Brainstorming: Stupid NPC tricks
R Dan Henry
referred to as AI) generally centers around *how* NPCs (aka monsters aka
'everybody but the player') select actions. Little attention is paid to
an area that I think it would be fruitful to consider: exactly what
could NPCs do? What actions might our BAs (behavioral algorithms)
control?
My list, additions very much desired (a few of these might not actually
need direct BA involvement [own/inherit items], but are applicable to
rounding out NPCs):
melee
attack at range (offensive spells/missiles/breath weapons)
seek favored terrain
seek food
seek water
seek mate
command other NPC
just stand there
perform a religious rite
sleep
shout "Thief!"
follow you (up close or at a distance)
follow another NPC
own items
inherit items
eat/drink
conduct business (NPC-to-NPC trade as well as PC/NPC trade)
digging (dig walls, dig a pit)
run away
hide/seek cover
open, close, lock, unlock, break down, or jam a door
set or disarm traps
pick up/drop/destroy/create/move items
cook food
cast spells
mimic others (visually, aurally, maybe even mimic scent)
cooperative group behaviors (tactical action)
seek/avoid light
use items
commit suicide
heal self or another
guard a creature, a location, or an item
--
R. Dan Henry
rdan...@earthlink.net
They can have my ASCII graphics when they pry them
from my cold dead (c) and (d) slots.
be...@sonic.net
>
> Discussion of behavioral algorithms (generally, although incorrectly,
> referred to as AI) generally centers around *how* NPCs (aka monsters aka
> 'everybody but the player') select actions.
Well, As someone who's written expert systems and natural language
agents and parsers and classifiers professionally, and used all
kinds of egregious hacks like neural networks and genetic algorithms
to discover "optimum" behavior where it was too ill-defined or
mathematically complicated to work out in a straightforward way,
I can tell you this; "AI" isn't so well defined that you can call
anything an incorrect use of the term. :-/
Good list. I'd like to add:
Raise an alarm/Notify superior officers
entrench (create favored terrain)
set traps involving other monsters as the mechanism or bait
play powerful monsters against each other hoping to loot corpses
run'n'gun tactics
hack'n'back tactics
coerce other monsters to act via blackmail or domination spell
argue with each other
fight each other
show off in foolhardy ways
visit battle sites or barber shops looking for a bit of his hair
(to bind the head on that arrow of Mike-the-Fighter slaying...)
seeking vengeance for killed family/community
Hold the @'s family or familiar hostage.
play stupid drinking games in monster taverns
brew strong drink/cultivate strong plants (and get really
upset when the @ destroys all those mushrooms of
hallucination, weeds of mellowness, or potions of booze...)
Make friends with an @ who gives them booze
Play BDSM games with each other
Torture as spectator sport (could also be a religious rite)
Trigger a "recall item" spell to conjure an item they own
out of the @'s hands.
Hansjörg Malthaner
[...]
> exactly what
> could NPCs do? What actions might our BAs (behavioral algorithms)
> control?
>
> My list, additions very much desired [...]:
If someone picks up the list later on, I think it's better to leave to
complete list, even if this makes the message a bit lengthy.
(Not considering the doability)
- search for equipment
* go shopping
* search the dungeon
- choose best combination of equipment
- trade news to other NPC
- grow plants/animals
- do some mining
- learn new spells
- do training, i.e. combat training
- repair broken items
- mix/brew potions
* search/buy ingredients
- make music/sing a song
- cook a meal
- build a shelter (or just a tactical improvment)
- clean the dungeon
- polish the treasures
- improve items (i.e. has arrows, finds a scroll of firetongue and
enchants the arrows with the scroll)
- copy/create a spellbook (master mages helper)
- make a map of the surroundings
- go hunting (animals -> food)
HTH :)
c.u.
Hajo
R Dan Henry
<rdan...@earthlink.net> declared:
>Discussion of behavioral algorithms (generally, although incorrectly,
>referred to as AI) generally centers around *how* NPCs (aka monsters aka
>'everybody but the player') select actions. Little attention is paid to
>an area that I think it would be fruitful to consider: exactly what
>could NPCs do? What actions might our BAs (behavioral algorithms)
>control?
>
>My list, additions very much desired (a few of these might not actually
>need direct BA involvement [own/inherit items], but are applicable to
>rounding out NPCs):
Here follows my extended and improved list. Thanks to Bear and Hajo for
responding. Now that summer is over, perhaps someone else will kick in
an idea or two, although it is starting to get hard to think of
genuinely new things to do.
melee
-lethal attack
-non-lethal attack (warning, to capture, torture)
attack at range (offensive spells/missiles/breath weapons)
seek favored terrain
seek food
- seeking prepared food
- hunting
seek water
seek mate
seek equipment (weapon, armor, wand, herbs, parts, etc.)
- by salvage
- by trade/purchase
- by killing and looting
- by sneak theft
seek money
command other NPC
just stand there
perform a religious rite
sleep
transmit information
- shout "Thief!" or sound other alarm
- inform of locations of items of interest
- spread PC reputation
- spread lies (try to start fights)
follow you (up close or at a distance)
follow another NPC
own items
inherit items
eat/drink
conduct business (NPC-to-NPC trade as well as PC/NPC trade)
digging (dig walls, dig a pit)
- may be done to search for wealth
run away
hide/seek cover
open, close, lock, unlock, break down, or jam a door
build, bait, set or disarm traps
pick up/drop/destroy/create/enchant/modify/repair/move items
equip/unequip items
cook food
cast spells
use psychic power
train
-learn spell
-learn/increase skill
mimic others (visually, aurally, maybe even mimic scent)
cooperative group behaviors (tactical action)
seek/avoid light
use items
commit suicide
heal self or another
guard a creature, a location, or an item
tend crops (planting, watering, harvesting)
tend animals (provide food, water, guard, herd, slaughter, sheer)
explore location
make a noise (song, speech, roar, belch, etc.)
mate and/or reproduce
summon
die
- commit suicide
flying creatures can take off/land
take prisoners/hostages
threaten/kill hostages
change emotions/opinions
give/accept gifts
konijn
> On Sat, 02 Aug 2003 18:44:09 GMT, in a fit of madness R Dan Henry
> <rdan...@earthlink.net> declared:
>
> >Discussion of behavioral algorithms (generally, although incorrectly,
> >referred to as AI) generally centers around *how* NPCs (aka monsters aka
> >'everybody but the player') select actions. Little attention is paid to
> >an area that I think it would be fruitful to consider: exactly what
> >could NPCs do? What actions might our BAs (behavioral algorithms)
> >control?
> >
> >My list, additions very much desired (a few of these might not actually
> >need direct BA involvement [own/inherit items], but are applicable to
> >rounding out NPCs):
>
> Here follows my extended and improved list. Thanks to Bear and Hajo for
> responding. Now that summer is over, perhaps someone else will kick in
> an idea or two, although it is starting to get hard to think of
> genuinely new things to do.
>
Seek hero to fix unpleasant situation.
Seek hero to deliver message.
Seek hero to hand over an item.
T.
PJ Backman
> <rdan...@earthlink.net> declared:
>
> responding. Now that summer is over, perhaps someone else will kick in
> an idea or two, although it is starting to get hard to think of
> genuinely new things to do.
>
I don't know whether it's been discussed here before or not, but I suppose
Maslow's hierarchy of needs would work quite well for a rogue-like. Abraham
Maslow wrote that human beings are motivated by unsatisfied needs, and that
certain lower needs need to be satisfied before higher needs can be
satisfied. The needs, from lowest to highest, are Physiological (eating,
drinking, sleeping, sex), Safety (shelter, avoidance of pain etc.), Love
(social needs, family and friends), Esteem (respect of others), and
Self-Actualization (basically, art). Anyone thought of implementing a
similar system to a rogue-like?
- PJ
M1r4
>>Discussion of behavioral algorithms (generally, although incorrectly,
>>referred to as AI)
Can you prove that statement ? :)
I defenitely doubt that when I wonder how any creatures
would fare if they would have their tendencies towards
improvement removed.
Can you imagine a creature that would NEVER care
if one action is more profitable then another ?
> Here follows my extended and improved list.
Which is a very long one !
Are you really planning the interesting attempt to implement it all ?
I kind of do, although it won't be in a roguelike, but a browser-RPG
I'm developing.
Before I get thrown out of this NG:)
I love roguelikes !
I really do and have played them for years !!
I find this list quite interesting and Backmans' reply as well.
In my own game I let the monsters share the same stats as the players.
Except that monsters have also a set I call "npc_behaviour"
This behaviour set contains at the moment:
-Tolerance
Low tolerance means both that a monster is quick to anger
when treaten bad
and quick to be friendly when treated nicely.
It depends on other stats if they stay mad/friendly.
Vulcans would have a very high tolerance.
-Awareness
How obvious should something be to have it noticed.
Self-focused monsters have low awareness levels, but
it takes a very high awareness level to be both fully aware
of the world and it's self.
-Vanity
How much importance is attached to beauty of self or another.
How vulnerable of compliments or insults is one.
Striving for honor like Klingons do is quite vain.. :)
-Greed
Most assosiated with material possessions,
but can be used mentally as well.
A vain person with high greed would never get enough compliments :)
-Aggression
When is violence considered a solution ?
-Food
food preferences...a rather hacky stat :)
The Maslov hierarchy should be overthrown somewhat when one of above stats
is very high.
(When someone's chasing mental need, need for food is forgotten until
ready with chasing mental need or when the hunger becomes unbearable)
I combine those with another set of stats I call "npc_effects"
Which contain among others:
nourished
hydrated
pleasure
pain
injuried
So they can feel their hunger, thirst, happyness, sadness, injuries..
Which make up for more combinations of stuff.
Like high pleasure makes one feeling less hunger, pain, injuries.
High pain would make deficiencies hurt more.
Having both pain and pleasure is a mixed feeling with an upside that
having the pleasure makes one stronger in disposing of the pain.
Making monsters have feelings towards others makes it even more
interesting:
When having felt pain AND feeling love towards another who is hurt,
creates compassion.
Beware: when combined with low tolerance it creates intrusiveness
(Example: "I just want the best for you so stop objecting!")
The selflove plus love_towards_another, can bring jealousy.
It is said that the selflove should be combined with selfpity.
self-pity is triggered by feeling lack of something.
Nrcassisists are very jealous, so I presume:
love(self) + love(another) + vanity = jealousy
In which vanity also can be replaced with greed
for different situations
narcissism is created by high vanity and some (big) source of love
sociability = love + willpower
if the willpower is low, one is self-centered
and also less capable of self-esteem
I like willpower a lot as stat, because
when high it enables one to have a clear view of things
When low, mostly short-term solutions are sought instead
of real solutions.
High wilpower can turn negative sounding stats into good things:
-Pain + Willpower + love(other)= tendency to relieve pain of others from
that source
- Vanity + Willpower = tendency to learn skills to improve self
- Vanity + Willpower + love(teacher)
+ selfpity/pain(from other source) = Respect_for_teacher
Etcetcetc...
Critisize me ! :)
konijn
love(self) + love(another) + vanity = jealousy
bzzz
jealousy = love(self) + love(another) + doubt(self) + doubt(another) +
esteem(others)
Cheers,
T.
M1r4
>> love(self) + love(another) + vanity = jealousy
> bzzz
> jealousy = love(self) + love(another) + doubt(self) + doubt(another) +
> esteem(others)
Interesting....
What do you mean exactly with esteem(others)....
Is that the persons' esteem towards others
or the esteem of others toward the person (as perceived by the person)?
as doubt to self and low esteem of self are similar..
are self-esteem and selflove similar ?
What triggers the monster to doubt to oneself ?
A bad result to an action could lead to doubt, and that might
be quite implementable in angband-monsters as they already have
a limited "learn from mistake" algoritm in action.
But from real life we know that that is not all that builds or breaks
self-esteem. Our vision of what is failure or succes can be blurred
leading to high or low selfesteem that goes out of proportions.
To be as realistic as possible these computings of feelings can never
be long enough. ( aaargh!;) )
But as simple mechanics like chatbots allready do a astonishing good
simulation of most reallife superficial kind of people.
(Lots of people acttually use the same answering technique of mimicing
the one theyre dealing with which sometimes leads them to saying stuff
they dont understand but they know they can get away with it.)
Implementing behaviour stuff (when done smart)would look smarter then
that, thus is rewarding.
Ehm, I'll shut up before anyone reading this falls asleep.. ;)
konijn
> On Mon, 27 Oct 2003 00:37:51 +0000, konijn wrote:
>
> >> love(self) + love(another) + vanity = jealousy
> > bzzz
> > jealousy = love(self) + love(another) + doubt(self) + doubt(another) +
> > esteem(others)
>
> Interesting....
> What do you mean exactly with esteem(others)....
other men would be 1.20 with purple skin, I wouldnt feel a lot of
jealousy if she would work with one of those guys, whereas if she
would work with Brad Pitt...
> Is that the persons' esteem towards others
> or the esteem of others toward the person (as perceived by the person)?
calculation of self-esteem needs perceived esteem by others.
> as doubt to self and low esteem of self are similar..
You can have a high self-esteem, Iron Liches should have high self
esteem.
Getting whacked around and all your spells resisted by an '@' might
make you doubt yourself.
> are self-esteem and selflove similar ?
Nah, you can know you're great without being a narcissist, I know I
can :D
> What triggers the monster to doubt to oneself ?
Getting too low hitpoints, getting parried/shield blocked, getting
spells blocked/resisted, the enemie getting reinforcements, escape
ways getting blocked.
<SNIP>
> Ehm, I'll shut up before anyone reading this falls asleep.. ;)
Zzzz...
T.
R Dan Henry
<rdan...@earthlink.net> declared:
melee
-lethal attack
-non-lethal attack (warning, to capture, torture)
attack at range (offensive spells/missiles/breath weapons)
seek favored terrain
seek food
- seeking prepared food
- hunting
seek water
seek mate
seek equipment (weapon, armor, wand, herbs, parts, etc.)
- by salvage
- by trade/purchase
- by killing and looting
- by sneak theft
seek money
seek ally, hireling, or employment
command other NPC (or PC) or receive command
- issue order
- issue request
- offer paid job
updated section is:
||command other NPC (or PC) or receive command
|| - issue order
|| - issue request
|| - offer paid job
Thanks to kenderband's "seek hero" suggestions. I see now my original
list didn't allow for "quest offers"! Quite an oversight.
R Dan Henry
<m1...@rotmail.nl> declared:
>On Mon, 13 Oct 2003 04:18:22 +0000, R Dan Henry wrote:
>> Here follows my extended and improved list.
>
>Which is a very long one !
>Are you really planning the interesting attempt to implement it all ?
Of course not. You're doing brainstorming wrong if you don't come up
with more material than you can use. (Although something like this could
conceivably see everything eventually used, as different readers borrow
different ideas for different projects.)
Effectiveness also depends on being able to stick to the topic long
enough to get as complete a set of ideas as possible. Notice how when
you started writing about the whys and hows of monster activity, things
went into a pop psychology discussion? (Not a problem, given the thread
was pretty much dead anyway.)
James Casey
> <rdan...@earthlink.net> declared:
>
> >Discussion of behavioral algorithms (generally, although incorrectly,
> >referred to as AI) generally centers around *how* NPCs (aka monsters aka
> >'everybody but the player') select actions. Little attention is paid to
> >an area that I think it would be fruitful to consider: exactly what
> >could NPCs do? What actions might our BAs (behavioral algorithms)
> >control?
> >
> >My list, additions very much desired (a few of these might not actually
> >need direct BA involvement [own/inherit items], but are applicable to
> >rounding out NPCs):
>
> Here follows my extended and improved list. Thanks to Bear and Hajo for
> responding. Now that summer is over, perhaps someone else will kick in
> an idea or two, although it is starting to get hard to think of
> genuinely new things to do.
>
> melee
> -lethal attack
> -non-lethal attack (warning, to capture, torture)
> attack at range (offensive spells/missiles/breath weapons)
<SNIP>
I think a more wide reaching one would be "anything the player can
do".
If the player can wootle a fizzbabble to a pipwimple, then so should
an NPC. And vice versa. In fact having an NPC do it might be a good
way to demonstrate to the player that wootling fizzbabbles to
pipwimples is something he might like to consider.
James
R Dan Henry
waferth...@hotmail.com (James Casey) declared:
>I think a more wide reaching one would be "anything the player can
>do".
So then you just change the question to "what can the player do"?
"Anything the player can do" is too vague to be useful and probably
shouldn't be correct unless you want NPCs winning the game.
Mark 'Kamikaze' Hughes
wrote on Tue, 04 Nov 2003 06:15:10 GMT:
> On 3 Nov 2003 05:16:30 -0800, in a fit of madness
> waferth...@hotmail.com (James Casey) declared:
>>I think a more wide reaching one would be "anything the player can
>>do".
> So then you just change the question to "what can the player do"?
> "Anything the player can do" is too vague to be useful and probably
> shouldn't be correct unless you want NPCs winning the game.
Well, if the NPC can bring the Amulet of Yendor to the surface, or
whatever, why shouldn't they win? PC bigot. NPCs are people, too!
--
<a href="http://kuoi.asui.uidaho.edu/~kamikaze/"> Mark Hughes </a>
"I believe in communication. If I communicate with you every so often,
you'll be bothered by what I say enough that you won't ask me to, which
means more sleep for me." -Something Positive, 2003Sep22
Lizerd
"Mark 'Kamikaze' Hughes" <kami...@kuoi.asui.uidaho.edu> wrote in message
news:slrnbqeip1....@kuoi.asui.uidaho.edu...
> R Dan Henry <rdan...@earthlink.net>
> wrote on Tue, 04 Nov 2003 06:15:10 GMT:
> > On 3 Nov 2003 05:16:30 -0800, in a fit of madness
> > waferth...@hotmail.com (James Casey) declared:
> >>I think a more wide reaching one would be "anything the player can
> >>do".
> > So then you just change the question to "what can the player do"?
> > "Anything the player can do" is too vague to be useful and probably
> > shouldn't be correct unless you want NPCs winning the game.
>
> Well, if the NPC can bring the Amulet of Yendor to the surface, or
> whatever, why shouldn't they win? PC bigot. NPCs are people, too!
>
If you could team-up with the NPC, that could lead to some interresting
gaming!!!
(or, the NPCs could team-up against the PC player...)
> --
> <a href="http://kuoi.asui.uidaho.edu/~kamikaze/"> Mark Hughes </a>
> "I believe in communication. If I communicate with you every so often,
> you'll be bothered by what I say enough that you won't ask me to, which
> means more sleep for me." -Something Positive, 2003Sep22
--
(All advice is checked, re-checked and verified to be questionable....)
Mark 'Kamikaze' Hughes
wrote on Wed, 05 Nov 2003 07:47:30 GMT:
> "Mark 'Kamikaze' Hughes" <kami...@kuoi.asui.uidaho.edu> wrote in message
> news:slrnbqeip1....@kuoi.asui.uidaho.edu...
>> R Dan Henry <rdan...@earthlink.net>
>> wrote on Tue, 04 Nov 2003 06:15:10 GMT:
>> > So then you just change the question to "what can the player do"?
>> > "Anything the player can do" is too vague to be useful and probably
>> > shouldn't be correct unless you want NPCs winning the game.
>> Well, if the NPC can bring the Amulet of Yendor to the surface, or
>> whatever, why shouldn't they win? PC bigot. NPCs are people, too!
> If you could team-up with the NPC, that could lead to some interresting
> gaming!!!
Recruiting NPCs as allies, and then being able to give them commands
which they may or may not follow.
> (or, the NPCs could team-up against the PC player...)
Well, they already do that, at least in theory. Often "Mongolian
Horde" style team-ups, rather than coordinated assaults, but it's a
start.
What if the NPCs could do distractions? Keep the player busy with
low-level hordes, while a thief steals the Amulet and high-tails it to
the surface.
James Casey
> On 3 Nov 2003 05:16:30 -0800, in a fit of madness
> waferth...@hotmail.com (James Casey) declared:
>
> >I think a more wide reaching one would be "anything the player can
> >do".
>
> So then you just change the question to "what can the player do"?
> "Anything the player can do" is too vague to be useful and probably
> shouldn't be correct unless you want NPCs winning the game.
I guess my suggestion didn't really fit the brainstorming idea, and
probably belongs in a different thread, but I think it is valid. It is
wide in scope, but I don't think that makes it vague. My point is to
create a consistent reality where the PC is no different to an NPC (of
the same race). If you program something cool that a player can do,
you should think about how NPCs might also be able to do it.
The "NPCs can win" thing has great potential I think - think of some
kind of competition. Like Deathtrap Dungeon (the classic Fighting
Fantasy book) - all the adventurers are sent into the dungeon, and
only one can win.
James Casey
> On 3 Nov 2003 05:16:30 -0800, in a fit of madness
> waferth...@hotmail.com (James Casey) declared:
>
> >I think a more wide reaching one would be "anything the player can
> >do".
>
> So then you just change the question to "what can the player do"?
Of course the response to this is "anything the NPCs can do" ;)