

... through the town staggers what appears to be a wizard; or at least
the remains of one.

His grand spellbook of ideas, shredded to the barest spells, burned on
the edges, and water-soaked cover...

... he leans on a dull sword, used many times out of futility, almost
as often as his worn shoes ...

... the ideals are gone from his eyes -- they no longer shimmer with
theory and concept - instead they are filled with the dull glower of
the realities of combat which have sunken in ...

... his hand is tightly clenched around his sword, and his face,
clothes, and blade are almost completely covered in dried blood -
mostly his, with bits from the innumerable creatures he has slain ...

... he stares at the ground as he walks, occasionally looking up in
full squint from the sun's bright rays -- they are blinding to him, he
has been gone so long ...

... it seems he has seen the horror of many failures and many onsets
of reality which have mangled his robust spirit into nothing more than
a clinging to life ...

... and he constantly mutters to himself.

He stops in the store for supplies, buying more food and drink than he
can possibly eat in one day, and 2 pickaxes, and kneepads to match his
thin armor and thick leggings, as well as a pair of fine boots, but he
does not replace his old blade.

He leaves town the way he came in, assuredly returning to that
accursed pit. On the way out of town, he can be seen picking up rocks
for unknown reasons and still muttering to himself, and then he is
gone, back to the pits.

samayel

unread,
Aug 5, 2003, 12:16:15 AM8/5/03
to
"ShockFrost" <shock...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:cd6e3975.03080...@posting.google.com...

> Midday, some day in August of 2003.

<snip> for brevity

> He stops in the store for supplies, buying more food and drink than he
> can possibly eat in one day, and 2 pickaxes, and kneepads to match his
> thin armor and thick leggings, as well as a pair of fine boots, but he
> does not replace his old blade.
>
> He leaves town the way he came in, assuredly returning to that
> accursed pit. On the way out of town, he can be seen picking up rocks
> for unknown reasons and still muttering to himself, and then he is
> gone, back to the pits.

excellent!


Amy Wang

unread,
Aug 5, 2003, 2:57:21 AM8/5/03
to
shock...@yahoo.com (ShockFrost) wrote in message news:<cd6e3975.03080...@posting.google.com>...

> Midday, some day in August of 2003.
>
> ... through the town staggers what appears to be a wizard; or at least
> the remains of one.

My favorite part is this delusion you have of yourself being an RPG
character. So, you're finally ready to admit that developing a
roguelike game is a non-trivial task? Of course, it wouldn't really
matter to anyone if you were to actually complete your non-inspired
idea for a bloatware version of an existing game, but it's nice to see
that you still don't have a social life.

Gerry Quinn

unread,
Aug 5, 2003, 8:11:15 AM8/5/03
to

Oh no, it's The Greater Wang-Beast!

No battles to the death are recalled. This unholy abomination will
crush you. Flee while you can! It moves quickly. It can gaze, gaze,
and crush.

Gerry Quinn
--
http://bindweed.com
Screensavers and Games for Windows
Download free trial versions
New version of popular arcade game 'Bubbler'

Julian Day

unread,
Aug 5, 2003, 10:39:30 AM8/5/03
to
Gerry Quinn <ger...@indigo.ie> wrote:

> Oh no, it's The Greater Wang-Beast!

> No battles to the death are recalled. This unholy abomination will
> crush you. Flee while you can! It moves quickly. It can gaze, gaze,
> and crush.

On a related note, I actually changed my copy of Z the other day so that
the Greater Hell Beast was in fact the Greater Wang-Beast.

Coincidental. :)

Julian

be...@sonic.net

unread,
Aug 5, 2003, 2:14:09 PM8/5/03
to
ShockFrost wrote:
>
> Midday, some day in August of 2003.
>
> ... through the town staggers what appears to be a wizard; or at least
> the remains of one.
>
> His grand spellbook of ideas, shredded to the barest spells, burned on
> the edges, and water-soaked cover...
>
> ... he leans on a dull sword, used many times out of futility, almost
> as often as his worn shoes ...

Dude. Need a cookie?


Bear

ShockFrost

unread,
Aug 5, 2003, 7:28:48 PM8/5/03
to
The wizard's eyes shoot open - the beast he had fled so long has
followed him to the surface!

"Luminous Gactae!"

Hoping the momentary blast of sunlight would stun the darkened eyes of
the newsgroup dweller, he quickly flips through the remains of the
spell book, looking desperately for the correct pronunciation of the
Word of Recall spell...

ShockFrost

unread,
Aug 5, 2003, 7:31:50 PM8/5/03
to
... suddenly his brows arch and in a near screaming crackle he utters
-

"Terlis, Vactirin, Liistrunum!"

And the blob of color which represents him in the world fades through
transparency to nothing.

be...@sonic.net

unread,
Aug 6, 2003, 12:39:45 AM8/6/03
to
ShockFrost wrote:

> "Terlis, Vactirin, Liistrunum!"
>
> And the blob of color which represents him in the world fades through
> transparency to nothing.

A few seconds later, a small chocolate-chip cookie sailed through the
place where he had been.

Failing to hit any suspiciously hard air, its trajectory continued
to the ground, where it fell raising a small puff of dust.

Its flinger, realizing that the wizard had used a recall rather than
a mere invisibility spell and was thus back hard at work in the
dungeon, took from his hip an artifact, "Thermo's flask of evercooling"
and poured a few drops of ice-cold lemonade on the ground near the
cookie.

"Hope he's okay", said the bear. "Myself, I find that taking time
occasionally for cookies and lemonade helps. Then again, I've been
at it for almost three years now and while I'm still making
satisfactory progress in my occasional dungeon forays, I'm only
about halfway there."

Reflectively, the bear munched a cookie, took a swig of lemonade,
and wandered off. Later, he spent a day at the beach with a lady
bear of his acquaintance. And when he got home, he suited up in
adventuring gear and teleported back into his own dungeon, where
he slew one terrible monster named "hit point inflation", and,
victorious, popped back to the surface, waiting for another day
to deal with the many Lesser Demons of Game Rebalancing that had
been summoned during the fight. They could all be hunted down
one by one and slain; there was no hurry. None were as tough
as their summoner, and none could summon more. First he would
rest, heal, eat another cookie and drink another potion of lemonade.
Perhaps he would even spend another day at the beach.

Coding Bears are a long-lived, patient race, with a long attention
span; they do not hurry.

Bear

R Dan Henry

unread,
Aug 6, 2003, 12:47:26 AM8/6/03
to
On Tue, 5 Aug 2003 14:39:30 +0000 (UTC), in a fit of madness Julian Day
<jcd...@mail.usask.ca> declared:

Like The GHB, Wang is an inconsequential joke long past the expiration
date. And like the GHB, Wang is best dealt with by removal from any edit
file/newsgroup it is to be found in. Ironically, both originally were
intended to serve as useful warnings to the unwary, but did the job so
clumsily that they served merely to annoy.

Yes, I'd say that's an entirely appropriate renaming.

--
R. Dan Henry
rdan...@earthlink.net
They can have my ASCII graphics when they pry them
from my cold dead (c) and (d) slots.

R Dan Henry

unread,
Aug 6, 2003, 12:47:27 AM8/6/03
to
On 4 Aug 2003 17:06:45 -0700, in a fit of madness shock...@yahoo.com
(ShockFrost) declared:

>Midday, some day in August of 2003.

[snip metaphor of realizing that rgrd was right about his overly
ambitious plans]

So... in literal terms, you got any code yet?

R Dan Henry

unread,
Aug 6, 2003, 12:47:28 AM8/6/03
to
On 5 Aug 2003 16:28:48 -0700, in a fit of madness shock...@yahoo.com
(ShockFrost) declared:

>The wizard's eyes shoot open - the beast he had fled so long has

No, no, you seek that ancient weapon, the File of Killing.

ShockFrost

unread,
Aug 6, 2003, 10:08:47 AM8/6/03
to
> So... in literal terms, you got any code yet?

In literal terms...

It's good to see everyone's still around. :)

Hello, Bear. Thanks for the tip, but I make sweet cookies and that
makes lemonade sour. Besides, a friend of mine eats all the cookies I
make save one or two.

I've been spending a lot of time with this girl I met - that, coupled
with search for work, made me decide that the oversized roguelike I
was planning were of no luck.

I still have snippets of design code - If you're interested in the
city-planning code, or some of the code for allies, then I might be
able to scrounge that up from the pits, if I'm lucky.

On to reasons I wrote.

I've decided not to announce my plans this time - last time, it was
for some reason strangely demoralizing to hear someone completely
debase my plans. I was writing code and following the completion
blueprint, moving along at a good clip, and then, all of a sudden...
nothing. Every time I tried to make an advance, I felt it necessary to
announce that advancement and then argue that it was in fact
necessary, and then when that necessity was disputed, to produce
several concept documents that proved its necesstiy. (as opposed to
just adding it to the code base and moving on)

Came back for some pinpoint advices from across the net though-

1. Are you familiar with BSP? (Bash/Slash/Pierce type defense and
weaponry?)

Is it fair to call a Morning Star (spiked club thing) both Bash and
Pierce but not slash? If it's not, I am going to fudge things a bit -
I want clerics to be able to wield any non-slashing weapon and I also
want the morning star allowed for them.

2. You get to pick 4/8/12 classes. How do these sound?

(Base Classes)
Fighter
Thief
Archer
Mage
----
(Second Group of Classes)
Cleric
Sage
Monk
Necromancer
----
(Third group of classes)
Alchemist
Conjurer
Gladiator
Wanderer

3. Looking for 16x16 pictures of items, in particular:
Pickaxe
Bow&arrow
Torch
Lantern
Book
Scroll
Staff (varied types)
Rope Ladder
Orb
Potion
Ring
Amulet
Arrows
Chest Armor
(armor) Leggings
Boots
Gloves
Helmets
Shields
Club
Spear
Shortsword
Broadsword
Longsword
Hammer
Morning Star
Axe
Pike
Boomerang
Throwing-size rocks
Gold

4. Need a pile of monsters again... Can anyone give me a website with
such a pile?

Thx in advance.

Mylon

unread,
Aug 6, 2003, 3:47:39 PM8/6/03
to
"ShockFrost" <shock...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:cd6e3975.03080...@posting.google.com...
> > So... in literal terms, you got any code yet?
>
> In literal terms...
>
> It's good to see everyone's still around. :)
>
> Hello, Bear. Thanks for the tip, but I make sweet cookies and that
> makes lemonade sour. Besides, a friend of mine eats all the cookies I
> make save one or two.
>
> I've been spending a lot of time with this girl I met - that, coupled
> with search for work, made me decide that the oversized roguelike I
> was planning were of no luck.
>
> I still have snippets of design code - If you're interested in the
> city-planning code, or some of the code for allies, then I might be
> able to scrounge that up from the pits, if I'm lucky.
>
> On to reasons I wrote.
>
> I've decided not to announce my plans this time - last time, it was
> for some reason strangely demoralizing to hear someone completely
> debase my plans. I was writing code and following the completion
> blueprint, moving along at a good clip, and then, all of a sudden...
> nothing. Every time I tried to make an advance, I felt it necessary to
> announce that advancement and then argue that it was in fact
> necessary, and then when that necessity was disputed, to produce
> several concept documents that proved its necesstiy. (as opposed to
> just adding it to the code base and moving on).

I regard reponses to my ideas with mixed feelings. One one hand, some
people do tend to be overly critical and thus hurtful, yet on the same time
they often give you an interesting perspective. Is this something you
really want to do? Is what's important is that you can respond to them, not
necessarily that you do give your dissertation.

> 1. Are you familiar with BSP? (Bash/Slash/Pierce type defense and
> weaponry?)
>
> Is it fair to call a Morning Star (spiked club thing) both Bash and
> Pierce but not slash? If it's not, I am going to fudge things a bit -
> I want clerics to be able to wield any non-slashing weapon and I also
> want the morning star allowed for them.

Sure it's fair. After all, morning stars don't actually have a blade.
Spikes, but no blade meant for cutting.


Emma Teigen Vartdal

unread,
Aug 6, 2003, 3:40:33 PM8/6/03
to
ShockFrost wrote:

<...>

> 1. Are you familiar with BSP? (Bash/Slash/Pierce type defense and
> weaponry?)
>
> Is it fair to call a Morning Star (spiked club thing) both Bash and
> Pierce but not slash? If it's not, I am going to fudge things a bit -
> I want clerics to be able to wield any non-slashing weapon and I also
> want the morning star allowed for them.

Give it all three attacks, but disallow bash and pierce for clerics.

<...>

--
Emma

copx

unread,
Aug 6, 2003, 5:31:46 PM8/6/03
to

ShockFrost <shock...@yahoo.com> schrieb in im Newsbeitrag:
cd6e3975.03080...@posting.google.com...
[snip]
*Shock* ShockFrost is back! *Shock*

Did you give up your unrealistic plans, mortal?
Seems like the only thing I liked about
your ideas, the concept of class-unlocking
using medals, is also gone (in another
post in this thread you've posted a rather
small/standard/boring class-list). Too bad...

copx


Amy Wang

unread,
Aug 6, 2003, 6:20:07 PM8/6/03
to
shock...@yahoo.com (ShockFrost) wrote in message news:<cd6e3975.03080...@posting.google.com>...
> > So... in literal terms, you got any code yet?
>
> In literal terms...
>
> It's good to see everyone's still around. :)
>
> Hello, Bear. Thanks for the tip, but I make sweet cookies and that
> makes lemonade sour. Besides, a friend of mine eats all the cookies I
> make save one or two.
>
> I've been spending a lot of time with this girl I met - that, coupled
> with search for work, made me decide that the oversized roguelike I
> was planning were of no luck.

Too bad you're too much of an egomaniac, or you could have her help
you with the design and you could start coding it.

>
> I still have snippets of design code - If you're interested in the
> city-planning code, or some of the code for allies, then I might be
> able to scrounge that up from the pits, if I'm lucky.
>

I'd like to remind everyone that Shockfrost's idea of pseudocode is
'random ramblings about how a feature might or might work, depending
on variables that he won't decide on until the final imaginary
release'.

> On to reasons I wrote.
>
> I've decided not to announce my plans this time - last time, it was
> for some reason strangely demoralizing to hear someone completely
> debase my plans. I was writing code and following the completion
> blueprint, moving along at a good clip, and then, all of a sudden...
> nothing. Every time I tried to make an advance, I felt it necessary to
> announce that advancement and then argue that it was in fact
> necessary, and then when that necessity was disputed, to produce
> several concept documents that proved its necesstiy. (as opposed to
> just adding it to the code base and moving on)

Here's the thing: you had no real plans, you had no advancement, you
had no real code. How many lines of *actual* *working* code do you
have? What does it do? I'm willing to bet that you have NOTHING other
than the poor excuse for a dungeon generator that you released months
ago.

Also, your 'pseudocode' is far from pseudocode. It's a stretch even to
call it real design. A design is something that a programmer can
follow to implement a program. You never gave this group any concrete
*plans*, even. You just went on with the same kind of ponderings that
every kid who can't program comes here to talk about 'cool' features
that a roguelike might have. We don't know the details of your AI
design, your medal design, or anything, and I'd bet that neither do
you. All you have are some scrawlings on paper about cool features
that you can fantasize about and expect these deficients at RGRD to
wow over.

>
> Came back for some pinpoint advices from across the net though-
>
> 1. Are you familiar with BSP? (Bash/Slash/Pierce type defense and
> weaponry?)

Yes. everyone who's heard of AD&D is.

[snip retarded question that has no bearing on a game that DOESN'T
EXIST]

> 2. You get to pick 4/8/12 classes. How do these sound?

[snip extremely original list of classes (sarcasm present)]

I love it. You've discarded the only original-sounding feature of your
game idea (the medals), which would have been easy to implement (once
you got around to determining the probabilities and conditions for
medal drops, i.e., design), and replaced it with the same
Angband/Crawl set that a five year old would come up with.


> 3. Looking for 16x16 pictures of items, in particular:

[snip]
You want tiles for a non-existant game.

Bottom line: you have created nothing. If you produced a design
document that a programmer could follow to implement a game, you'd
have my respect, and I wouldn't keep discouraging you. If you produced
a simple program that let the user control a '@' that could walk
around, pick up objects, crudely interact with NPC entities, and
perhaps feature line of sight and pathfinding for NPCs, you would have
my respect. Even if you continued rambling on about your wet dream
roguelike, but had a '@' that could walk around a blank screen, I
would consider you a lesser idiot (which should be a compliment,
considering how defective most roguelike developers are).

You have done none of these things. You are a complete moron. Correct
me if I'm wrong: you have less than 1000 lines of working code, you've
spent almost all of your development time scrawling out or posting
ideas, and you have no hard numbers concerning any game feature.
Everything you've posted to this group looks more like the help file
for a completed game than the beginning of a design. That's because
your game is IMAGINARY. You get off on sharing your fantasy of a
roguelike with other people who are so starved for a new game that
they're willing to accept visualizing your pipedream instead of
working together to complete something.

Let's not fool ourselves, either: you're going to spend the next few
months the same as the last- playing MUDs, looking for a job, and
being with your girlfriend (who is probably a boy with a female
character who you follow around in your MUD, since you obviously don't
have enough grasp on reality to attract a real person). There is
nothing *anyone* can do to change the fact that you aren't going to
make a roguelike game, EVER, because you refuse to do design or
implementation.

Go ahead, prove me wrong. Release a 0.1 alpha that is an incomplete
but playable game. You CAN'T EVEN DO THAT, because you don't have a
clue how to make a real game, and you aren't even motivated to do
that. You get enough pleasure from having these retards fawn over your
half-witted ideas that you don't even need to actually make anything
real. Of course, that means that you win in the end. All I can do is
temporarily disrupt this illusion that idea-spreading, without any
implementation or promise of it, will lead to new games, and I'm
reviled for it. I'll keep encouraging people to do actual development,
but that won't lead to new games, since people like you reinstate the
illusion and give people comfort in thinking that some day, we'll have
that all-feature roguelike game, even if the developer is just some
kid with a programming book.

Mylon

unread,
Aug 6, 2003, 7:48:36 PM8/6/03
to
"Amy Wang" <blueme...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:62acd54d.03080...@posting.google.com...

> shock...@yahoo.com (ShockFrost) wrote in message
news:<cd6e3975.03080...@posting.google.com>...
> > > So... in literal terms, you got any code yet?
> Bottom line: you have created nothing. If you produced a design
> document that a programmer could follow to implement a game, you'd
> have my respect, and I wouldn't keep discouraging you. If you produced
> a simple program that let the user control a '@' that could walk
> around, pick up objects, crudely interact with NPC entities, and
> perhaps feature line of sight and pathfinding for NPCs, you would have
> my respect. Even if you continued rambling on about your wet dream
> roguelike, but had a '@' that could walk around a blank screen, I
> would consider you a lesser idiot (which should be a compliment,
> considering how defective most roguelike developers are).

Hey, so that means my little hack of a "Let's move around the screen" makes
me one notch above an idiot? Cool! Thanks for the encouragement, Ms. Wang!
Now I'll go on to make the bestest AI ever, an AI so good it can learn why
Wang is so tasty!


ShockFrost

unread,
Aug 6, 2003, 9:48:40 PM8/6/03
to
blueme...@hotmail.com (Amy Wang) wrote in message -
"... -

***
Interrupting...

lvl 12 Fend (Rapier proficiency)

***

[2 more this month]

ShockFrost

unread,
Aug 6, 2003, 9:51:02 PM8/6/03
to
"copx" <inv...@invalid.com> wrote in message news:<3f3176ac$0$30092$9b62...@news.freenet.de>...

Not gone.

Base 4 classes start unlocked, remaining 12 must be unlocked with medals.

:)

(think I will either have on other screen or select with R/L)

ShockFrost

unread,
Aug 6, 2003, 9:54:00 PM8/6/03
to
Emma Teigen Vartdal <dont...@amy.shacknet.nu> wrote in message news:

> Give it all three attacks, but disallow bash and pierce for clerics.
>
>

Uhm, that's backward, but I see what you're saying.

But I don't want any universal weapons. Bash/Slash is Axe,
Slash/Pierce is Pike, and Bash/Pierce goes to Morning Star.

In any case, Cleric only gets to use one of them. . .

I figured a morning star would be in line.

samayel

unread,
Aug 6, 2003, 9:57:48 PM8/6/03
to
"Amy Wang" <blueme...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:62acd54d.03080...@posting.google.com...

<snippety-snip-snip>

wow... such utter contempt, loathing and disgust. I think I'm actually
impressed. For all the people who thought I was a ranting a**hole, I humbly
give you... Amy Wang.

I'm still twitching and it wasn't even directed at me. But then again, she
paid me a compliment... according to her definition I'm a "lesser" idiot
because my @ can move around the screen and open doors and whatnot...

of course it's on a platform that nobody in the entire universe but me
uses... (.NET in case you missed it) according to some misguided folks.

S.


be...@sonic.net

unread,
Aug 7, 2003, 1:19:33 AM8/7/03
to
ShockFrost wrote:
>
> Emma Teigen Vartdal <dont...@amy.shacknet.nu> wrote in message news:
>
> > Give it all three attacks, but disallow bash and pierce for clerics.
> >
> >
>
> Uhm, that's backward, but I see what you're saying.
>
> But I don't want any universal weapons. Bash/Slash is Axe,
> Slash/Pierce is Pike, and Bash/Pierce goes to Morning Star.
>

Halberds are three-modal. They have a pointy head for stabbing,
a sharp axe blade for chopping, and if you turn the axe blade around
they have either a hammerhead for bashing or a spike on the back
for piercing.

Both the point and the spike are "piercing" but the maneuvers are
different. one is a literal stab you can use in moderately close
quarters, the other is effectively a sharpened hammerhead that you
swing if you can engage the enemy at your preferred reach distance.
It's the same difference between "chop" and "slash" -- both are
long narrow blades, but chopping is a decidedly different physical
maneuver than slashing.

Still, all this is below the level of notice for most players.
On the screen, they see an '@' attacking a 'd.' There's a limit
to how much realism they can 'see' there in terms of simulating
close maneuvers and damage types, so my impression of this is
that if you differentiate attack modalities, you're doing it
specifically for the joy of doing it rather than because it will
noticeably enhance gameplay. That said, these games are more
artwork than product, and doing it for the joy of doing it is
the right reason. Carry on.

Bear

Kornel "Anubis" Kisielewicz

unread,
Aug 7, 2003, 8:12:46 AM8/7/03
to
Uzytkownik "Amy Wang" <blueme...@hotmail.com> napisal w wiadomosci
news:62acd54d.03080...@posting.google.com...

> shock...@yahoo.com (ShockFrost) wrote in message
news:<cd6e3975.03080...@posting.google.com>...
> Bottom line: you have created nothing. If you produced a design
> document that a programmer could follow to implement a game, you'd
> have my respect, and I wouldn't keep discouraging you. If you
produced
> a simple program that let the user control a '@' that could walk
> around, pick up objects, crudely interact with NPC entities, and
> perhaps feature line of sight and pathfinding for NPCs, you would
have
> my respect. Even if you continued rambling on about your wet dream
> roguelike, but had a '@' that could walk around a blank screen, I
> would consider you a lesser idiot (which should be a compliment,
> considering how defective most roguelike developers are).
> You have done none of these things. You are a complete moron.

Hey, just out of plain curiosity, In which group am I? I never showed
any code of mine, keep writing about an imaginary game, never showed
any real design-doc nor pseudocode, never showed even a simple program
with an '@' walking around a blank screen?....

[Note though, that I'm not trying to defend SF. I agree with you on
the matter completely. Nice to see you back in buisiness Amy.]
--
Kornel "Anubis" Kisielewicz [Cyrogenic Mode]


Paul Pekkarinen

unread,
Aug 7, 2003, 8:50:05 AM8/7/03
to
blueme...@hotmail.com (Amy Wang) wrote in message
> How many lines of *actual* *working* code do you
> have? What does it do?

The stuff which is made before coding is called "planning". We
programmers call it so. I have an impression that ShockFrost
is planning his game before coding. That's the right thing to do.

> We don't know the details of your AI
> design, your medal design, or anything,

We don't have to know anything about his game now. For me it seems
that he is actually doing something, unlike you.

ShockFrost

unread,
Aug 7, 2003, 2:59:47 PM8/7/03
to
>
> Halberds are three-modal. They have a pointy head for stabbing,
> a sharp axe blade for chopping, and if you turn the axe blade around
> they have either a hammerhead for bashing or a spike on the back
> for piercing.

I agree, so there aren't going to be any Halberds in the game.

>
> Both the point and the spike are "piercing" but the maneuvers are
> different. one is a literal stab you can use in moderately close
> quarters, the other is effectively a sharpened hammerhead that you
> swing if you can engage the enemy at your preferred reach distance.
> It's the same difference between "chop" and "slash" -- both are
> long narrow blades, but chopping is a decidedly different physical
> maneuver than slashing.

Absolutely. Of course, in the platform this is going on, you stick the
weapon out and if the enemy is in the way, he gets hurt. Of course, if
you can break his armor type you'll do much more damage (taking club
to a brittle skeleton instead of a standard issue sword)

Armor types include being flexible-jointed with soft, impact absorbing
skin (which renders clubs less useful but enhances the sword)
splints/scales/ringlets or other highly flexible hard armor (swords
don't slash too well but a piercer like a bow is quite short work) and
the two exotic families - highly gloppy, overly soft opponents /
skeletal or VERY hardshelled enemies (both families make bows
difficult to kill with but make bashers brutal - slosh apart the gloop
and crush that giant beetle in one)

Notice - the ones Club has trouble with, Sword does better on. The
ones Club does well on, that's where the bow fails. This is
specifically like this - at the start of the game, Clubs will be
relatively common in comparison to all the rare weapons. They will do
sub-par damage and quite often you will be able to do your killing
with just a sword (melee) and bow (practical, distance attack plus
handling scalies -- you might not want to get close to those guys
anyway)

That way, the Club, though common, will be unpopular. Monk hands and
various staves and wands, plus common thrown items, will also be
bashers. Thrown daggers count as slash, it's a fudge but I like it.
Common early enemies will be practically immune to the club, having an
advantaged armor and considering the clubs lesser damage. Many
adventurers will be tempted to ignore the 'junk' weapon, though they
will wish they hadn't when they meet a level 32 Tunnel Cleaner
(gelatinous cube) and wish they had a non-metal basher to fight it
with!

(Hammer is also a Basher, slower, MUCH better damage, but use any
metal weapon on the cube and it will lose a level and when it hits 0,
you lose your pretty hammer)

Don't ask on weapon levels yet, I'm not sure.


>
> Still, all this is below the level of notice for most players.
> On the screen, they see an '@' attacking a 'd.'

Or in my case, hero sticking out sword into monster thing.

> There's a limit
> to how much realism they can 'see' there in terms of simulating
> close maneuvers and damage types, so my impression of this is
> that if you differentiate attack modalities, you're doing it
> specifically for the joy of doing it rather than because it will
> noticeably enhance gameplay.

Not this time -- really trying to make people carry more than one
weapon.
Though they'll probably just carry sword and a bow if they're smart.

> That said, these games are more
> artwork than product, and doing it for the joy of doing it is
> the right reason. Carry on.
>
> Bear

:) Love it.

I'll love it even more when every grimy little 12-year-old who has an
Advance will love it. :D

ShockFrost

unread,
Aug 7, 2003, 3:03:50 PM8/7/03
to
"samayel" <sp...@spamspamspamspam.com> wrote in message news:<cmiYa.16134$tf.1661@lakeread03>...

> "Amy Wang" <blueme...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:62acd54d.03080...@posting.google.com...
>
> <snippety-snip-snip>
>
> wow... such utter contempt, loathing and disgust. I think I'm actually
> impressed. For all the people who thought I was a ranting a**hole, I humbly
> give you... Amy Wang.
>
> I'm still twitching and it wasn't even directed at me. But then again, she
> paid me a compliment... according to her definition I'm a "lesser" idiot
> because my @ can move around the screen and open doors and whatnot...
>

Yeah. I got my level generator up to speed first, though I was having
a little trouble with the tunnel maker - walking around in a matrix,
I've done that since I first started and made that stupid spanish
tutor program.

Then I plumb ran out of time (and into Laura - other story)

> of course it's on a platform that nobody in the entire universe but me
> uses... (.NET in case you missed it) according to some misguided folks.

Yeah, nobody in the entire universe save a few million twitterpated
CEOs who jump all over the fact that using that framework a programmer
can use whatever stupid language they know, and everything's
interconnected.

Which part of .NET you use?

Jeff Lait

unread,
Aug 7, 2003, 3:06:56 PM8/7/03
to
shock...@yahoo.com (ShockFrost) wrote in message news:<cd6e3975.03080...@posting.google.com>...
> Midday, some day in August of 2003.
>
> ... through the town staggers what appears to be a wizard; or at least
> the remains of one.

Wow, that was a ride.... Did some searches and it seems I missed a
whole bunch of juicy flames end of last year.

Thanks to them, I got your url and read this:

---
So now it's time to work on something everyone loves: Game Boy Advance
games.
If you MUST know what I am doing, please spam RGRD. I'll see it and
maybe
answer, if I feel particularly fearless of having my hopes and dreams
crushed
that day. If you don't know what RGRD is then don't seek me; you'll
just upset
my rhythm.
---

Some quick notes from someone in the trenches:
1) The GBA won't make you any money. At least, it won't make you any
money unless you go the straight and narrow with Nintendo. There
really isn't room for hobbyist sales when your customers are
restricted to those who have bought the GBA & the $150 grey market
accessories required to put your game onto it.
2) The GBA is a very limitted environment. Sure, it makes the C64
look like a toaster, but it pales in comparison to the average PC.
What is more, while the average PC becomes more powerful every year,
the GBA is unlikely to get a memory upgrade. What I'm trying to say
here is that you need a really tight design if you aren't going to
blow your memory on your first iteration.

The good news is there exists at least one person out there with GBA
hardware interested in dungeon crawlers. (That'd be me. :>)

- Jeff Lait
(POWDER: http://www.zincland.com/powder)

be...@sonic.net

unread,
Aug 7, 2003, 4:00:02 PM8/7/03
to
ShockFrost wrote:
>
> "samayel" <sp...@spamspamspamspam.com> wrote in message

> > of course it's on a platform that nobody in the entire universe but me


> > uses... (.NET in case you missed it) according to some misguided folks.
>
> Yeah, nobody in the entire universe save a few million twitterpated
> CEOs who jump all over the fact that using that framework a programmer
> can use whatever stupid language they know, and everything's
> interconnected.

*snort*. Provided, of course, that the language is
just another way to spell the same algorithms that
work in c++.

I was interested in .net at first, but it doesn't work
for languages with eval, lambda, first-class functions
and continuations, so you're pretty much stuck with
Object Oriented and Imperative languages. If you've
got a problem you need more power than OO programming
for, .net gives you no joy. And besides, it's gratuitously
incompatible with all things not Micro$loth, so it won't
work on any systems I use anyway.

The new virtual machine for perl looks way more capable
as a language-neutral, cross-system, compatible compilation
target than .net, actually. It will work for languages with
lambda and first-class functions and continuations. And
if you absolutely have to, it's not tough to implement
eval in terms of lambda. Trust Larry Wall, as usual, to
deliver what Bill Gates promises.

Bear

ShockFrost

unread,
Aug 7, 2003, 4:24:36 PM8/7/03
to
Phase 1: Semi-finalized item list

Pickaxe (weak pierce, breaks soft rock, uncommon)
Bow&Arrow (pierce, uncommon)
Torch (weak fire attack, light source if wielded, semi-common, short
life)
Lantern (light source if activated - On/Off model, long life, RARE)
Rope Ladder (allows you to climb 4 high, placed next to rock, may need
tuning)
Orbs (Sense enemies, Sense Earth, Sense items, Sense Traps etc. active
if in inventory)
Potions (Healing, Greater Healing, Phasing, Paralysis, Magic Power,
Holy Water, Confusion, Exploding, Featherweight, Might, Haste, Limited
Berserk, Limited Invisibility, Firebreathing)
Rings (Aladdin's, True Invisibility - Not visible to bosses or
infrared seers until you hit them, Telekinesis, Shielding, True
Berserk - no hitframe when hurt, Teleportation, Deflect Projectiles,
Passwater, Bubble Attack, Constriction, Poison I - poisons wearer,
Poison II - applies strong poison to weapon and indistinguishable from
Poison I save an identify scroll or Sense Traps spell, Control
Monsters, Tame Monster, Time Stop, Light, Morph to Dragon)
Amulets (Sense Enemy, Viciousness, Featherweight, Magic Resistance,
Wizardry, Stone Crushing, Spider Climb - may climb walls, Toad Jump,
Illumination, Darkness, Well-Being - resists status effects,
Strangulation - oops)
Arrows of Fire, Stone Piercing, Magic Aim, Blood, etc.

Chest Armor
Leggings
Boots of Haste/Jumping
Gloves (of Might/Painlessness/Wielding)
Helmet
Shield (of Reflection/Elemental Resistance/Deflection/Self-Will -
better chance to block without holding Use key/Magic Reistance)
Dagger - 8p range, throwable, occasionally re-spawns if it slays a
monster when thrown, Slash type, high speed swing
Short Sword - 16p range, norm damage, starting for Fighter, uncommon,
Slash type, High Speed swing
Broad Sword - 24p range, high damage, RARE, Slash type, avg speed
swing
Long Sword - 32p range, norm damage, RARE, Slash type, avg speed swing
Club - 16p range, low damage, Semicommon, Bash-type, high speed swing
Spear - 40p range (2.5 squares), low/med damage, Rare, Pierce type,
slow speed swing
Hammer - 16p range, V. Slow Swing, V. High damage, Bash type, RARE
Axe - 8p-12p(depending - Haven't decided), V. Slow Swing, EXTREME
V.High damage, Bash/Slash Type, V. RARE
MorningStar - 16p range, Med Damage, Norm Speed Swing, Double Knock
Back property, Bash/Pierce damage, V. RARE
Pike - 48p range (3 squares), low/med damage, V.Slow swing,
Pierce/Slash Type, V. RARE

Unlocked Classes

As previously mentioned, the unlockable class Cleric cannot use a
Slashing weapon. Morning Star is the rarest available weapon he can
use. He detects cursed equipment immediately.

Monk can only use Bashing Weapons and throwable weapons. A complement
of Daggers and the Hammer are a good arsenal. His hands are pretty
lethal anyway.

The Sage can wield any weapon and does poorly with all of them. He
occasionally produces blank scrolls and spellbooks - if you cast/use a
spell and then immediately use a blank scroll or book, the Scribe will
try to write the spell you cast into the scroll or book. His success
depends on spell trickiness, level of Scribe, and how long it's been
since you cast the spell-to-copy. He has a good chance to refill
spellbooks when he levels up but his own magic is weaker than that of
Wizard.

Wanderer is equally skilled with all tools, like the Fighter, except
without the class proficiencies, so he needs enough levels to use :)
He has no special traits except that he starts with a little random
equipment. He does everything about equal, a little under par, and is
designed to be a challenge to win with.

Necromancer has an 8-page spellbook. These spells do nothing if used
on their own - actually, they produce a scroll which serves sort of as
instructions -
"FOOL! You have wasted an eighth of your nearly limitless power! Use
the dark book only when you possess other untainted sources of magic!"
Using the spellbook when holding other books, scrolls, and even a
couple other things will cause all those magic items to be polluted
and transmute into super-rare evil magic that cannot be obtained
normally in the dungeons. Normal spellbooks, and the 8-page black
book, do not replenish, but successfully tainted items may regain
usefulness or restock. Spells include pain, Raise Dead, Darkness, etc.
There is no way to reload the black book. Also, Necromancers should
not drink Holy Water. While it will clear status problems and recover
some life for everyone else, the Necromancer is best off just
discarding them - they are nothing but trouble.

Gladiator can use any weapon and is even more skilled with them than
the Fighter is. But he can't use magic garbage where the Fighter can.
When he levels up his weapon gains 2 levels of power compared to the
Fighter's one. Gladiator can also throw any weapon (even a bow without
the arrows) for an effective emergency attack. Spears and Axes do
exceptional damage in particular when thrown. But there is not much
chance of recovering those weapons once thrown at a monster. His armor
does not gain levels. Gladiators may wear an amulet and ONE ring
instead of two. If the ring is a multi-use spell type, it will fail a
lot more often than it should. He can throw spellbooks and such, but
rather than getting an explosion of magic, he gets a weak Bash attack.
He can throw Orbs for a stronger Bash attack. He can drink Healing
Potions, Holy Water, Might, Haste, and Berserk potions and get a
positive effect - anything else will make him sick. He can throw
potions, but he may accidentally give the enemy the full beneficial
effect (i.e. throwing a potion of Magic Power at an enemy Lich)

To be honest, I can't decide exactly how I want the Alchemist to work
yet. Getting kind of close to a decision, but don't have a good one
yet.

You could vote on it if you want. Options include:
A. Alchemist occasionally produces empty bottles - drink potions to
copy like Scribe reading magic (hard to copy things like Exploding
Potion - lame)
B. Same as A, but discard potion instead (equally lame, you get
bottle-tossing)
C. Alchemist occasionally produces random complete potions (from
nothing. Hm)
D. Alchemist has some Alch equipment he can wield and then use on a
potion to copy it into all empty bottles (a bit encumbered, the whole
thing)
E. You're the wiseguy, you come up with a mechanic. List of icons, you
tab between them with R/L. B will use the selected item, and that
item, if of correct type, can be set to wield this way. Wielded item
is used with A. Now how do you implement Alchemy into that without
adding burdensome mid-steps or stupid stuff...

OK, that's day comment.

Pieter Droogendijk

unread,
Aug 7, 2003, 5:06:06 PM8/7/03
to
On 7 Aug 2003 13:24:36 -0700

shock...@yahoo.com (ShockFrost) wrote:
> Phase 1: Semi-finalized item list
>
> Pickaxe (weak pierce, breaks soft rock, uncommon)

Weak pierce? have you ever seen a war pick? It's like an axe!
I assure you that it's true pierce:P

> Orbs (Sense enemies, Sense Earth, Sense items, Sense Traps etc. active
> if in inventory)

May be overpowered. Any time spans? perhaps mana cost, or activation.

> Gloves (of Might/Painlessness/Wielding)

Gloves aren't the type of armor I would pick for the suffix 'painlessness' :)
I'd go with body armour for that one (although I don't know what it does, it
just sounds odd)

> Shield (of Reflection/Elemental Resistance/Deflection/Self-Will -
> better chance to block without holding Use key/Magic Reistance)

Holding the use-key? Is this a real-time game? That runs along the edge of
roguelike...

> Pike - 48p range (3 squares), low/med damage, V.Slow swing,
> Pierce/Slash Type, V. RARE

Again a pierce comment... A pickaxe has weak pierce, but picks through rocks.
Try doing that with a pike. You can barely stab with a 12-foot spike, you let
the enemy run into it. Cavalry for instance, what they where designed to be
effective against, will recieve a piercing attack, since only they would be
moving fast enough to poke through armour.


>
> Unlocked Classes
>
> As previously mentioned, the unlockable class Cleric cannot use a
> Slashing weapon. Morning Star is the rarest available weapon he can
> use. He detects cursed equipment immediately.

Vanilla priest... too bad.

> Monk can only use Bashing Weapons and throwable weapons. A complement
> of Daggers and the Hammer are a good arsenal. His hands are pretty
> lethal anyway.

Perhaps it would be better to add a monk weapon class? That would leave you with
a larger variety. Study some traditional oriental weaponry.

> The Sage can wield any weapon and does poorly with all of them. He
> occasionally produces blank scrolls and spellbooks - if you cast/use a
> spell and then immediately use a blank scroll or book, the Scribe will
> try to write the spell you cast into the scroll or book. His success
> depends on spell trickiness, level of Scribe, and how long it's been
> since you cast the spell-to-copy. He has a good chance to refill
> spellbooks when he levels up but his own magic is weaker than that of
> Wizard.

Nice.

> Wanderer is equally skilled with all tools, like the Fighter, except
> without the class proficiencies, so he needs enough levels to use :)
> He has no special traits except that he starts with a little random
> equipment. He does everything about equal, a little under par, and is
> designed to be a challenge to win with.

Doesn't make sense to me, but alright.

> Necromancer has an 8-page spellbook. These spells do nothing if used
> on their own - actually, they produce a scroll which serves sort of as
> instructions -
> "FOOL! You have wasted an eighth of your nearly limitless power! Use
> the dark book only when you possess other untainted sources of magic!"
> Using the spellbook when holding other books, scrolls, and even a
> couple other things will cause all those magic items to be polluted
> and transmute into super-rare evil magic that cannot be obtained
> normally in the dungeons. Normal spellbooks, and the 8-page black
> book, do not replenish, but successfully tainted items may regain
> usefulness or restock. Spells include pain, Raise Dead, Darkness, etc.
> There is no way to reload the black book. Also, Necromancers should
> not drink Holy Water. While it will clear status problems and recover
> some life for everyone else, the Necromancer is best off just
> discarding them - they are nothing but trouble.

Hard to understand. You get to 'use' the book? and do what? write in it? read
from it? You can only use it 8 times in the game?

> Gladiator can use any weapon and is even more skilled with them than
> the Fighter is. But he can't use magic garbage where the Fighter can.
> When he levels up his weapon gains 2 levels of power compared to the
> Fighter's one. Gladiator can also throw any weapon (even a bow without
> the arrows) for an effective emergency attack. Spears and Axes do
> exceptional damage in particular when thrown. But there is not much
> chance of recovering those weapons once thrown at a monster. His armor
> does not gain levels. Gladiators may wear an amulet and ONE ring
> instead of two. If the ring is a multi-use spell type, it will fail a
> lot more often than it should. He can throw spellbooks and such, but
> rather than getting an explosion of magic, he gets a weak Bash attack.
> He can throw Orbs for a stronger Bash attack. He can drink Healing
> Potions, Holy Water, Might, Haste, and Berserk potions and get a
> positive effect - anything else will make him sick. He can throw
> potions, but he may accidentally give the enemy the full beneficial
> effect (i.e. throwing a potion of Magic Power at an enemy Lich)

Wait a second- this makes no sense at all. Only some potions are effective on a
gladiator? They should still be usable, just perhaps not do anything noticable
(like a potion of magic power). Tough, hard training sessions do not make you
get sick of potions normal fighters can drink.
And why is the gladiator limited to one ring? If he can wear one, he can wear
two, or even eight. My advice is to make the gladiator shun ALL magic
(including magic weapons and armour), because of his mistrust in the stuff. Have
him gain extra resistances and powers intrinsically, and make him pack some
serious whallop with ordinary weapons. The one true anti-magic class :)

> To be honest, I can't decide exactly how I want the Alchemist to work
> yet. Getting kind of close to a decision, but don't have a good one
> yet.

shun the vanilla potion-mixing alchemist. I like the idea of an alchemist having
to concoct his own weapons (an alchemist is a frail dude with a beard and a
robe, not nearly strong enough to hold anything but a knife). Potions of
detonation, poison, acid, blindness, madness, sleep... and throw with them :)
Some kind of spell or skill system would be cool- after making many potions, you
find a way to make a stronger one (next level of effectiveness). You can get
anything from a potion of mild burns to a potion of blow stuff up

> You could vote on it if you want. Options include:
> A. Alchemist occasionally produces empty bottles - drink potions to
> copy like Scribe reading magic (hard to copy things like Exploding
> Potion - lame)

He just 'produces' them? Where does he get them? I don't even wanna know...
In the case above, an alchemist could know his anatomy- create a liquid
container from monster bladder, for example.

> B. Same as A, but discard potion instead (equally lame, you get
> bottle-tossing)

See my ideas

> C. Alchemist occasionally produces random complete potions (from
> nothing. Hm)

What? He pees potions of healing? What?

> D. Alchemist has some Alch equipment he can wield and then use on a
> potion to copy it into all empty bottles (a bit encumbered, the whole
> thing)

A bit overpowered as well

> E. You're the wiseguy, you come up with a mechanic. List of icons, you
> tab between them with R/L. B will use the selected item, and that
> item, if of correct type, can be set to wield this way. Wielded item
> is used with A. Now how do you implement Alchemy into that without
> adding burdensome mid-steps or stupid stuff...

What are you talking about here?

--
char*x(c,k,s)char*k,*s;{if(!k)return*s-36?x(0,0,s+1):s;if(s)if(*s)c=10+(c?(x(
c,k,0),x(c,k+=*s-c,s+1),*k):(x(*s,k,s+1),0));else c=10;printf(&x(~0,0,k)[c-~-
c+"1"[~c<-c]],c);}main(){x(0,"^[kXc6]dn_eaoh$%c","-34*1'.+(,03#;+,)/'///*");}

Pieter Droogendijk

unread,
Aug 7, 2003, 5:13:06 PM8/7/03
to
On 7 Aug 2003 12:06:56 -0700

torespon...@hotmail.com (Jeff Lait) wrote:
>
> Wow, that was a ride.... Did some searches and it seems I missed a
> whole bunch of juicy flames end of last year.
>
> Thanks to them, I got your url and read this:
>
> ---
> So now it's time to work on something everyone loves: Game Boy Advance
> games.
> If you MUST know what I am doing, please spam RGRD. I'll see it and
> maybe
> answer, if I feel particularly fearless of having my hopes and dreams
> crushed
> that day. If you don't know what RGRD is then don't seek me; you'll
> just upset
> my rhythm.
> ---

WHAAAAAAT? I just posted in-depth helpful tips and tricks for a guy who intends
to make a game for the GAME BOY? Now I know what he was talking about when he
used phrases like 'use key' and 'tab between them with R/L' and 'B will use the
selected item'.

Is this thread really topical here? It's not really a pure-bred roguelike is it!

be...@sonic.net

unread,
Aug 7, 2003, 6:13:57 PM8/7/03
to
Pieter Droogendijk wrote:
>
> WHAAAAAAT? I just posted in-depth helpful tips and tricks for a guy who intends
> to make a game for the GAME BOY? Now I know what he was talking about when he
> used phrases like 'use key' and 'tab between them with R/L' and 'B will use the
> selected item'.
>
> Is this thread really topical here? It's not really a pure-bred roguelike is it!

The game boy is, of course, a *much* more powerful computer than those
on which Rogue was created. Would you prefer to stay in the days of
64K on a mainframe?

Bear

Amy Wang

unread,
Aug 7, 2003, 7:13:12 PM8/7/03
to
"Kornel \"Anubis\" Kisielewicz" <anu...@felis7.civ.pl> wrote in message news:<bgtgl3$kcm$1...@atlantis.news.tpi.pl>...

> Hey, just out of plain curiosity, In which group am I? I never showed
> any code of mine, keep writing about an imaginary game, never showed
> any real design-doc nor pseudocode, never showed even a simple program
> with an '@' walking around a blank screen?....

I'd like to also direct this to Samayel and Mylon, as it's pertinent
to them. The question of how much of an idiot someone is can be
determined by a function of how much BSing he does on RGRD versus how
much he's actually done. For example, Shockfrost hasn't coded anything
(any amount of code, without at least a '@' walking around, is
considered nothing), but he's pondering details that are trivial to
implement, and belong in a beta release anyways. I'll get back to that
later, though.

In your case, you have at least created that simple program, even
though you didn't release it, and discarded it to start over. You lose
points for this, because you probably have the ability to create what
I'll call a 'blank' roguelike: the proto-game that every successful
roguelike starts at, each being virtually identical, featuring the
'@', some NPCs (with no AI necessary), items, and terrain features.
Since you choose not to do so (to my knowledge), you're on shaky
ground.

We must consider the other variable, as well. If all of you have is a
pre-alpha, and you're talking about features that wouldn't even show
up in early betas, then I would probably consider you an idiot, and
you should too. Talking about theme is acceptable, since it should be
present as soon as your game exits the 'blank' stage. There's also
nothing wrong with *designing* things before they're ready to be
implemented.

However, we must remember that developing a game boils down to
implementation in the end, and that with more code, time investment
increases. This means that it isn't appropriate to be bragging about
how your AI is going to function if you don't even have NPCs to plug
it into, since if you don't have the talent to display the character
associated with an NPC structure to the screen, you obviously don't
have any business designing or implementing AI. That's where the
'greater' idiots are. They are so over-confident that developing the
core of a roguelike game is simple that they devalue that effort, and
leave it 'for later'. In the end, they may even have many helper
functions implemented, but no actual game. The 'lesser' idiots, on the
other hand, have clearly overstepped their bounds, but there are fewer
steps separating them from making their efforts useful.

Back to Shockfrost, I think it would be helpful to dissect one of his
latest questions, which I'll simplify: "should morning stars be
slashing weapons?" Now, there are many problems with this question,
such as how the concept was stolen from AD&D's bash/slash/pierce
mechanic. This shows that indeed, Shockfrost has low self esteem and
is unable to go to rpg.net to steal ideas, much less come up with his
own. However, there are more important issues:

1. Shockfrost is an egomaniac who won't accept any suggestions that
don't coincide with his own ideas. At the same time, he lacks real
confidence, so he must come to RGRD to ask such a trivial question. It
isn't a matter of intelligence or knowledge- it's a matter of being
able to make up your own mind. It wouldn't truly matter if he got it
wrong, since eventually the problem would be fixed, and it would show
up as a footnote on a changes.txt file.

2. This mechanic would be trivial to implement in an existing game. As
such, it doesn't belong in an alpha release. There are more important
core features to design and implement. The bash/slash/pierce mechanic
should be left for a late beta, but instead it is being considered
*before* the development of a 'blank' game! Shockfrost is just
fleshing out his adolescent fantasy of an 'ideal' roguelike, but has
no actual intention of creating it.

To summarize, it's up to you to decide what kind, if any, of an idiot
that you are. As soon as a 'blank' game is implemented, something
happens. The time investment is high enough, and individual features
are close enough to be implemented, that I would consider you, at
worst, a 'lesser' idiot. Before that point, though, if you're going
around soliciting tile sets, working out final numbers for weapon
damage, and designing trivial plug-in features, you're something much
worse. Idea generation and design are necessary, and I encourage
developers to keep their final releases in mind while designing.
However, some activities are simply pointless before any product has
been created.

Kornel "Anubis" Kisielewicz

unread,
Aug 7, 2003, 7:45:04 PM8/7/03
to
> "Kornel \"Anubis\" Kisielewicz" <anu...@felis7.civ.pl> wrote in
message news:<bgtgl3$kcm$1...@atlantis.news.tpi.pl>...
>
> > Hey, just out of plain curiosity, In which group am I? I never
showed
> > any code of mine, keep writing about an imaginary game, never
showed
> > any real design-doc nor pseudocode, never showed even a simple
program
> > with an '@' walking around a blank screen?....
>
> I'd like to also direct this to Samayel and Mylon, as it's pertinent
> to them. The question of how much of an idiot someone is can be
> determined by a function of how much BSing he does on RGRD versus
how
> much he's actually done. For example, Shockfrost hasn't coded
anything
> (any amount of code, without at least a '@' walking around, is
> considered nothing), but he's pondering details that are trivial to
> implement, and belong in a beta release anyways. I'll get back to
that
> later, though.

Hmm... But as I persume you takeout the people that don't do anything,
but provide technical advice for the beginning rl-coders? On the other
hand you may consider that such a chat should take place on a comp.*
newsgroup... But that leaves us with little sensible topics for
rgrd...

> In your case, you have at least created that simple program, even
> though you didn't release it, and discarded it to start over.

How can you be sure of that, he? *evil grin*

> You lose points for this, because you probably have the ability
> to create what I'll call a 'blank' roguelike: the proto-game that
every
> successful roguelike starts at, each being virtually identical,
> featuring the '@', some NPCs (with no AI necessary), items, and
> terrain features. Since you choose not to do so (to my knowledge),
> you're on shaky ground.

Hmm... interesting. What would you consider a "non-blank" roguelike,
and can you give me examples from our newsgroup projects that would
fit that description?

> We must consider the other variable, as well. If all of you have is
a
> pre-alpha, and you're talking about features that wouldn't even show
> up in early betas, then I would probably consider you an idiot, and
> you should too.

This is the part that I don't agree upon the most. The failed GenRogue
attempts tought me one main thing -- the most potent features (ones
like the world generator, quest generator, dialog randomizer and the
background-plot engine), must be fully understood, and prepared
(designed) BEFORE actual coding starts. That means BEFORE I have an
actual alpha or beta stage. And what better way there is to check
wether your design is sound then to share/talk about it with other
developers?

> Talking about theme is acceptable, since it should be
> present as soon as your game exits the 'blank' stage.

I'd say it should be present in your mind before actual coding starts.
Only then the game will have a true feel and not a "this is a world
coded for an engine" kind'a cheap feeling. I noticed that the best
games are NOT those based on an prepared "for-everything" engine, but
ones that the coding process was already influenced by the theme.
That's true as far as atmosphere goes, and I understand that many
won't agree with me upon that.

Therefore actually I started to be quite sceptical on the "the generic
RL-engine first"... (GenRogue will have to change it's name someday).

> However, we must remember that developing a game boils down to
> implementation in the end, and that with more code, time investment
> increases. This means that it isn't appropriate to be bragging about
> how your AI is going to function if you don't even have NPCs to plug
> it into, since if you don't have the talent to display the character
> associated with an NPC structure to the screen, you obviously don't
> have any business designing or implementing AI. That's where the
> 'greater' idiots are.

AI is such an important topic that IMHO it should be designed a lot
before the NPC implementation (see above).

> They are so over-confident that developing the
> core of a roguelike game is simple that they devalue that effort,
and
> leave it 'for later'.

The core isn't a problem at all. At least, comparing to the later part
of the game writing process....

> 1. Shockfrost is an egomaniac who won't accept any suggestions that
> don't coincide with his own ideas. At the same time, he lacks real
> confidence, so he must come to RGRD to ask such a trivial question.
It
> isn't a matter of intelligence or knowledge- it's a matter of being
> able to make up your own mind. It wouldn't truly matter if he got it
> wrong, since eventually the problem would be fixed, and it would
show
> up as a footnote on a changes.txt file.

I think that he just want's to get somebodies attention on him. He's
just a poor fellow with an self-esteem problem.

> To summarize, it's up to you to decide what kind, if any, of an
idiot
> that you are.

I think (and hope) that none of the above. 9 years of programming
taught me many things, and most I've learned on my own mistakes.

> As soon as a 'blank' game is implemented, something
> happens. The time investment is high enough, and individual features
> are close enough to be implemented, that I would consider you, at
> worst, a 'lesser' idiot.

Thank you! I'm so happy ;). Now I can go to bed peacefully.
--
Anubis [Cyrogenic Death Mode]

Amy Wang

unread,
Aug 7, 2003, 8:16:46 PM8/7/03
to
pau...@mbnet.fi (Paul Pekkarinen) wrote in message news:<8f2c2bbc.03080...@posting.google.com>...

> blueme...@hotmail.com (Amy Wang) wrote in message
> > How many lines of *actual* *working* code do you
> > have? What does it do?
>
> The stuff which is made before coding is called "planning". We
> programmers call it so. I have an impression that ShockFrost
> is planning his game before coding. That's the right thing to do.

I'm sorry. I forgot to consider the people who took their software
engineering courses in clown college. Naturally, having received my
education in software development in a university not specifically
intended for clowns, I'm ignorant of the 'planning' phase of
development. Furthermore, my undeveloped brain is unable to comprehend
what goes on in the 'planning' phase, namely how bragging about
trivial features as if they were already implemented is an important
part of the 'completion blueprint'.

>
> > We don't know the details of your AI
> > design, your medal design, or anything,
>
> We don't have to know anything about his game now. For me it seems
> that he is actually doing something, unlike you.

Unlike myself, who has done far more than I will ever share with you,
all that Shockfrost has done is ramble on about his pipe dreams. He
doesn't show us his progress not because he doesn't want to, but
because he can't. Of course, I've forgotten that ramblings are
considered the true measure of progress in RGRD, but I'd like to offer
something else:


int token_taken[MAX_TOKEN];

#define TOKEN_ADVENTURER 0
#define TOKEN_FIGHTER 1
#define TOKEN_ANOTHER_ADND_CLASS 2
...

token_taken[TOKEN_ADVENTURER] = 1;
c = 'a';
n = 0;
for (i=0 to MAX_TOKEN)
if token_taken[i]
printf("%c: %s\n", c, token_name(i));
reference[n] = i;

class_selected = reference[getche() - 'a']


The above is what I was taught to consider to be pseudocode. This
snippet is part of the menu system that the player would use to select
his class. I renamed medals to be tokens, since Shockfrost is an idiot
and doesn't deserve intellectual property. Now, I don't expect this
small part of a function to outweigh the pages of 'pseudocode' (using
the term lightly to lend quasi-acceptance to Shockfrost and his
strangely numerous followers) that Shockfrost has created for his own
game, but this functionality is useful near the beginning stages of
development, as opposed to the novels of 'pseudocode' that have been
created for the party system, making it infinitely more valuable. In
other words, I've done more for Shockfrost's game than he has.
Ironically, I have just as much intention of finishing his game as
him. This is why Shockfrost and his worshippers can't be respected by
normal people (well, that and how he likes to pretend that he's a
wizard and thinks that "lvl 12 Fend" is a valid counterargument).

Jeff Lait

unread,
Aug 7, 2003, 10:35:21 PM8/7/03
to
Pieter Droogendijk <g...@binky.homeunix.org> wrote in message news:<2003080723130...@binky.homeunix.org>...

>
> WHAAAAAAT? I just posted in-depth helpful tips and tricks for a guy who intends
> to make a game for the GAME BOY? Now I know what he was talking about when he
> used phrases like 'use key' and 'tab between them with R/L' and 'B will use the
> selected item'.
>
> Is this thread really topical here? It's not really a pure-bred roguelike is it!

*Ahem*

I would contend POWDER satisfies the requirements of "roguelike", and
sports the Gameboy Advance as its platform:
http://www.zincland.com/powder

To quote my manifesto in the about section of the website:

--------
To understand POWDER, you should first understand Roguelikes.
"Roguelike" is a term applied to a wide variety of games which share a
common inspiration from the game Rogue. A non-exhaustive list of such
games would be: ADOM, Nethack, Diablo (I & II), Moria, and Angband. My
apologies to the many excellent roguelikes I didn't list. What
characterizes these games? The exact specifications are a matter of
debate - indeed, I may receive hate mail for including Diablo - but I
shall try to write a few:

- Based in Hack and Slash. A roguelike isn't primarily about plot
development or telling a story. It is about killing things and
acquiring treasure.

- Random games. A roguelike is a dungeon crawler where no two games
are the same. The maps are different, the items are different, there
are no guaranteed win paths.

- Permadeath. You die, that is it. No restoring a savegame. Good
roguelikes delete your save game after loading them. This is
compensated by the replayability of the game.

- Complex interactions of properties. While the commands for a
roguelike are simple, the potential interactions are not. My favourite
example is equipping a silver ring as a weapon in order to damage a
creature vulnerable to silver, but not one's other weapons.

- Steam rolling monsters. If a critter is in your way, and weak, you
shouldn't even notice it is there.
--------

Of course, POWDER measely collection of features would likely earn it
a place as a minimalistic roguelike. Certainly, looking at the draft
designs for Champions of DragonMore, or ShockFrost's tantalizing
comments about his latest project (which I suspect he plans on being
on the GBA!), I begin to wonder at my audacity of daring to release
such a bare boned roguelike! I strongly suspect ShockFrost has more
lines of postings on the subject of design than I have lines of code.

I can, however, proudly assert that I find it entertaining to play.

Now, back to your question of topicality:
Questions about implementation of a roguelike on the GBA are obviously
off topic: Eg: "How does one save data to the SRAM?" General
questions applicable to all roguelikes I'd say are on topic, eg: "I
only got 32k to work with, so HTF do I fit my 600x600 level 20 dungeon
in it?" More fuzzy are questions of how to adopt the traditional
many-key approach of Roguelikes to the 8 or so buttons available on a
GBA. After all, this is also a valid question for those developing
roguelikes for PDAs. My thoughts on the matter is that porting a
keyboard-centric roguelike to a PDA or GBA is not a good idea, as the
radically different ergonomics mean some fundamental changes to game
design should be made. I've done that in POWDER, which is why playing
it in a VirtualBoy emulator is not nearly as smooth as on the proper
hardware.

Enough prattling...

- Jeff Lait
(POWDER: http://www.zincland.com, perhaps one of the least portable
Roguelikes)

ShockFrost

unread,
Aug 7, 2003, 11:03:57 PM8/7/03
to
> Weak pierce? have you ever seen a war pick? It's like an axe!
> I assure you that it's true pierce:P
>

If you throw a pickaxe at an enemy, it will do weak pierce damage to
that enemy. It is not designed to be a weapon, it is designed to break
Soft Rock tiles.

> > Orbs

>
> May be overpowered. Any time spans? perhaps mana cost, or activation.
>

They'll be rare enough to make that null, and since you can only carry
so much(6-10 items), players will probably have to carefully weigh
whether they want the orb or something else.

> > Gloves (of Might/Painlessness/Wielding)
>

Don't want armor to have suffix, and gloves of painlessness = no
hitframe when struck, so interrupting attacks. Couldn't think of a
good term, think of a better one later.

> > Shield (of Reflection/Elemental Resistance/Deflection/Self-Will -
> > better chance to block without holding Use key/Magic Reistance)
>
> Holding the use-key? Is this a real-time game? That runs along the edge of
> roguelike...
>

Bingo.
Use key = B button when the shield item is currently highlighted.

> > Pike - 48p range (3 squares), low/med damage, V.Slow swing,
> > Pierce/Slash Type, V. RARE
>
> Again a pierce comment... A pickaxe has weak pierce, but picks through rocks.
> Try doing that with a pike. You can barely stab with a 12-foot spike, you let
> the enemy run into it. Cavalry for instance, what they where designed to be
> effective against, will recieve a piercing attack, since only they would be
> moving fast enough to poke through armour.
>

Pike is SUPPOSED to be a weapon pickup, so it is allowed to have good
damage ratio since that it its main use.

> > Unlocked Classes

> > Cleric :

> Vanilla priest... too bad.

K. :)

> > Monk :

> Perhaps it would be better to add a monk weapon class? That would leave you with
> a larger variety. Study some traditional oriental weaponry.

That would be great except I don't want to bloat the game with
weapons. All I have here is about ALL the weapons that are going in.
No 'of demonslaying', no 'vorpal envenomed', no 'eviscerating of
greed' weapons. Weapon and level. Finding a weapon (and reaching it)
is a moment of rejoicing, because now you have a new tool to attack
with -- think Zelda.

> > The Sage :

> Nice.

Thanks. :)

> > Wanderer is equally skilled with all tools, like the Fighter, except
> > without the class proficiencies, so he needs enough levels to use :)
> > He has no special traits except that he starts with a little random
> > equipment. He does everything about equal, a little under par, and is
> > designed to be a challenge to win with.
>
> Doesn't make sense to me, but alright.
>

> > Necromancer :

>
> Hard to understand. You get to 'use' the book? and do what? write in it? read
> from it? You can only use it 8 times in the game?

Spellbooks in this game have X pages, and they're like stacks of
scrolls. You cast from the book by highlighting the book with L/R and
pressing B. The special black book Necros get at the start of the game
get just 8 pages; some books get many more.

The wizard and a couple of other casting characters can occasionally
use these books without using up a scroll, at random; And many refill
partly used books when they level up. This allows a careful wizard to
preserve a small magic arsenal, but if a book is ever fully used up it
vanishes, so conservation and controlled risk is always a factor. If
you throw a book (magic-capable class) it will likely explode in one
big release of magic (if it strikes a monster at all)

Necromancer is HIGHLY reliant on sparing use of his special magic. The
starter black book ALWAYS loses a scroll upon use, NEVER refills, and
cannot be found anywhere or ever be replaced. But when you use it,
every magic item in your inventory is tainted with black power, and
transmutes into new dark magic for use. These dark magic scrolls,
spellbooks, etc. cannot be found in the dungeon. Some things will not
transmute. Necromancers can use both regular and Dark magic, but they
only refill their personal Dark magic, and they never save a scroll
from a book when they cast, Dark or not, so they must be quite thrifty
with magic. The Dark magic is designed to be unique and entertaining,
as is expected, from converting monsters to raising your own, spells
that cause Fear and Suffering, and other specialties.


> > Gladiator :



> Wait a second- this makes no sense at all. Only some potions are effective on a gladiator?

Yes. Only some will work with a gladiator, due to his nonmagical
nature.

> They should still be usable, just perhaps not do anything noticable
> (like a potion of magic power). Tough, hard training sessions do not make you
> get sick of potions normal fighters can drink.

No, but if you set a teakettle on a burner without any water inside,
you damage the kettle. For this same reason, Gladiators who drink
magical liquids tend to damage themselves. Exceptions are limited to
physical enhancers.

> And why is the gladiator limited to one ring? If he can wear one, he can wear
> two, or even eight. My advice is to make the gladiator shun ALL magic
> (including magic weapons and armour), because of his mistrust in the stuff. Have
> him gain extra resistances and powers intrinsically, and make him pack some
> serious whallop with ordinary weapons. The one true anti-magic class :)

The gladiator needs to be able to wear a Ring of Pass Water to solve
randomly generated underwater puzzles, since he certainly cannot cast
the spell on himself. While the others can completely fill their
inventory with Rings, the Gladiator is limited to one. The amulet
tends to be a more subtle magic, but that is still up in the air.

> >Alchemist :

> shun the vanilla potion-mixing alchemist. I like the idea of an alchemist having
> to concoct his own weapons (an alchemist is a frail dude with a beard and a
> robe, not nearly strong enough to hold anything but a knife). Potions of
> detonation, poison, acid, blindness, madness, sleep... and throw with them :)

Throwing negative potions, like poison, is the primary use, so he
makes both weapons and self-aids. :) And no, he will not have tons of
skill with weapons or literary magic, but potions tend to waste out
quickly so he will need a backup something.

> Some kind of spell or skill system would be cool- after making many potions, you
> find a way to make a stronger one (next level of effectiveness). You can get
> anything from a potion of mild burns to a potion of blow stuff up

Oil potion (refills lantern/throw for firebomb) / Exploding potion
(cannot be drunk, hurt self slightly if you try, throws for heavy
damage)

> > A. Alchemist occasionally produces empty bottles - drink potions to
> > copy like Scribe reading magic (hard to copy things like Exploding
> > Potion - lame)

> He just 'produces' them? Where does he get them? I don't even wanna know...
> In the case above, an alchemist could know his anatomy- create a liquid
> container from monster bladder, for example.

Technically in this case he would be carefully studying the makeup of
whatever he drank and reproducing that chemical. But since you can't
drink a Potion of Explosion without serious consequences (as with all
other negative potions) making ammo this way is out of the question.

> > B. Same as A, but discard potion instead (equally lame, you get
> > bottle-tossing)
>
> See my ideas

Not what I meant by bottle tossing - I mean, you copy what you throw.
It might be ideal, but you get people standing against a wall lobbing
bottles to replicate their potions. A bit lame even for a
sidescroller.



> > C. Alchemist occasionally produces random complete potions (from
> > nothing. Hm)
>
> What? He pees potions of healing? What?
>

That's my issue with that. He could produce them at random when he
levels up, as a career perk, but there's a lot of gaps in the
equation, so to speak.



> > D. Alchemist has some Alch equipment he can wield and then use on a
> > potion to copy it into all empty bottles (a bit encumbered, the whole
> > thing)
>
> A bit overpowered as well

Not really, since you can only carry 10-or-so things. But the method
of doing this is REALLY tricky -- I can't figure it out!



> > E. You're the wiseguy, you come up with a mechanic. List of icons, you
> > tab between them with R/L. B will use the selected item, and that
> > item, if of correct type, can be set to wield this way. Wielded item
> > is used with A. Now how do you implement Alchemy into that without
> > adding burdensome mid-steps or stupid stuff...
>
> What are you talking about here?

Come up with an idea. Imagine you're playing on a lovely new Game Boy
Advance. A uses your wielded weapon. B interacts with the selected
inventory item - in some cases, it causes that item to be wielded, in
others, it throws the item or uses it or whatever. There may be
special combinations for forcing an item throw. In any case you switch
back and forth with R/L. You can have full bottles, empty bottles,
'equipment', whatever in the pack, but how do you make A and B add up
to C? Explain the process, and it needs to be simple enough for a
7-year old to mash out!

... that's what I was talking about. :)

ShockFrost

unread,
Aug 7, 2003, 11:19:14 PM8/7/03
to
> Wow, that was a ride.... Did some searches and it seems I missed a
> whole bunch of juicy flames end of last year.

Pretty close on, yeah.


> Thanks to them, I got your url

NOOOOO! :p


> Some quick notes from someone in the trenches:
> 1) The GBA won't make you any money. At least, it won't make you any
> money unless you go the straight and narrow with Nintendo. There
> really isn't room for hobbyist sales when your customers are
> restricted to those who have bought the GBA & the $150 grey market
> accessories required to put your game onto it.

Check. :) I will fight the flow of the river anyway. Someone,
somewhere made money with the Game Boy Advance. If they can do it with
that crap (Rampage World Tour?) I'll do it with mine. It's fun anyway.

> 2) The GBA is a very limitted environment. Sure, it makes the C64
> look like a toaster, but it pales in comparison to the average PC.
> What is more, while the average PC becomes more powerful every year,
> the GBA is unlikely to get a memory upgrade. What I'm trying to say
> here is that you need a really tight design if you aren't going to
> blow your memory on your first iteration.

Exactly: Design the game to run on a toaster!

Or more accurately, design a game that runs on a toaster, appeals to
thousands, and costs nothing to produce.

Hhehh..

Wish me luck (And buy the thing if it hits shelves)

> The good news is there exists at least one person out there with GBA
> hardware interested in dungeon crawlers. (That'd be me. :>)

> - Jeff Lait
> (POWDER: http://www.zincland.com/powder)

Ok - if you can promise not to mass-produce the ROMs and pass them
around the internet, you'll make a great betatester.

R Dan Henry

unread,
Aug 8, 2003, 2:53:32 AM8/8/03
to
On 7 Aug 2003 19:35:21 -0700, in a fit of madness
torespon...@hotmail.com (Jeff Lait) declared:

>- Based in Hack and Slash. A roguelike isn't primarily about plot
>development or telling a story. It is about killing things and
>acquiring treasure.

Agree with the second sentence, disagree with the first and third. The
theme does not have to center on either killing things (combat could be
[largely] non-lethal or very rare, other contests could function in its
place) or acquiring treasure (all ability gains could be through
intrinsics). Although maybe one could make a case for the treasure part
as equipment management has always been an important part of gameplay.

>- Random games.
>- Permadeath.

Agreed.

>- Complex interactions of properties. While the commands for a
>roguelike are simple, the potential interactions are not. My favourite
>example is equipping a silver ring as a weapon in order to damage a
>creature vulnerable to silver, but not one's other weapons.

Doesn't this disqualify Rogue?

>- Steam rolling monsters. If a critter is in your way, and weak, you
>shouldn't even notice it is there.

I disagree that this is in any way fundamental. Basically, this means
massive power inflation, which isn't so necessary.

I'd include turn-based (it's not a twitch-fest). Also that it could, in
theory, be represented in ASCII without changing gameplay. (Note, it
doesn't strictly have to support ASCII, it can still be a [blasphemous
monstrosity of a] roguelike if it is all picture-graphics, but it has to
possible to convert it to traditional ASCII representation without
otherwise changing the game.)

Finally, it needs to be scaled to the individual level. Roguelikes are
tactical, not strategic. An ASCII strategy game on a random world isn't
a roguelike. Indeed, this is the only requirement that will distinguish
a RL from an ASCII 4X game.

--
R. Dan Henry
rdan...@earthlink.net
They can have my ASCII graphics when they pry them
from my cold dead (c) and (d) slots.

Paul Pekkarinen

unread,
Aug 8, 2003, 6:25:03 AM8/8/03
to
blueme...@hotmail.com (Amy Wang) wrote in message
> I'm sorry. I forgot to consider the people who took their software
> engineering courses in clown college. Naturally, having received my
> education in software development in a university not specifically
> intended for clowns, I'm ignorant of the 'planning' phase of

That's interesting. Then tell me why do you act like a clown?

> Unlike myself, who has done far more than I will ever share with you,
> all that Shockfrost has done is ramble on about his pipe dreams.

It seems almost that you are offended by ShockFrost's dreaming.
Sorry, I just can't understand how your mind is working...

Gerry Quinn

unread,
Aug 8, 2003, 8:13:20 AM8/8/03
to

>Back to Shockfrost, I think it would be helpful to dissect one of his
>latest questions, which I'll simplify: "should morning stars be
>slashing weapons?" Now, there are many problems with this question,
>such as how the concept was stolen from AD&D's bash/slash/pierce
>mechanic. This shows that indeed, Shockfrost has low self esteem and
>is unable to go to rpg.net to steal ideas, much less come up with his
>own. However, there are more important issues:

For the record, cut/crush/pierce is a pretty obvious categorisation - I
have come up with it independently in the past, and I'm sure others
have. What obvious equally good alternative is there?

- Gerry Quinn

Mylon

unread,
Aug 8, 2003, 8:40:56 AM8/8/03
to
"Amy Wang" <blueme...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:62acd54d.03080...@posting.google.com...
> pau...@mbnet.fi (Paul Pekkarinen) wrote in message
news:<8f2c2bbc.03080...@posting.google.com>...
> > The stuff which is made before coding is called "planning". We
> > programmers call it so. I have an impression that ShockFrost
> > is planning his game before coding. That's the right thing to do.
>
> I'm sorry. I forgot to consider the people who took their software
> engineering courses in clown college. Naturally, having received my
> education in software development in a university not specifically
> intended for clowns, I'm ignorant of the 'planning' phase of
> development. Furthermore, my undeveloped brain is unable to comprehend
> what goes on in the 'planning' phase, namely how bragging about
> trivial features as if they were already implemented is an important
> part of the 'completion blueprint'.

This happens quite often in the business world of game programming. I try
and follow the next fun and exciting game chocked full of features that the
company keeps talking about as if they're already implimented, and in the
end when I hold the finished product in my hand, it feels only like a clone
of an older game while all of the features I so longed for are mysteriously
missing. Then the expansion comes along to impliment _half_ of the features
that made me want the game initially, but by then I'm too bitter to buy the
expansion and torture myself further.


Mylon

unread,
Aug 8, 2003, 8:44:37 AM8/8/03
to
"Amy Wang" <blueme...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:62acd54d.03080...@posting.google.com...
> To summarize, it's up to you to decide what kind, if any, of an idiot
> that you are. As soon as a 'blank' game is implemented, something
> happens. The time investment is high enough, and individual features
> are close enough to be implemented, that I would consider you, at
> worst, a 'lesser' idiot. Before that point, though, if you're going
> around soliciting tile sets, working out final numbers for weapon
> damage, and designing trivial plug-in features, you're something much
> worse. Idea generation and design are necessary, and I encourage
> developers to keep their final releases in mind while designing.
> However, some activities are simply pointless before any product has
> been created.

So, what percentage distrobution do _you_ think katars (punch daggers)
should be? 60 piece, 20 bash, 20 slash?


Jeff Lait

unread,
Aug 8, 2003, 11:43:53 AM8/8/03
to
R Dan Henry <rdan...@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:<60h6jvk942rnnddgk...@4ax.com>...

> On 7 Aug 2003 19:35:21 -0700, in a fit of madness
> torespon...@hotmail.com (Jeff Lait) declared:
>
> >- Based in Hack and Slash. A roguelike isn't primarily about plot
> >development or telling a story. It is about killing things and
> >acquiring treasure.
>
> Agree with the second sentence, disagree with the first and third.

To summarize: You agree it isn't primarily about plot development or
story telling.
You disagree it is about hack & slash.

I should take this moment to point out I don't consider that list of
things a "checklist for roguelikes". It is more that things which
match all those characteristics are more likely to be considered
similar to what I consider roguelike than things that don't match.

> The theme does not have to center on either killing things (combat could be
> [largely] non-lethal or very rare, other contests could function in its
> place) or acquiring treasure (all ability gains could be through
> intrinsics). Although maybe one could make a case for the treasure part
> as equipment management has always been an important part of gameplay.

This gets into a MUD/MOO distinction, IMO. A non-combat roguelike is,
in my opinion, less of a pure roguelike than one which uses only tile
graphics. Going non-combat is a fundamental change to the nature of
the game. That said, I'm not suggesting a non-combat roguelike not be
called a roguelike.

> >- Random games.
> >- Permadeath.
>
> Agreed.
>
> >- Complex interactions of properties. While the commands for a
> >roguelike are simple, the potential interactions are not. My favourite
> >example is equipping a silver ring as a weapon in order to damage a
> >creature vulnerable to silver, but not one's other weapons.
>
> Doesn't this disqualify Rogue?

Yeah :> It could also disqualify Diablo, though the latter does have
the interaction between resistances to save it. Thankfully, my
attempts at a definition are not binding :>

I'd say this is an emergent property of roguelikes. It's not
something there at the start, but something which has come to
characterize them over time.



> >- Steam rolling monsters. If a critter is in your way, and weak, you
> >shouldn't even notice it is there.
>
> I disagree that this is in any way fundamental. Basically, this means
> massive power inflation, which isn't so necessary.

Not necessarily power inflation, IMO. However, it does stem
immediately from being combat oriented. This point was a result of
trying to understand why I can't stand console RPGs. The reason is
that every battle brings you to a "Battle Screen" where upon you wait
for your dudes to do their animated attacks to kill the rat which
decided to attack your level 100 party. What I like about roguelikes
is they allow for a very smooth gameplay. The only time you are hung
up is when you are truly trying to think something through, not just
delayed by having to make some meaningless series of decisions.

> I'd include turn-based (it's not a twitch-fest).

I'd agree it shouldn't be a twitch fest. However, I wouldn't demand
the turnbased aspect.

> Also that it could, in
> theory, be represented in ASCII without changing gameplay. (Note, it
> doesn't strictly have to support ASCII, it can still be a [blasphemous
> monstrosity of a] roguelike if it is all picture-graphics, but it has to
> possible to convert it to traditional ASCII representation without
> otherwise changing the game.)

Well, at least POWDER makes these requirements :> I'm one of those
that holds that Diablo and Diablo II are roguelikes, however, so can't
really agree with this. However, I should likely include it
nonetheless. As I mentioned above, this sort of list is a guideline,
not a pass/fail binary decision tree.

> Finally, it needs to be scaled to the individual level. Roguelikes are
> tactical, not strategic. An ASCII strategy game on a random world isn't
> a roguelike. Indeed, this is the only requirement that will distinguish
> a RL from an ASCII 4X game.

Agreed. That's a good point - roguelikes are very tactical.

- Jeff Lait
(POWDER: http://www.zincland.com/powder)

ShockFrost

unread,
Aug 8, 2003, 12:42:39 PM8/8/03
to
>
> *Ahem*
>
> I would contend POWDER satisfies the requirements of "roguelike", and
> sports the Gameboy Advance as its platform:
> http://www.zincland.com/powder

I agree 100%. 'Powder' sounds exactly like a roguelike. Quite nice.
My game is a very powerful hybrid, but it's not a technical roguelike.

Here are the differences.

> To understand POWDER, you should first understand Roguelikes.
> "Roguelike" is a term applied to a wide variety of games which share a
> common inspiration from the game Rogue. A non-exhaustive list of such
> games would be: ADOM, Nethack, Diablo (I & II), Moria, and Angband.

Oh, yes. Inspiration from all of those here too.

> My apologies to the many excellent roguelikes I didn't list. What
> characterizes these games? The exact specifications are a matter of
> debate - indeed, I may receive hate mail for including Diablo - but I
> shall try to write a few:
>
> - Based in Hack and Slash. A roguelike isn't primarily about plot
> development or telling a story. It is about killing things and
> acquiring treasure.
>

Definitely. Kill things, get treasure.

> - Random games. A roguelike is a dungeon crawler where no two games
> are the same. The maps are different, the items are different, there
> are no guaranteed win paths.
>

Yes, same. Every time you play, the rooms and puzzles are
re-generated.

> - Permadeath. You die, that is it. No restoring a savegame. Good
> roguelikes delete your save game after loading them. This is
> compensated by the replayability of the game.

INDEED! I plan to implement this.

> - Complex interactions of properties. While the commands for a
> roguelike are simple, the potential interactions are not. My favourite
> example is equipping a silver ring as a weapon in order to damage a
> creature vulnerable to silver, but not one's other weapons.

My game wont have nearly as complex interactions. Almost all of my
objects are one-button wonders, push the B button, and the object is
used. Why like this?
Well, I'll tell you in a minute.



> - Steam rolling monsters. If a critter is in your way, and weak, you
> shouldn't even notice it is there.
> --------

Little difference here too - sometimes weak creatures will have very
annoying movement patterns that could make them quite frustrating to
kill anyway. Watch out for bats in particular.

Also, my game has a different balance - there is a difference between
level 1 and 100 of maybe... 10x power at most.

This means even bats are fatal if you don't handle them reasonably. Of
course, your growing equipment selection will broaden the gap.



>
> Of course, POWDER measely collection of features would likely earn it
> a place as a minimalistic roguelike. Certainly, looking at the draft
> designs for Champions of DragonMore, or ShockFrost's tantalizing
> comments about his latest project (which I suspect he plans on being
> on the GBA!), I begin to wonder at my audacity of daring to release
> such a bare boned roguelike! I strongly suspect ShockFrost has more
> lines of postings on the subject of design than I have lines of code.

Au Contraire! You think you're releasing a barebones roguelike!

Doors in my game are almost always locked, I think. And there's only
one type of generic key! Grab *a* key, get next to locked door tile,
press B, and locked door tile vanishes!

LEARN magic? Hah! Only as long as you still have 'shots' left in the
spell book! And it doesn't matter you've had that moldy old book for 3
seconds or 5 days - also, only one class is so totally illiterate as
to render these books unusable. Everyone else becomes arcane upon
contact! (Some more arcane than others, I admit)

I won't talk too much about the weapons. I think there are about a
dozen, and they are never magical, enchanted, or modified either -
they are the same old weapons every time. They do have one complex
feature - weapon level, high level weapons do better damage. By a
little. Plus they all work a touch differently.

> Now, back to your question of topicality:
> Questions about implementation of a roguelike on the GBA are obviously
> off topic: Eg: "How does one save data to the SRAM?"

GBA games which allow for saving generally have a seperate chip to
save it. It's in the happy GBA cart description as being a
possibility.

> General
> questions applicable to all roguelikes I'd say are on topic, eg: "I
> only got 32k to work with, so HTF do I fit my 600x600 level 20 dungeon
> in it?"

Depends, but it can be done. (my game) If you use a specific random
number seed and a single complex dungeon generation algorithm, then
all you need to save is the key random number which generates the
world(to regenerate it), current character inventory, current item
selection, current item wielded, which of the 200x200 screens he is
on, where in the 10x10 screen he is, his current velocity (in case he
is flying or falling), Character level and XP, and in my logic system,
the tracking of any active monsters (HP, distance from transition
off-screen or position, orientation, velocity onscreen) and finally
any status changes the player is affected with and time remaining on
it (not only that you can't escape poison by resetting, but if you
were underwater navigating with a 5 minute Pass Water spell on and you
quit, it would suck to come back in that underwater cavern without the
Pass Water spell!

(Terminology: PASS WATER - spell that allows anyone to pass through
water with ease. Not only is your breathing handled, but you can
navigate through the water quickly, as though you were flying swiftly
through the air. You can even walk on top of the water. The spell
lasts for several minutes. As it wears off you will itch, as a
warning.)


> More fuzzy are questions of how to adopt the traditional
> many-key approach of Roguelikes to the 8 or so buttons available on a
> GBA.

Due to the simple nature of the game I'm making this is less of an
issue. A button attacks, B button uses object, R and L selects object,
and START accesses a menu and anything I want to put in there (save,
map, stats, emergency commands, etc)

I HAVE been fudging about the control command to FORCE an object
throw. But I'll get it eventually - just need something that feels
smooth enough.

> After all, this is also a valid question for those developing
> roguelikes for PDAs. My thoughts on the matter is that porting a
> keyboard-centric roguelike to a PDA or GBA is not a good idea, as the
> radically different ergonomics mean some fundamental changes to game
> design should be made. I've done that in POWDER, which is why playing
> it in a VirtualBoy emulator is not nearly as smooth as on the proper
> hardware.
>

Yes, I ran into that too.

But you see, my creation in the strictest sense is not exactly pure
roguelike.
Many of the complex controls are gone. The maze-like dungeon isn't
even the same! Traps like fireblasts and spikes remain, and dozens of
monsters, and junk lying around... You even still develop a hero and
ration an inventory.

But some distinct distinctions - (:P)
1. THE GAME IS IN REAL TIME. That's real-time sidescroller, not
turn-based overhead.

2. The game features puzzles that no roguelike ever has featured. Not
just item puzzles like 'ladder needed' or 'need bow to hit switch'.

No. The game features puzzles of control, like JUMPING puzzles!

Don't fall on the spikes. You think it's easy for your hero? Let's see
who really gets the practice now!

3. This demands a considerable amount of button skill from the player!
When you attack, you basically close your eyes and stick out your
sword! Hit or miss, the swing is made. Because of this skill-oriented
structure, you need to time attacks, avoid enemies until you are ready
to strike, etc. And some monsters will jump from platform to platform,
climb ladders, and change screens in pursuit of you! Not only is it a
platformer, it is a HARD plaftormer!

4. You don't have hunger. You don't have Charisma. You don't have
Luck, or Religious Affinities,(fib) or a realistic light system. You
don't even have skills to buy. You barely have any development from
your levels, although your HP and attack do grow, as well as magic
power for wizards, equipment level for fighters, and some things can
get restocked, and you may get new objects, etc.

Point is, you will never learn the fine skill of sneaking, or armor,
or cooking. You don't choose where your enhancements go - there is no
time for that. When you level up, you get what you get. You can never
elect to master digging. There is no need. If you need to destroy a
soft wall square, find a pickaxe with a few uses left on it and use it
on the soft wall by standing beside or on top of it. (You can't even
swing it upwards - how's that for limitation?)

5. What you DO get... is an entertaining game based on a dungeon crawl
and a million other RPGs, that feels KIND of like Diablo (except
without the skills and with MANY more puzzles and lots of Diversity),
KIND of like Zelda (Except with REAMS of equipment, monsters, several
special character classes you could play, and -oh no! - random puzzles
that you can't download a Walkthrough for!) and KIND of like a
roguelike (except that if you really live in a cave and have no
dexterity in your fingers the first dumb kobold you see is bound to
kill you, and you also have a minimal control over yourself)

A game that should be popular with those who are entertained to use
exploding potions, and little kids who like to kill the slimy things
with their swords and hit their buddies. (Oh, yes, multiplayer mode.
Did I forget to mention that? Hurry through the dungeons, or your
friend will get all the good stuff.)

> Enough prattling...
>
> - Jeff Lait
> (POWDER: http://www.zincland.com, perhaps one of the least portable
> Roguelikes)

Thanks for doing it. There's the comparison.

Result - You win the title of true roguelike, but it won't sway me an
inch. :)

Pieter Droogendijk

unread,
Aug 8, 2003, 1:57:10 PM8/8/03
to
On 7 Aug 2003 19:35:21 -0700

torespon...@hotmail.com (Jeff Lait) wrote:
> I would contend POWDER satisfies the requirements of "roguelike", and
> sports the Gameboy Advance as its platform:
> http://www.zincland.com/powder

I'll comment on the game boy thing later.

> A non-exhaustive list of such games would be: ADOM, Nethack, Diablo (I & II),
> Moria, and Angband. My apologies to the many excellent roguelikes I didn't
> list. What characterizes these games? The exact specifications are a matter of
> debate -

I agree.

> indeed, I may receive hate mail for including Diablo - but I
> shall try to write a few:

I WILL send you hate mail for including diablo :)

> - Based in Hack and Slash. A roguelike isn't primarily about plot
> development or telling a story. It is about killing things and
> acquiring treasure.

Agree. Diablo passes.

> - Random games. A roguelike is a dungeon crawler where no two games
> are the same. The maps are different, the items are different, there
> are no guaranteed win paths.

Agree. Diablo fails.

> - Permadeath. You die, that is it. No restoring a savegame. Good
> roguelikes delete your save game after loading them. This is
> compensated by the replayability of the game.

Agree. Diablo fails.

> - Complex interactions of properties. While the commands for a
> roguelike are simple, the potential interactions are not. My favourite
> example is equipping a silver ring as a weapon in order to damage a
> creature vulnerable to silver, but not one's other weapons.

Agree. Diablo fails. Interaction with NPC's are there up to a level of 'speaking
to cain - get quest - do quest - get reward'. None of the interactions like
Nethack implemented so brilliantly.

> - Steam rolling monsters. If a critter is in your way, and weak, you
> shouldn't even notice it is there.

Agree. (Diablo passes with flying colours)


Some additions:

Turn-based:
I believe no rogue-like can ever be turn-based. If it is, it will become an
ordinary RPG, Adventure or what not. No such thing as 'crap, he's attacking,
raise my shield quick!'

Graphics-independant:
A Rogue-like should play the same in ascii art as in a 3D world. Any of you
remember Morraff's dungeons of the unforgiven? I don't recall very well, it's
been a *LONG* time, so I won't classify it as a rogue-like. I do know that it
was playable from a 3d point of view and in a top-down vanilla
adventure/rogue-like manner.

Operation should be simple:
Unlike shooters, racers, platforms, and other real-time games, Roguelikes are
completely static. Press one button, perform an action. Perhaps specify a
direction. Take your time. Think of your next move.
I know someone who is motorically impaired, and I have a few handicapped
friends. They can't really play anything but puzzles and roguelikes, since they
can't use a mouse, and they can't operate a keyboard very well.
My point is, unlike with diablo and neverwinter nights, who are completely
dependant on multiple input devices, complicated manouvers, and intricate
simultanous key actions, in theory, anyone can operate a rogue-like game, be it
by manner of keyboard, mouse, joystick or cyber-enhanced brain-wave pattern
linking, rocks, switches, and whatever you like to use to operate your computer.
Yes, a roguelike uses many different keys. But nobody is impaired by them, since
nothing stops them from simply taking their time with a keyboard emulator (move
mouse to key... click mouse... move mouse to next key...) or what not.


> --------
>
> Of course, POWDER measely collection of features would likely earn it
> a place as a minimalistic roguelike. Certainly, looking at the draft
> designs for Champions of DragonMore, or ShockFrost's tantalizing
> comments about his latest project (which I suspect he plans on being
> on the GBA!), I begin to wonder at my audacity of daring to release
> such a bare boned roguelike! I strongly suspect ShockFrost has more
> lines of postings on the subject of design than I have lines of code.

Read Wang's posts. I agree with her about Shockfrost and won't repeat it.

> Now, back to your question of topicality:
> Questions about implementation of a roguelike on the GBA are obviously
> off topic: Eg: "How does one save data to the SRAM?" General
> questions applicable to all roguelikes I'd say are on topic, eg: "I
> only got 32k to work with, so HTF do I fit my 600x600 level 20 dungeon
> in it?" More fuzzy are questions of how to adopt the traditional
> many-key approach of Roguelikes to the 8 or so buttons available on a
> GBA. After all, this is also a valid question for those developing
> roguelikes for PDAs. My thoughts on the matter is that porting a
> keyboard-centric roguelike to a PDA or GBA is not a good idea, as the
> radically different ergonomics mean some fundamental changes to game
> design should be made. I've done that in POWDER, which is why playing
> it in a VirtualBoy emulator is not nearly as smooth as on the proper
> hardware.

Not what I meant by topicality. What I meant was 'it this game really a
roguelike?'. I believe it isn't. You've seen my arguments.

> Enough prattling...
>
> - Jeff Lait
> (POWDER: http://www.zincland.com, perhaps one of the least portable
> Roguelikes)

Back to my gameboy comment. I believe that a roguelike (as you said, the method
of classifying a roguelike are debatable, and I don't believe shockfrost's...
'thing' succeeds in being a rogue-like), played on a game boy advance, would be
excruciatingly boring. Talking turn-based, limited overview, limited input...
Games like Zelda and Mystic Quest run fine under these conditions (one field at
a time, life/magic line, let's bash things up!), which is what I think
Shockfrost's thing will be like.

Well, that's my 2 cents. Know that I don't intend to start a flame war or a
whole discussion on how to classify a rogue-like. Put that in another thread :)

Pfhoenix

unread,
Aug 8, 2003, 3:45:17 PM8/8/03
to
> This happens quite often in the business world of game programming. I try
> and follow the next fun and exciting game chocked full of features that
the
> company keeps talking about as if they're already implimented, and in the
> end when I hold the finished product in my hand, it feels only like a
clone
> of an older game while all of the features I so longed for are
mysteriously
> missing. Then the expansion comes along to impliment _half_ of the
features
> that made me want the game initially, but by then I'm too bitter to buy
the
> expansion and torture myself further.

It's called overzealous marketing and unrealistic design goals. For the
average roguelike maker who has no dev team nor production funds, the former
is moot and the latter all too common.

--
- Pfhoenix
http://pfhoenix.com/adeo


Timo Viitanen

unread,
Aug 8, 2003, 4:12:41 PM8/8/03
to

"Pieter Droogendijk" <g...@binky.homeunix.org> wrote in message
news:2003080819571...@binky.homeunix.org...

> On 7 Aug 2003 19:35:21 -0700
> torespon...@hotmail.com (Jeff Lait) wrote:
> > I would contend POWDER satisfies the requirements of "roguelike", and
> > sports the Gameboy Advance as its platform:
> > http://www.zincland.com/powder
>
> I'll comment on the game boy thing later.
>
> > A non-exhaustive list of such games would be: ADOM, Nethack, Diablo (I &
II),
> > Moria, and Angband. My apologies to the many excellent roguelikes I
didn't
> > list. What characterizes these games? The exact specifications are a
matter of
> > debate -
>
> I agree.
>
> > indeed, I may receive hate mail for including Diablo - but I
> > shall try to write a few:
>
> I WILL send you hate mail for including diablo :)

Hmm... I might receive some too for some feeble attempts to defend it =)

> > - Random games. A roguelike is a dungeon crawler where no two games
> > are the same. The maps are different, the items are different, there
> > are no guaranteed win paths.
>
> Agree. Diablo fails.

Nope. The maps are random, as well as some of the quests. (As in,
the game picks some random quests from a list each game)

> > - Permadeath. You die, that is it. No restoring a savegame. Good
> > roguelikes delete your save game after loading them. This is
> > compensated by the replayability of the game.
>
> Agree. Diablo fails.

But at least the sequel fails much less than most other commercial games =).

> > - Complex interactions of properties. While the commands for a
> > roguelike are simple, the potential interactions are not. My favourite
> > example is equipping a silver ring as a weapon in order to damage a
> > creature vulnerable to silver, but not one's other weapons.
>
> Agree. Diablo fails. Interaction with NPC's are there up to a level of
'speaking
> to cain - get quest - do quest - get reward'. None of the interactions
like
> Nethack implemented so brilliantly.

Yes, Nethack may handle NPC interaction a notch better, but what about
Angband?
(IIRC you don't even get to see the people you get quests from) Or Rogue?
(Aren't
we talking about *rogue*likes here? =)

> > - Steam rolling monsters. If a critter is in your way, and weak, you
> > shouldn't even notice it is there.
>
> Agree. (Diablo passes with flying colours)
>
>
> Some additions:
>
> Turn-based:
> I believe no rogue-like can ever be turn-based. If it is, it will become
an
> ordinary RPG, Adventure or what not. No such thing as 'crap, he's
attacking,
> raise my shield quick!'

Shouldn't that read "no rogue-like can ever be non-turn-based"?


Pieter Droogendijk

unread,
Aug 8, 2003, 4:55:33 PM8/8/03
to
On Fri, 8 Aug 2003 23:12:41 +0300
"Timo Viitanen" <timo...@mbnet.fi> wrote:
>
> "Pieter Droogendijk" <g...@binky.homeunix.org> wrote in message
> > Agree. Diablo fails.
>
> Nope. The maps are random, as well as some of the quests. (As in,
> the game picks some random quests from a list each game)

SOME levels. At least diablo 2. A lot of the levels are fixed. I don't know
about D1 though, I had D2 in mind :P

> > > - Permadeath. You die, that is it. No restoring a savegame. Good
> > > roguelikes delete your save game after loading them. This is
> > > compensated by the replayability of the game.
> >
> > Agree. Diablo fails.
>
> But at least the sequel fails much less than most other commercial games =).

True :)

> > Agree. Diablo fails. Interaction with NPC's are there up to a level of
> 'speaking
> > to cain - get quest - do quest - get reward'. None of the interactions
> like
> > Nethack implemented so brilliantly.
>
> Yes, Nethack may handle NPC interaction a notch better, but what about
> Angband?
> (IIRC you don't even get to see the people you get quests from) Or Rogue?
> (Aren't
> we talking about *rogue*likes here? =)

Well, it's not a necessity, more like a favorable option :) Hey, he came up with
it, not me!

> > Turn-based:
> > I believe no rogue-like can ever be turn-based. If it is, it will become
> an
> > ordinary RPG, Adventure or what not. No such thing as 'crap, he's
> attacking,
> > raise my shield quick!'
>
> Shouldn't that read "no rogue-like can ever be non-turn-based"?

How the hell did I miss THAT?!

Amy Wang

unread,
Aug 8, 2003, 6:08:00 PM8/8/03
to
ger...@indigo.ie (Gerry Quinn) wrote in message news:<CpMYa.26461$pK2....@news.indigo.ie>...

It's only obvious because you're caught in the AD&D mindset of armored
warriors spending all day fighting armored monsters. It assumes a high
population of magic-poor 'fighters' using an array of weapons to fight
opponents with varied types of armor. Furthermore, the mechanic is
only necessary to flesh out an otherwise simplistic combat system
(which isn't acceptable when it's the core of the game). I'll give
several alternatives:

Weapons could do physical or magical damage. Combatants would have to
choose armor and weapon types based on what they expected their
opponents to have.

In one of my earlier games, a few weapons could have psychic or
spiritual damage types instead of physical damage. Such weapons would
bypass armor, but since the damage wasn't physical, they'd have to be
used as part of a strategy.

In a game with werewolves, you could have weapons that contain silver,
and some that don't. In a fay-themed game, it would be important to
know if a weapon contained iron.

Darklands uses weapon speed as well as a 'penetration' value, which is
checked against the target's armor value.

If dorks spent all day playing Final Fantasy instead of reading the
AD&D player's guidebook (rather than playing it, since they don't have
any friends), they'd all be using elemental effects instead of
variable armor penetration. We wouldn't care whether it's better to
bash or stab an ice dragon. We'd care about having a weapon that does
fire damage.

Dungeon Crawl uses speed and to-hit modifiers, as well as a "this
weapon is better for the strong/dextrous" modifier. This makes the
weapons mechanics robust enough not to need any other variables.

Each weapon could have a 'parry' value, determining how much defensive
ability it adds to it's wielder.

Going back into theme-based mechanics, consider the possibility of
'vampiric' weapons. If the game world didn't have healing potions or
magic, and natural healing was very slow, the health-draining
abilities of a weapon would be an important factor in determining
which weapon to choose.

In all of the above ideas, the concept of 'damage' is overlooked as a
possible source of variability. It doesn't have to be:

You could discard the idea of 'hit points' as the end-all of a
character's worth and have combat based on special effects. Warper can
attack for 400 health, or age his target by ten years. Being attacked
by Cyber Guardian gives its target one point of Crusade Technics
experience. Pupae Demon sends its target to Web of Shadows. Nightmare
Wisp causes 200 points of emotional damage. These are just examples
from my latest game. Of course, these are intrinsic effects instead of
weapon effects (since I've discarded inventory wrangling in favor of
more involved character development), but you can see how these ideas
could be adapted to a weapon-based combat system.

Finally, weapons could do a different amount of damage to different
parts of the body.


Of course, a very simple alternative is the same as what I used in my
first game (after discarding ideas that only added complexity without
an increase in fun factor). Weapons have a simple to-hit and to-damage
value. Sure, this is simple, and it makes it so that there's not much
difference between a battleaxe and a pike (besides the roleplaying
difference, which I'd like to think is important). However, the point
of the game isn't rock-paper-scissors with weapons and armor. Strategy
still exists, though, even with this simple system. Do you equip your
character with a light weapon to maximize the chance of hitting, or do
you use a heavier weapon with higher to-damage? It depends on your
character's abilities and what kind of strategy you prefer. With
AD&D's system, it's more of a matter of knowledge and money. If you
know that you're going to be fighting a bunch of opponents with a high
vulnerability to stabbing, you go out and buy the biggest spears you
can find, or something like that.

It all comes down to what the theme of your game is, and where you
want your complexity. If you want a highly technical combat system in
which a bunch of knights are fighting each other, the
bash/slash/pierce mechanic works fine. If the typical battle involves
a bunch of magicians casting spells at each other, the complexity is
better spent somewhere else. If combatants in your game world don't
use armor, or use armor that is all the same type, you should use some
other way to flesh out the combat system. As shown above, there are
plenty. If the point of the game is something other than fighting, you
shouldn't need so much complexity in the combat system.

Of course, if you're a retard and you're just making another
Ode-to-Tolkien dungeon crawl instead of an actual new game,
bash/slash/pierce is the way to go. This is not only because combat
will be based on the interaction of a countless list of weapons and
armor, but because you have an obsessive need to make your game more
and more complex. This is partially caused by the fact that there
isn't anything original about it, so no matter what you do, you won't
be able to find some feature that makes it interesting enough to play,
much less implement. Naturally, you people don't matter, since you
won't implement your games anyways.

Amy Wang

unread,
Aug 8, 2003, 6:19:27 PM8/8/03
to
"Mylon" <som...@somewhere.com> wrote in message news:<VWMYa.19738$qg3.1...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>...

>
> So, what percentage distrobution do _you_ think katars (punch daggers)
> should be? 60 piece, 20 bash, 20 slash?

Despite the fact that you've baited me like this before, I'll humor
you, since you obviously get off on it.

1. Shockfrost isn't using percentages anyways, to my understanding, so
this question isn't on-topic.

2. I honestly don't care what percentages someone uses in their game.
It's up to them. If someone decides that katars should be 100% slash
(which would be wrong, I'll venture), he'd get enough complaints that
he'd fix it.

3. As I just got done saying (if you'd bother to read), someone who
comes to this group to ask a question like that has no self
confidence, and therefore won't be able to create a game. Anyone with
self confidence can determine these constants in seconds without
having to beg for guidance.

4. Part two of 'not being an idiot' is the fact that these percentages
are easy to change after the fact, and such a mechanic doesn't belong
in the first alpha anyways. Having the perfect percentages for katars
doesn't matter when the game doesn't exist. An alpha version should be
released that has katars doing 1 or 10 or 1000 damage, or whatever,
and after fixing the program-crashing bugs, memory leaks, and
implementing the majority of the most difficult features, such a
trivial feature can be added to a BETA version.

Amy Wang

unread,
Aug 8, 2003, 6:53:50 PM8/8/03
to
"Kornel \"Anubis\" Kisielewicz" <anu...@felis7.civ.pl> wrote in message news:<bguovp$c0s$1...@atlantis.news.tpi.pl</