What to play now?

6 views
Skip to first unread message

Will Mathias

unread,
Sep 26, 2001, 9:37:25 PM9/26/01
to
Hi,

I've got some spare time, a couple of years ago I devoted a year to
completing adom, i've come pretty close to finishing nethack (my priest
escaped the dungeon, with a copy of the AOY! idot), are there any new games
of the same variety that are a) complicated and b) big

cheers,

Will


fre...@nospamplease.tumsan.fi

unread,
Sep 27, 2001, 5:25:35 AM9/27/01
to
I always liked Omega best. Quite big, lots to do. Omega's strength, imho,
is the classlessness. It's more like a guild-based system, and I love the
amount of depth and attention to detail, each guild has its own quests,
and there are several of them, plus a sort of grander plot in general, though
I never got really far enough to see where it leads.

David Damerell

unread,
Sep 27, 2001, 7:55:06 AM9/27/01
to

Angband is big, but not very complicated. Omega is both, but not actively
developed. Dungeon Crawl seems to be top pick amongst people who don't
play one of the normal roguelikes.
--
David Damerell <dame...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> flcl?

Josh Brandt

unread,
Sep 27, 2001, 1:43:12 PM9/27/01
to
In article <Ybd*Mt...@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>,

David Damerell <dame...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>Will Mathias <william...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>I've got some spare time, a couple of years ago I devoted a year to
>>completing adom, i've come pretty close to finishing nethack (my priest
>>escaped the dungeon, with a copy of the AOY! idot), are there any new games
>>of the same variety that are a) complicated and b) big
>
>Angband is big, but not very complicated. Omega is both, but not actively
>developed. Dungeon Crawl seems to be top pick amongst people who don't
>play one of the normal roguelikes.

Ularn is small and simple. You could always play that while deciding what to
play next. 8)

Josh
www.ularn.org

--
J. Brandt / m...@solipsism.net / mu...@sidehack.gweep.net

Andreas Koch

unread,
Sep 27, 2001, 2:33:24 PM9/27/01
to

Will Mathias wrote:


Slashem is an extended Nethack.

I think no other game has the "complicated"ness of Nethack/Slashem.

You could try Pernangband, which is the most complex Angband
variant i know of. You can't kick sinks and such, but many
classes can do pretty special stuff.

Or just try all the uncomplicated and small variants :)


--
Andreas
Who doesn't live can never die

William Tanksley

unread,
Sep 27, 2001, 5:28:30 PM9/27/01
to

You could try one of the complex Angband variants -- GumAngband,
EyAngband, PernAngband (the most complex), or ZAngband.

Ragnaroc is wonderful if you have a DOS machine.

Omega is excellent if you can handle the occasional crashes and bugs
(we're working on it, honest!).

ADOM now has a new version, worth checking out.

Crawl is truly awesome, some say more challenging than Nethack (even
though in many ways it's easier).

>Will

--
-William "Billy" Tanksley

William Tanksley

unread,
Sep 27, 2001, 5:30:38 PM9/27/01
to
On 27 Sep 2001 12:55:06 +0100 (BST), David Damerell wrote:
>Will Mathias <william...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>I've got some spare time, a couple of years ago I devoted a year to
>>completing adom, i've come pretty close to finishing nethack (my priest
>>escaped the dungeon, with a copy of the AOY! idot), are there any new games
>>of the same variety that are a) complicated and b) big

>Angband is big, but not very complicated.

Arguable -- Angband has far more monsters and items than most other games.
Its dungeon and plot are very simple, though (unless you're playing one of
the complex variants).

>Omega is both, but not actively developed.

Or at least not actively released.

>Dungeon Crawl seems to be top pick amongst people who don't play one of
>the normal roguelikes.

And those who do!

>David Damerell <dame...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> flcl?

--
-William "Billy" Tanksley

David Damerell

unread,
Sep 28, 2001, 8:42:39 AM9/28/01
to
William Tanksley <wtan...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>On 27 Sep 2001 12:55:06 +0100 (BST), David Damerell wrote:
>>Will Mathias <william...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>I've got some spare time, a couple of years ago I devoted a year to
>>>completing adom, i've come pretty close to finishing nethack (my priest
>>>escaped the dungeon, with a copy of the AOY! idot), are there any new games
>>>of the same variety that are a) complicated and b) big
>>Angband is big, but not very complicated.
>Arguable -- Angband has far more monsters and items than most other games.

But they all do the same things, making it big but uncomplicated.

>>Dungeon Crawl seems to be top pick amongst people who don't play one of
>>the normal roguelikes.
>And those who do!

Er, quite. s/play/just play/;, if you like.

Aemai Angstan

unread,
Sep 28, 2001, 12:35:29 PM9/28/01
to
"Will Mathias" <william...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:9otvsg$e8l$1...@uranium.btinternet.com...

Nethack offers more in the way of graphics--if you need that.

Crawl is the most detailed, realistic, and complicated Rogue game, and most
message writers here seem to play it.

That said, Ularn deserves serious consideration if you happen to run a unix
system. Why? Because its ancestor Larn was very well-written and enormous
fun, despite lacking the complexity of Crawl.

Complexity can be both a + and a - and the balance depends on how much time
and effort you want to invest in your game playing.

--
Crawl cheats available at :
http://www.truthtree.com/crawl/shtml


Josh Brandt

unread,
Sep 28, 2001, 1:38:19 PM9/28/01
to
In article <tr98hqr...@corp.supernews.com>,
Aemai Angstan <wireyo...@aol.com> wrote:

>That said, Ularn deserves serious consideration if you happen to run a unix
>system. Why? Because its ancestor Larn was very well-written and enormous
>fun, despite lacking the complexity of Crawl.

Yeah, Ularn is quite a lot of fun. That's why I bothered to make it work on
modern unixes...

It won't kill a month like NetHack will, but it'll sure make for some fun
evenings.

Josh

William Tanksley

unread,
Sep 28, 2001, 3:57:21 PM9/28/01
to
On 28 Sep 2001 13:42:39 +0100 (BST), David Damerell wrote:
>William Tanksley <wtan...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>>On 27 Sep 2001 12:55:06 +0100 (BST), David Damerell wrote:
>>>Will Mathias <william...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>I've got some spare time, a couple of years ago I devoted a year to
>>>>completing adom, i've come pretty close to finishing nethack (my priest
>>>>escaped the dungeon, with a copy of the AOY! idot), are there any new games
>>>>of the same variety that are a) complicated and b) big
>>>Angband is big, but not very complicated.
>>Arguable -- Angband has far more monsters and items than most other games.
>But they all do the same things, making it big but uncomplicated.

At best a superficial view. I do agree that Crawl's monsters are far more
interesting than Angband's because of how Angband uses orthogonal flags;
however, Angband's monsters are far from simple, and have always provided
me with an interesting challenge, even after years of playing it.

>>>Dungeon Crawl seems to be top pick amongst people who don't play one of
>>>the normal roguelikes.
>>And those who do!
>Er, quite. s/play/just play/;, if you like.

Ah. That makes more sense. Better yet, s/play/play just/. We're in
total agreement, then.

Graeme Dice

unread,
Sep 28, 2001, 4:12:30 PM9/28/01
to
William Tanksley wrote:
>
> On 28 Sep 2001 13:42:39 +0100 (BST), David Damerell wrote:
> >William Tanksley <wtan...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
> >>On 27 Sep 2001 12:55:06 +0100 (BST), David Damerell wrote:
> >>>Will Mathias <william...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>>>I've got some spare time, a couple of years ago I devoted a year to
> >>>>completing adom, i've come pretty close to finishing nethack (my priest
> >>>>escaped the dungeon, with a copy of the AOY! idot), are there any new games
> >>>>of the same variety that are a) complicated and b) big
> >>>Angband is big, but not very complicated.
> >>Arguable -- Angband has far more monsters and items than most other games.
> >But they all do the same things, making it big but uncomplicated.
>
> At best a superficial view. I do agree that Crawl's monsters are far more
> interesting than Angband's because of how Angband uses orthogonal flags;
> however, Angband's monsters are far from simple, and have always provided
> me with an interesting challenge, even after years of playing it.

I've never been very fond of the *Bands, and especially not after the
Borg has won it twice for me.

Graeme Dice
--
Conclusion /nm./: the place where you got tired of thinking.

Aemai Angstan

unread,
Sep 28, 2001, 5:44:22 PM9/28/01
to
"Josh Brandt" <mu...@sidehack.sat.gweep.net> wrote in message
news:10016986...@sidehack.sat.gweep.net...

> In article <tr98hqr...@corp.supernews.com>,
> Aemai Angstan <wireyo...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >That said, Ularn deserves serious consideration if you happen to run a
unix
> >system. Why? Because its ancestor Larn was very well-written and
enormous
> >fun, despite lacking the complexity of Crawl.
>
> Yeah, Ularn is quite a lot of fun. That's why I bothered to make it work
on
> modern unixes...
>
> It won't kill a month like NetHack will, but it'll sure make for some fun
> evenings.

Actually, now that I think about it, I spent hundreds if not thousands of
hours playing Larn over the years. It was an incredibly fun game. And the
simplicity was a virtue. Of course, my enjoyment was enhanced by the fact
that I figured out how to save games, thus eliminating the dreaded "start
over from scratch" predictament, and secondly, I knew the bugs that would
make my player rich. Now both of these things can be said about Crawl, as
well.

--
Crawl cheats (250 hit points)
http://www.truthtree.com/crawl.shtml

William Tanksley

unread,
Sep 28, 2001, 5:41:44 PM9/28/01
to
On Fri, 28 Sep 2001 20:12:30 GMT, Graeme Dice wrote:
>William Tanksley wrote:
>> At best a superficial view. I do agree that Crawl's monsters are far more
>> interesting than Angband's because of how Angband uses orthogonal flags;
>> however, Angband's monsters are far from simple, and have always provided
>> me with an interesting challenge, even after years of playing it.

>I've never been very fond of the *Bands, and especially not after the
>Borg has won it twice for me.

The Borg is a feature, not a bug. Why should it matter to you?

>Graeme Dice

--
-William "Billy" Tanksley

Graeme Dice

unread,
Sep 28, 2001, 6:07:27 PM9/28/01
to

Why? Because Angband is dreadfully boring. That the Borg can win
without much difficulty shows, to me, that I could spend my on other
Roguelikes more effectively.

David Damerell

unread,
Sep 28, 2001, 6:39:35 PM9/28/01
to
Josh Brandt <mu...@sidehack.sat.gweep.net> wrote:
>It won't kill a month like NetHack will, but it'll sure make for some fun
>evenings.

Hey, you can finish NetHack in an all-nighter [1]. And, while some people
seem to differ, I think 24 hours is about the maximum sensible play length
for a roguelike; any more than that and your playing style can't involve
any risk-taking at all.

[1] I accept no responsibility for loss of sanity or health while
attempting this feat, which is only safe when performed in a controlled
environment by highly-trained idiots. Power failures in mid-process may
induce homicidal mania. Remove all children and cats from vicinity before
attempting. DO NOT FOLD, SPINDLE, OR MUTILATE THIS CARD.

David Damerell

unread,
Sep 28, 2001, 6:35:40 PM9/28/01
to
Aemai Angstan <wireyo...@aol.com> wrote:
>Crawl is the most detailed, realistic, and complicated Rogue game, and most
>message writers here seem to play it.

Y'think? Realism is an absurd aim in a roguelike [1], and if Crawl was
realistic it would be greatly to its detriment. Luckily, it's not.

[Complicated, well; Crawl is a nice piece of work, but anyone who's seen
the list of ways to get rid of a cursed ring of levitation in a certain
other roguelike knows what complicated is. Crawl, in particular, is still
too deep in the Angband-style 'objects have one use' trap to be
complicated.]

What I think's more interesting about Crawl is it's a direction in
roguelike development that's not fundamentally like NetHack or Angband
(both fine games, but the last thing we need are more baby games that are
just like them only smaller, and an awful lot of roguelike development
seems to be going into games that might become Angband after 10 years of
effort. Why bother? Angband's there already...)

[1] Perhaps I should justify this. If you're doing a James Bond game, you
don't need a realistic model of the likelihood of being hit by machinegun
fire while running along behind some teeny metal railings. If you're doing
a giant robot game, you don't need a realistic treatment of the relative
effectiveness of tanks and bipedal robots. And if you're doing a
roguelike, you don't need a realistic treatment of issues like timescales
(because then food isn't nearly such an issue) or the dungeon ecology
(what _do_ all those monsters eat anyway?) or the economy of the world
above (how _did_ all those zorkmids get down there, anyway?) or combat
(sorry, any time an arrow is fired at you you have a flat 2% chance of
copping it in the eye and dying. Do you want your possessions identified?)
or physics (oh dear, trolls violate conservation of mass...)

Realism is not an objective in itself. It's good not to do the patently
absurd, but it always needs to be second to gameplay. A mortal wielding
Mjollnir (NH) or walking up to Morgoth and poking him with a sharp stick
(Ang) is damn silly in terms of the underlying mythos, but really who
cares?

David Damerell

unread,
Sep 28, 2001, 7:04:09 PM9/28/01
to
Graeme Dice <grd...@sk.sympatico.ca> wrote:

>William Tanksley wrote:
>>>>Arguable -- Angband has far more monsters and items than most other games.
>>>But they all do the same things, making it big but uncomplicated.
>>At best a superficial view. I do agree that Crawl's monsters are far more
>>interesting than Angband's because of how Angband uses orthogonal flags;
>>however, Angband's monsters are far from simple, and have always provided
>>me with an interesting challenge, even after years of playing it.

I'm not saying that Angband's monsters aren't challenging or that that
challenge can't be interesting, but that doesn't necessarily imply
complexity; after all, Go (an extremely simply game) can provide quite an
interesting challenge...

It's interesting that you use the word 'orthogonal'; I hadn't really
thought of it before, but I do think this is part of the problem; although
other games express monster powers as flags, they typically form tightly
integrated packages, whereas practically any combination of Angband
monster powers would be plausible.

[Perhaps 'problem' is not the word; I'm only trying to justify the
position that Angband is not very complicated, not that this makes it a
bad game. It does make it a game I don't like, but that's personal...]

Also, although they are far from simple, that doesn't mean they're not
relatively uncomplicated compared to other roguelikes. They can inflict
damage, inflit adverse status ailments, steal, teleport you or themselves,
and summon each other (and boy, can they summon each other!) - and that's
not a bad list, but I think it's about it - but so can the monsters in
every other roguelike. They can't have corpses that have interesting
properties of their own (not just as food but as weapons, before someone
tells me about the 2 1/2 Angband variants with monster corpses; and in
general I'm not interested in followups telling me that a particular
feature is in 2 1/2 Angband variants); they can't use wands, potions and
scrolls; they can't in any way be peaceful or helpful (let alone the
variety of ways that nurses, succubi, shopkeepers and the Rampart Guards
can); they can't set traps or disarm them; they can't use weapons with
ugly properties against you [1]; you can't polymorph into them; they can't
engulf or swallow you; and so forth...

[And these things are distinct. Being engulfed isn't just a fancy way of
inflicting damage, for instance, because you can zap a wand of
teleportation at the engulfer and bounce round the level in it, and if
you're immune to its damage and there's a world of hurt outside, this is
just great...]

Likewise, items. Angband has a great array of weapons and armour. Much
more than in some other games, and the incremental upgrading is great. But
then it has a number of scrolls and potions and wands that do exactly one
thing each; and beyond light sources it doesn't really have tools at all.

I'd call a game 'big' if the absolute number of things (be they monsters,
items, terrain features, whatever) is large - and Angband's huge by that
definition - but 'complicated' if the number of thing-thing interactions
is large in comparison to the number of things; and by that definition
Angband's not desperately complicated.

>I've never been very fond of the *Bands, and especially not after the
>Borg has won it twice for me.

You are me and I claim my five pounds. :-) (Furthermore, if I can say this
without trolling the Angband fans too heavily, the Borg appears to win
primarily by having an inhumanly high tolerance for boring and repetitive
tasks.)

[1] "The razor-sharp blade cuts you in half!" Every NH Samurai's
nightmare...

David Damerell

unread,
Sep 28, 2001, 7:29:03 PM9/28/01
to
Graeme Dice <grd...@sk.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>Why? Because Angband is dreadfully boring. That the Borg can win
>without much difficulty shows, to me, that I could spend my on other
>Roguelikes more effectively.

Now, that's going to get you jumped on. :-)

[Mind you, I think exactly the same.]

It's not, per se, a problem that a program _can_ win Angband - people
still play Rogue, after all - but that it does it not through being a good
player but by being an extremely methodical player who has an unlimited
tolerance for tedium; and further that most strategies for winning Angband
seem _to me_ to rest at least partially on similar methods - for instance,
it is always best to bail out of a tough fight than to take a risk on
survival (since one can always have the dungeon level regenerated without
the menace); it is always better to wait at a certain depth for a given
resistance than to press onwards and hope; and so forth.

Please, this isn't an attempt to start a big ol' flamewar; just to let
people understand - if not agree with - the position that the Borg makes
Angband a less interesting game.

R Dan Henry

unread,
Sep 28, 2001, 9:52:55 PM9/28/01
to
On 29 Sep 2001 00:04:09 +0100 (BST), the disembodied brain of David
Damerell <dame...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> transmitted thus:

>Also, although they are far from simple, that doesn't mean they're not
>relatively uncomplicated compared to other roguelikes. They can inflict
>damage, inflit adverse status ailments, steal, teleport you or themselves,
>and summon each other (and boy, can they summon each other!) - and that's
>not a bad list, but I think it's about it

Destroy equipment in inventory via elemental attacks or eating your
food. Damage equipped items via disenchantment or acid attacks. Create
a ring of traps around the player. Reproduce themselves (similar to
summoning in that it increases monster numbers, but it does work
differently). Open doors, break down doors, move through walls, eat
walls. Push past weaker monsters in their way. Destroy weaker monsters
in their way. Die. :-) Heal themselves. Hasten themselves. Cause
amnesia (unidentify some items and erase level map). Wake up other
monsters and hasten any with line of sight to the player. Reduce the
player's mana (spell points). Drain charges from your staves to heal
itself. Lower your stats. Drain your experience. Kill other monsters
when they hit you with ball/breath attacks. Polymorph other monsters
when they breathe chaos. Destroy items on the floor. Cause darkness.
Cause earthquakes. There are various defensive/vulnerability flags,
too, but those don't qualify as things they can do, so I'll leave
those out.

Yes, most of monster spells are either summons, timed adverse status
causing spells, or attacks (with or without side-effects), but you
have somewhat underestimated what other abilities get flagged and some
of the ones you've left out are among the most important in
considering strategy: wall eating monsters can destroy a defensive
position quickly, self-healing monsters are significantly harder to
kill, and you do *not* want to let a disenchanter work over Ringil.

Oh, yeah, one more thing monsters do, one which many might call the
most important: they drop treasures and/or items when they die.

> (Furthermore, if I can say
> this without trolling the Angband fans too heavily, the Borg appears
> to win primarily by having an inhumanly high tolerance for boring
> and repetitive tasks.)

Agreed. The Borg is not considered to be a good player. In spite of
much improvement it *still* does amazingly stupid things at times. The
Borg wins by not making human mistakes -- it never gets distracted at
the wrong moment or plays when tired (frequent causes of player death
in most roguelikes) -- and by doing very tedious tasks that are to its
advantage. It also plays many, many, many games. Right now the Borg
plays Angband much more poorly than a commercial chess program plays
chess. It needs to get lucky to win in spite of all its boring,
abusive playing style.

There's no reason a Borg couldn't be made for any roguelike. It's just
that making a Nethack Borg would be a long and tedious task,
instructing it in one special case after another.

--
R. Dan Henry, Emperor of the Universe
rdan...@earthlink.net
I salute our many brave spammers who continued
business as usual in the face of tragedy.

R Dan Henry

unread,
Sep 28, 2001, 10:02:37 PM9/28/01
to
On 28 Sep 2001 23:35:40 +0100 (BST), the disembodied brain of David
Damerell <dame...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> transmitted thus:

>What I think's more interesting about Crawl is it's a direction in


>roguelike development that's not fundamentally like NetHack or Angband

Could you explain exactly how you mean this? Maybe it would be obvious
to me if I'd managed to play more Crawl, but while I've played a
little Crawl and think what I managed to explore seemed interesting, I
haven't gone very deeply into the game and haven't seen anything that
made me think "wow, this is radically different than other roguelikes
I've tried".

DarkGod

unread,
Sep 29, 2001, 4:14:22 PM9/29/01
to
David Damerell a écrit:

> Graeme Dice <grd...@sk.sympatico.ca> wrote:
> >Why? Because Angband is dreadfully boring. That the Borg can win
> >without much difficulty shows, to me, that I could spend my on other
> >Roguelikes more effectively.
> Now, that's going to get you jumped on. :-)
*DarkGod jumps on Graeme with a big nasty looking executionner sword*


> Please, this isn't an attempt to start a big ol' flamewar; just to let

This isnt a flamewar, its just a guy that shouts as much as he can that
he doesnt like Angband :)

--

-----------------------+----------------------------------------------
DarkGod comes from | Do not meddle in the affairs of wizards
the hells for YOU ! :) | because they are subtle and quick to anger.
-----------------------+----------------------------------------------
Pe W Olorin YSo L:50 DL:696 A+++ R+++ Sp++ w:Mage Staff of Mana(240%)
Pe*/PM*(Cr) D H- D c++ f- PV s- TT- d++ P++ M+ C- S++ I+++ So++ B/-
ac- GHB- SQ+ RQ V+++ F:Mage playing Mage-like(see Pernangband Sorcerors)

DarkGod

unread,
Sep 29, 2001, 4:16:28 PM9/29/01
to
David Damerell a écrit:

> general I'm not interested in followups telling me that a particular
> feature is in 2 1/2 Angband variants); they can't use wands, potions and

If you are not interrested in speaking of the variants, say
vanilla angband, so people wont be confused. Because there ARE varaints
that are really different from vanilla, like it or not.

DarkGod

unread,
Sep 29, 2001, 4:26:21 PM9/29/01
to
David Damerell a écrit:

> [Complicated, well; Crawl is a nice piece of work, but anyone who's seen
> the list of ways to get rid of a cursed ring of levitation in a certain
> other roguelike knows what complicated is. Crawl, in particular, is still
> too deep in the Angband-style 'objects have one use' trap to be
> complicated.]
Oh gods, please try to consider that it is YOUR opinion, and that others
may not share it, you know they ARE people thinking that in "a certain
other roguelike" things are just too convoluted and silly...

Andreas Koch

unread,
Sep 29, 2001, 5:04:33 PM9/29/01
to

David Damerell wrote:

> They can't have corpses that have interesting
> properties of their own


Well... from NH i only remember cockatrice, acid blob, lizard and wraith
corpses to be interesting :)

In Pern, you can at least gain intrinsincs from them, plus a few
bad or good effects. For posessors, they are VERY interesting because
they use corpses to "polymorph".

> and in
> general I'm not interested in followups telling me that a particular
> feature is in 2 1/2 Angband variants);


Why? Thats about saying you don't want to hear about roquelikes that
have features that where not in roque :)

You can find lots of stuff in several variants, and in certain, like
Pern, you can find most off the stuff of all ang variants :)

> they can't use wands, potions and
> scrolls;


They can't use ANY equipment. In some variants they can at least
pick up and CARRY it.

> they can't in any way be peaceful or helpful (let alone the
> variety of ways that nurses, succubi, shopkeepers and the Rampart Guards
> can);


There are pets. You can even command them. And seemingly there
are "peacefull" monsters in the newest pern, allthough i didn't
see one yet ...

> they can't set traps


They can. Magically. Eh, can monster set traps in Net? Other than
using a wand of digging to zap the floor?

> or disarm them;


Well, in Pern Roques can set up traps, and monsters can disarm them.

> they can't use weapons with
> ugly properties against you [1];


As said, no item use YET. They made that up with lots of "build in"
weapons ...

> you can't polymorph into them;


You can "posess" them. Same effect. You even get inventory slots
according to their anatomy.

> they can't
> engulf or swallow you;


Hmm... they can engulf you, but is is just a normal attack.

> Likewise, items. Angband has a great array of weapons and armour. Much
> more than in some other games, and the incremental upgrading is great. But
> then it has a number of scrolls and potions and wands that do exactly one
> thing each; and beyond light sources it doesn't really have tools at all.


Trapping kits. Spikes. Diggers. Climbing sets. Chests. Portable holes.
But yes, i want bags :)


> I'd call a game 'big' if the absolute number of things (be they monsters,
> items, terrain features, whatever) is large - and Angband's huge by that
> definition -


Agreed.

> but 'complicated' if the number of thing-thing interactions
> is large in comparison to the number of things; and by that definition
> Angband's not desperately complicated.


Agreed, too. But some variants are pretty complicated (while still
less than Nethack), and increasing...

R Dan Henry

unread,
Sep 29, 2001, 6:59:15 PM9/29/01
to
On Sat, 29 Sep 2001 22:26:21 +0200, the disembodied brain of DarkGod
<dar...@ifrance.com> transmitted thus:

>David Damerell a écrit:
>> [Complicated, well; Crawl is a nice piece of work, but anyone who's seen
>> the list of ways to get rid of a cursed ring of levitation in a certain
>> other roguelike knows what complicated is. Crawl, in particular, is still
>> too deep in the Angband-style 'objects have one use' trap to be
>> complicated.]
>Oh gods, please try to consider that it is YOUR opinion, and that others
>may not share it, you know they ARE people thinking that in "a certain
>other roguelike" things are just too convoluted and silly...

DarkGod, please imagine David's posts to be liberally sprinkled with
IMO's. It's pretty obvious that what he is expressing is his opinion
and while he obviously has terribly poor tastes in roguelike games,
that is his right and badgering him about it is merely making you look
bad.

A more rational response would be that multiple uses for objects is
merely one form of complication and treating the Nethack method of
complicating the game as the only one possible is dogmatic and
closeminded.

DarkGod

unread,
Sep 29, 2001, 7:18:32 PM9/29/01
to
R Dan Henry a écrit:

> >Oh gods, please try to consider that it is YOUR opinion, and that others
> >may not share it, you know they ARE people thinking that in "a certain
> >other roguelike" things are just too convoluted and silly...
> DarkGod, please imagine David's posts to be liberally sprinkled with
I know, it just would be nicer to actually see them :)

> IMO's. It's pretty obvious that what he is expressing is his opinion
> and while he obviously has terribly poor tastes in roguelike games,

lol

> that is his right and badgering him about it is merely making you look
> bad.

Well I *AM* a dark god after all, I am supposed to be bad ;>

> A more rational response would be that multiple uses for objects is
> merely one form of complication and treating the Nethack method of
> complicating the game as the only one possible is dogmatic and
> closeminded.

Exactly, I may sometimes(always ? ..) badly express my ideas, but
try to bear with me, I usualy write when it's late and in a foreign
language ;)

Mark Mackey

unread,
Oct 1, 2001, 6:10:29 AM10/1/01
to
In article <sgaartkm7cd3r7t0c...@4ax.com>,

R Dan Henry <rdan...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>On 28 Sep 2001 23:35:40 +0100 (BST), the disembodied brain of David
>Damerell <dame...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> transmitted thus:
>
>>What I think's more interesting about Crawl is it's a direction in
>>roguelike development that's not fundamentally like NetHack or Angband
>
>Could you explain exactly how you mean this? Maybe it would be obvious
>to me if I'd managed to play more Crawl, but while I've played a
>little Crawl and think what I managed to explore seemed interesting, I
>haven't gone very deeply into the game and haven't seen anything that
>made me think "wow, this is radically different than other roguelikes
>I've tried".

The spell system in Crawl is fairly unique: this is less obvious at low
levels but high-level spellcasters in Crawl play very differently: a
summoner, a necromancer and an elementalist all have totally different
play styles. The spells are wonderful, too: "Borgnjor's Revivification",
"Demonic Horde", "Ensorcled Hibernation", and "Tomb of Doroklohe" are
all much more fun than the usual array of "hit enemy with damage type
<x>" spells" (although Crawl has its share of those, too). Moreover,
which god (if any) your character worships has a great effect on gameplay,
and you can build up a character based purely on the powers granted by
one of the gods.

The skill system also has a big effect on the flavour of the game. In
general you never have enough skill points to go round, so balancing
building up your ability in your 'specialty' versus building up other
skills to use in the situations when your main skills won't help is an
art.

The last factor is that the different dungeon areas in Crawl all play
very differently: the Lair, the Orcish Mines and the Abyss have totally
different monsters, opportunities and dangers. Again, this is much less
obvious on the upper levels.

--
Mark Mackey
The Association for the Advancement of Dungeon Crawling
Hints, tips and spoilers
http://www.swallowtail.org/crawl/

Josh Brandt

unread,
Oct 1, 2001, 11:58:44 AM10/1/01
to
In article <tr9qkse...@corp.supernews.com>,
Aemai Angstan <wireyo...@aol.com> wrote:

>Actually, now that I think about it, I spent hundreds if not thousands of
>hours playing Larn over the years. It was an incredibly fun game. And the
>simplicity was a virtue. Of course, my enjoyment was enhanced by the fact
>that I figured out how to save games, thus eliminating the dreaded "start
>over from scratch" predictament, and secondly, I knew the bugs that would
>make my player rich. Now both of these things can be said about Crawl, as
>well.

Saving works, but the get-rich-quick bugs should be fixed, sorry. 8)

Josh Brandt

unread,
Oct 1, 2001, 11:59:47 AM10/1/01
to
In article <Fgn*j8...@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>,
David Damerell <dame...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:

>Hey, you can finish NetHack in an all-nighter [1]. And, while some people
>seem to differ, I think 24 hours is about the maximum sensible play length
>for a roguelike; any more than that and your playing style can't involve
>any risk-taking at all.

Ugh. Yeah. And that's got to be a seriously painful all-nighter, too. The
biggest nethack fiend I know (who has ascended multiple tourists) only plays
for 18 or 20 hours straight, even while in serious hacktrance...

>environment by highly-trained idiots. Power failures in mid-process may
>induce homicidal mania.

Oh geez, I'd imagine so.

David Damerell

unread,
Oct 1, 2001, 2:42:07 PM10/1/01
to
R Dan Henry <rdan...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>Damerell <dame...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> transmitted thus:
>>What I think's more interesting about Crawl is it's a direction in
>>roguelike development that's not fundamentally like NetHack or Angband
>Could you explain exactly how you mean this?

Mark has said it better than I, but; well, it's got to be a bit like
NetHack and Angband, since it's a roguelike, but it's much less like them
than most of the other games in development. Omega also qualifies, but
doesn't seem to be developed.

David Damerell

unread,
Oct 1, 2001, 2:43:59 PM10/1/01
to
DarkGod <dar...@ifrance.com> wrote:
>David Damerell a écrit:
>>[Complicated, well; Crawl is a nice piece of work, but anyone who's seen
>>the list of ways to get rid of a cursed ring of levitation in a certain
>>other roguelike knows what complicated is. Crawl, in particular, is still
>>too deep in the Angband-style 'objects have one use' trap to be
>>complicated.]
>Oh gods, please try to consider that it is YOUR opinion, and that others
>may not share it, you know they ARE people thinking that in "a certain
>other roguelike" things are just too convoluted and silly...

Ummm. So what you're saying is that I shouldn't call NetHack complicated
because it's, er, too convoluted. That's practically a synonym for 'too
complicated', so I musn't call it complicated because it's just too
complicated.

DarkGod

unread,
Oct 2, 2001, 8:56:26 AM10/2/01
to
David Damerell a écrit:
No, Im say_ing that I dont like NH because it is too convoluted and
silly.

William Tanksley

unread,
Oct 3, 2001, 2:44:41 PM10/3/01
to
On 01 Oct 2001 19:42:07 +0100 (BST), David Damerell wrote:
>Mark has said it better than I, but; well, it's got to be a bit like
>NetHack and Angband, since it's a roguelike, but it's much less like them
>than most of the other games in development. Omega also qualifies, but
>doesn't seem to be developed.

That's great to hear -- thanks!

I wouldn't be surprised to see Omega borrowing from Crawl -- of course,
after the bugs are fixed. PernAngband is already starting to borrow from
Crawl.

William Tanksley

unread,
Oct 3, 2001, 2:54:00 PM10/3/01
to
On 29 Sep 2001 00:04:09 +0100 (BST), David Damerell wrote:
>Graeme Dice <grd...@sk.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>>William Tanksley wrote:
>>>>>Arguable -- Angband has far more monsters and items than most other games.
>>>>But they all do the same things, making it big but uncomplicated.
>>>At best a superficial view. I do agree that Crawl's monsters are far more
>>>interesting than Angband's because of how Angband uses orthogonal flags;
>>>however, Angband's monsters are far from simple, and have always provided
>>>me with an interesting challenge, even after years of playing it.

>I'm not saying that Angband's monsters aren't challenging or that that
>challenge can't be interesting, but that doesn't necessarily imply
>complexity; after all, Go (an extremely simply game) can provide quite an
>interesting challenge...

Go is one of the most complex games in widespread use. The problem with
trying to solve Go is that even though the rules are simple (as are the
rules of Angband), the overall game is HUGE, and you sometimes (rarely)
find one part affecting another part far away.

I think the problem here is that you accidentally used flamewar terms;
calling Angband's design a "trap" into which Crawl has "fallen" was a very
crude and thoughtless decision on your part. Angband's design isn't a
trap; it's very well done, and has as many fans as Nethack.

>It's interesting that you use the word 'orthogonal'; I hadn't really
>thought of it before, but I do think this is part of the problem; although
>other games express monster powers as flags, they typically form tightly
>integrated packages, whereas practically any combination of Angband
>monster powers would be plausible.

>[Perhaps 'problem' is not the word; I'm only trying to justify the
>position that Angband is not very complicated, not that this makes it a
>bad game. It does make it a game I don't like, but that's personal...]

I'll ignore that, then.

I have many problems with Angband maintainers that come to the same
conclusion you just did. PernAngband has a collection of "joke" monsters
which were designed by choosing a name, and then adding a set of
attributes to fit the name (well, in some cases an attribute was invented,
and then a monster was written to fit that joke attribute). Only then was
any attempt made to fit the monster into the game -- almost always by
simply placing it on a lower level.

The result is /horrible/. Angband's monster powers are orthogonal, but
monsters designed without themes or concern for balance are horrible.

>>I've never been very fond of the *Bands, and especially not after the
>>Borg has won it twice for me.

>You are me and I claim my five pounds. :-) (Furthermore, if I can say this
>without trolling the Angband fans too heavily, the Borg appears to win
>primarily by having an inhumanly high tolerance for boring and repetitive
>tasks.)

Of course. And the Borg rarely wins -- if you will, he wins by trying
over and over and over. It's been long proven that Angband can be won as
fast or as slow as you're willing or capable of playing.

David Damerell

unread,
Oct 4, 2001, 6:53:44 AM10/4/01
to
William Tanksley <wtan...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>On 01 Oct 2001 19:42:07 +0100 (BST), David Damerell wrote:
>>Mark has said it better than I, but; well, it's got to be a bit like
>>NetHack and Angband, since it's a roguelike, but it's much less like them
>>than most of the other games in development. Omega also qualifies, but
>>doesn't seem to be developed.
>That's great to hear -- thanks!

Er, I presume you mean that it's not too much like NH or Ang, not that it


doesn't seem to be developed.

BTW, if you _are_ developing it, can I encourage you to shout about it
more? ;-)

David Damerell

unread,
Oct 4, 2001, 7:13:23 AM10/4/01
to
William Tanksley <wtan...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>On 29 Sep 2001 00:04:09 +0100 (BST), David Damerell wrote:
>>Graeme Dice <grd...@sk.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>>>>At best a superficial view. I do agree that Crawl's monsters are far more
>>>>interesting than Angband's because of how Angband uses orthogonal flags;
>>>>however, Angband's monsters are far from simple, and have always provided
>>>>me with an interesting challenge, even after years of playing it.
>>I'm not saying that Angband's monsters aren't challenging or that that
>>challenge can't be interesting, but that doesn't necessarily imply
>>complexity; after all, Go (an extremely simply game) can provide quite an
>>interesting challenge...
>Go is one of the most complex games in widespread use.

Eh, it's a simple game, with complex play, I would say.

>I think the problem here is that you accidentally used flamewar terms;
>calling Angband's design a "trap" into which Crawl has "fallen" was a very
>crude and thoughtless decision on your part. Angband's design isn't a
>trap; it's very well done, and has as many fans as Nethack.

Well, perhaps so; but if one wants to design a complicated game, then
"one use per object" is a trap for the unwary. I should have been more
clear, I suppose.

>I have many problems with Angband maintainers that come to the same
>conclusion you just did. PernAngband has a collection of "joke" monsters
>which were designed by choosing a name, and then adding a set of
>attributes to fit the name (well, in some cases an attribute was invented,
>and then a monster was written to fit that joke attribute).

Well, clearly that's a bad thing, too. But I don't think that (say) NH's
monsters with essentially unique attributes are hideously incongruous in
that way.

Something else I haven't dared to touch yet, not least because I can't
clearly put my finger on it, is the difference between grab-bag adding
stuff (Slash'em and Zangband are 2 main culprits) and adding stuff in a
more coherent fashion.

>>You are me and I claim my five pounds. :-) (Furthermore, if I can say this
>>without trolling the Angband fans too heavily, the Borg appears to win
>>primarily by having an inhumanly high tolerance for boring and repetitive
>>tasks.)
>Of course. And the Borg rarely wins -- if you will, he wins by trying
>over and over and over. It's been long proven that Angband can be won as
>fast or as slow as you're willing or capable of playing.

It would be interesting to somehow add a clock to the game. Much as it
pains me to say it, ADOM wins here by having a time limit throughout;
NetHack only penalises slow play in the opening stages of the game.
Angband would be very different if monster (but not item) depth was
incremented every <large number> of turns. As it is, there's no need for a
strategic decision as to whether you should press on or consolidate, which
is a shame, but also what lets the Borg win.

[Interestingly - as we just had over on rgrn - Rogomatic is helped in the
same way; in Rogue, there's also no need for such a strategic decision,
but because the only answer is to press on.]

DarkGod

unread,
Oct 4, 2001, 7:29:52 AM10/4/01
to
William Tanksley a écrit:

> I wouldn't be surprised to see Omega borrowing from Crawl -- of course,
> after the bugs are fixed. PernAngband is already starting to borrow from
> Crawl.
Yup, the god system, it is, IMO, the very best god system of all games I
saw.

Jukka Kuusisto

unread,
Oct 4, 2001, 7:36:09 AM10/4/01
to
David Damerell <dame...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> writes:

>It would be interesting to somehow add a clock to the game. Much as it
>pains me to say it, ADOM wins here by having a time limit throughout;

There's no real time limit in ADOM. The thing that time affects
can be easily dealt with. For example my latest winner (ultra
lawful ending) used 279 days game time (191928 turns) and still
had 8 *spoily* scrolls left.

I don't ever even think about the time in ADOM. Sure, I'll wear
seven league boots if I have them, but I'm perfectly content
with running around the wilderness and doing the different
quests when I think is the best moment for them.

-Jukka
--
Jukka Kuusisto

Sheldon Simms

unread,
Oct 4, 2001, 8:36:37 AM10/4/01
to
Im Artikel <Ggx*U-...@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk> schrieb "David
Damerell" <dame...@chiark.greenend.org.uk>:

Well I think the Nethack approach is probably better. Don't shout until
there's something to shout about. Omega seems to go through fits and
starts. It lies dormant for a while and then someone starts hacking on
it. At the moment it's being developed. It remains to be seen how long
that lasts...

--
Sheldon Simms / she...@semanticedge.com

David Damerell

unread,
Oct 4, 2001, 1:11:33 PM10/4/01
to
Jukka Kuusisto <jkuu...@gamma.hut.fi> wrote:
>David Damerell <dame...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> writes:
>>It would be interesting to somehow add a clock to the game. Much as it
>>pains me to say it, ADOM wins here by having a time limit throughout;
>There's no real time limit in ADOM. The thing that time affects
>can be easily dealt with. For example my latest winner (ultra
>lawful ending) used 279 days game time (191928 turns) and still
>had 8 *spoily* scrolls left.

Ah. I had been led to understand that the supply of such items would
ultimately prove insufficient.

William Tanksley

unread,
Oct 4, 2001, 5:07:21 PM10/4/01
to
On 04 Oct 2001 12:13:23 +0100 (BST), David Damerell wrote:
>William Tanksley <wtan...@bigfoot.com> wrote:

>>I think the problem here is that you accidentally used flamewar terms;
>>calling Angband's design a "trap" into which Crawl has "fallen" was a very
>>crude and thoughtless decision on your part. Angband's design isn't a
>>trap; it's very well done, and has as many fans as Nethack.

>Well, perhaps so; but if one wants to design a complicated game, then
>"one use per object" is a trap for the unwary. I should have been more
>clear, I suppose.

That's an odd use of the term 'trap'. Yes, if you define 'complex' as
'more than one use per item' (as in your definition), then you wouldn't
want to make only one use per item when building a Damerell-complex game.
But that seems more like a truism than a trap.

>>I have many problems with Angband maintainers that come to the same
>>conclusion you just did. PernAngband has a collection of "joke" monsters
>>which were designed by choosing a name, and then adding a set of
>>attributes to fit the name (well, in some cases an attribute was invented,
>>and then a monster was written to fit that joke attribute).

>Well, clearly that's a bad thing, too. But I don't think that (say) NH's
>monsters with essentially unique attributes are hideously incongruous in
>that way.

Oh, I definitely agree. My point wasn't about Nethack, which I consider
to be an admirably balanced and flexible game, but rather was about
Angband's monster flags, which you claimed were silly because they allowed
random combinations to be slapped together to make monsters.

>Something else I haven't dared to touch yet, not least because I can't
>clearly put my finger on it, is the difference between grab-bag adding
>stuff (Slash'em and Zangband are 2 main culprits) and adding stuff in a
>more coherent fashion.

I've also noted the difference; I agree about ZAngband and am willing to
bow to your expertise on SlashEM (having only played it briefly). It's
worth noting that recently ZAngband has taken a more consolidating
position; they're now attempting to 'digest' all of their acquisitions
into an actual game, rather than a mere melange of features. I suspect
that acquiring OAngband's combat mode also accidentally transmitted some
of OAngband's sense of design. But then I'm probably wrong; after all,
PernAngband has also started to coalesce into a recognisable game with an
identity of its own.

I think that the important difference is vision. Does the game's
maintainer see it as a game of its own, with its own future, or does he
see it as an extension to its parent? Angband, in its original form, was
a modification of Moria, but its authors had the daring to create a
completely new game with a new name. Somewhere along the way the vision
got sidetracked -- IMO, Angband was meant to continue development much
further than it actually got developed, and some things appropriate to
Moria but inappropriate to Angband are still in the game. IMO still,
OAngband is more like Angband than Angband itself has ever been.

>>>You are me and I claim my five pounds. :-) (Furthermore, if I can say this
>>>without trolling the Angband fans too heavily, the Borg appears to win
>>>primarily by having an inhumanly high tolerance for boring and repetitive
>>>tasks.)
>>Of course. And the Borg rarely wins -- if you will, he wins by trying
>>over and over and over. It's been long proven that Angband can be won as
>>fast or as slow as you're willing or capable of playing.

>It would be interesting to somehow add a clock to the game. Much as it
>pains me to say it, ADOM wins here by having a time limit throughout;
>NetHack only penalises slow play in the opening stages of the game.
>Angband would be very different if monster (but not item) depth was
>incremented every <large number> of turns. As it is, there's no need for a
>strategic decision as to whether you should press on or consolidate, which
>is a shame, but also what lets the Borg win.

Hmm. Interesting. That's a simple solution, and I'm leery of simple
solutions -- the results are usually far more complex than were intended.
We were talking above about haphasard feature accumulation; this would be
another one, if it were simply added on its own without a major
realignment of the game itself.

Add this to Nethack, the result would no longer be Nethack. Add it to
Angband, the same would be true.

William Tanksley

unread,
Oct 4, 2001, 5:20:07 PM10/4/01
to
On 04 Oct 2001 11:53:44 +0100 (BST), David Damerell wrote:
>BTW, if you _are_ developing it, can I encourage you to shout about it
>more? ;-)

I'm kinda leading the Omega Developers Group, and we're putting together a
LOT of fixes and changes. We've been working in fits and starts for quite
some time, and I can't predict when we'll be ready for release.

When anything's ready, I'll shout it out right here, though.

John Q. Smith

unread,
Oct 4, 2001, 6:20:20 PM10/4/01
to
Try playing Ironman (no casting spells, no scrolls, no wands, no
staves, you don't get to activate items, either -- all you get are
potions & the *innate* abilities of your weapons/armour/rings). This
makes all the games hard :) That's what I do & it's still basically
impossible, even when you go with a fighter (BTW--am I the only one who
thinks they should *not* be able to cast spells at all, here? They
always seem to be able to, somehow... :)

When you do that in ADOM, those potions of *spoiler* become quite
important... E.G. forget chatoic; you *don't* want to kill you-know-whom.


DarkGod

unread,
Oct 4, 2001, 6:25:36 PM10/4/01
to
William Tanksley a écrit:

> >Something else I haven't dared to touch yet, not least because I can't
> >clearly put my finger on it, is the difference between grab-bag adding
> >stuff (Slash'em and Zangband are 2 main culprits) and adding stuff in a
> >more coherent fashion.
> I've also noted the difference; I agree about ZAngband and am willing to
> bow to your expertise on SlashEM (having only played it briefly). It's
> worth noting that recently ZAngband has taken a more consolidating
> position; they're now attempting to 'digest' all of their acquisitions
> into an actual game, rather than a mere melange of features. I suspect
> that acquiring OAngband's combat mode also accidentally transmitted some
> of OAngband's sense of design. But then I'm probably wrong; after all,
> PernAngband has also started to coalesce into a recognisable game with an
> identity of its own.
It always been, to me, it is just my view that is changing over time.
Now I want theme, and I will have theme, I cannot come close to play
something themeless(yeah, thats one of the reasons I dont play NH, and
no NH do NOT have a theme, it *IS* a grab-bag with lots of stuff,
all "coherent" and working with each others maybe, but still a
grab-bag).

Graeme Dice

unread,
Oct 4, 2001, 6:46:10 PM10/4/01
to

The supply really depends on whether or not you receive a wish in the
very early to mid stages of the game. If you don't, then corruption can
become an extremely serious problem on deep levels of the dungeon. (1-2
corruptions per level)

Graeme Dice
--
"The POP3 server service depends on the SMTP server service, which
failed to start because of the following error: The operation
completed successfully." (Windows NT Server v3.51)

J. Ali Harlow

unread,
Oct 4, 2001, 7:29:03 PM10/4/01
to
William Tanksley <wtan...@dolphin.openprojects.net> wrote:
> On 04 Oct 2001 12:13:23 +0100 (BST), David Damerell wrote:

[snip to get to the point I want to address]

>>Something else I haven't dared to touch yet, not least because I can't
>>clearly put my finger on it, is the difference between grab-bag adding
>>stuff (Slash'em and Zangband are 2 main culprits) and adding stuff in a
>>more coherent fashion.

> I've also noted the difference; I agree about ZAngband and am willing to
> bow to your expertise on SlashEM (having only played it briefly). It's
> worth noting that recently ZAngband has taken a more consolidating
> position; they're now attempting to 'digest' all of their acquisitions
> into an actual game, rather than a mere melange of features. I suspect
> that acquiring OAngband's combat mode also accidentally transmitted some
> of OAngband's sense of design. But then I'm probably wrong; after all,
> PernAngband has also started to coalesce into a recognisable game with an
> identity of its own.

> I think that the important difference is vision. Does the game's
> maintainer see it as a game of its own, with its own future, or does he
> see it as an extension to its parent? Angband, in its original form, was
> a modification of Moria, but its authors had the daring to create a
> completely new game with a new name.

For Slash'EM at least, the truth is somewhere in between. We try very hard
to produce something that is self-consistent, and playable on it's own.
At the same time, we recognize that Slash'EM is also a testing ground
for vanilla NetHack and a place where ideas can be tried out and either
dropped or developed further. Slash'EM will never become an independant
game. Apart from anything else, the vanilla dev-team keep incorporating
all the best bits into vanilla - which is, after all, part of SlashEM's
raison d'etre.

If NetHack is a wise grandfather and Slash'EM is a headstrong young man,
I'll be quite content.

--
J. Ali Harlow Email: J.A.H...@city.ac.uk
"When I consider your heavens, the work of your fingers, the moon and
the stars, which you have set in place, what is man that you are mindful
of him, the son of man that you care for him?" Psalm 8 v 3-4, NIV.

William Tanksley

unread,
Oct 4, 2001, 7:52:24 PM10/4/01
to
On Fri, 05 Oct 2001 00:25:36 +0200, DarkGod wrote:
>William Tanksley a écrit:
>> >Something else I haven't dared to touch yet, not least because I can't
>> >clearly put my finger on it, is the difference between grab-bag adding
>> >stuff (Slash'em and Zangband are 2 main culprits) and adding stuff in a
>> >more coherent fashion.

>> into an actual game, rather than a mere melange of features. I suspect


>> that acquiring OAngband's combat mode also accidentally transmitted some
>> of OAngband's sense of design. But then I'm probably wrong; after all,
>> PernAngband has also started to coalesce into a recognisable game with an
>> identity of its own.

>It always been, to me, it is just my view that is changing over time.

Hmm... Of course, I can't argue what your game is to you, but it seems
pretty clear that PernAngband was a collection of classes and features
which seemed fun to implement. Consider that even now, PernAngband has
huge sections which you, the author, always leave turned off!

>Now I want theme, and I will have theme,

I think PernAngband will have more theme than any other Angband
derivative. It doesn't have it now, but it's gaining the mechanisms it
needs to get the theme, and I can see you shaping and designing it.

>I cannot come close to play something themeless

Thanks for choking down your repugnance and playing PernAngband in spite
of your dislike ;-).

>(yeah, thats one of the reasons I dont play NH, and no NH do NOT have a
>theme, it *IS* a grab-bag with lots of stuff, all "coherent" and working
>with each others maybe, but still a grab-bag).

Hmm. NetHack forms its own theme better than many other Roguelikes --
things in the game fit together remarkably well. I agree that it doesn't
fit any outside theme, but that's not a bad thing -- on the contrary, it's
pleasantly original.

OTOH, some of the things in the game badly break theme -- "quantum
mechanics" are just odd, as bad as or worse than any of PernAngband's
"joke" monsters.

>DarkGod comes from | Do not meddle in the affairs of wizards

--
-William "Billy" Tanksley

Jukka Kuusisto

unread,
Oct 5, 2001, 2:23:16 AM10/5/01
to
Graeme Dice <grd...@sk.sympatico.ca> writes:

>David Damerell wrote:
>>
>> Jukka Kuusisto <jkuu...@gamma.hut.fi> wrote:
>> >There's no real time limit in ADOM. The thing that time affects
>> >can be easily dealt with. For example my latest winner (ultra
>> >lawful ending) used 279 days game time (191928 turns) and still
>> >had 8 *spoily* scrolls left.
>>
>> Ah. I had been led to understand that the supply of such items would
>> ultimately prove insufficient.

>The supply really depends on whether or not you receive a wish in the
>very early to mid stages of the game. If you don't, then corruption can
>become an extremely serious problem on deep levels of the dungeon. (1-2
>corruptions per level)

I somewhat disagree, now that there's a new location with a heap of
those scrolls guaranteed, along with the one-time cure-all available
to all who don't want to be chaotic all game. In that game I mention
above, I did use one wish for those scrolls and got 3, but I still
would've had 5 left without the wish.

Of course, corruption can become a problem if you receive all the time
the nastiest ones that you really want to get rid of. Then again, '1-2
corruptions per level' is in a regular game a huge exaggeration IMHO.

-Jukka
--
Jukka Kuusisto

Graeme Dice

unread,
Oct 5, 2001, 3:10:49 AM10/5/01
to
Jukka Kuusisto wrote:
>
> Graeme Dice <grd...@sk.sympatico.ca> writes:
>
> >David Damerell wrote:
> >>
> >> Jukka Kuusisto <jkuu...@gamma.hut.fi> wrote:
> >> >There's no real time limit in ADOM. The thing that time affects
> >> >can be easily dealt with. For example my latest winner (ultra
> >> >lawful ending) used 279 days game time (191928 turns) and still
> >> >had 8 *spoily* scrolls left.
> >>
> >> Ah. I had been led to understand that the supply of such items would
> >> ultimately prove insufficient.
>
> >The supply really depends on whether or not you receive a wish in the
> >very early to mid stages of the game. If you don't, then corruption can
> >become an extremely serious problem on deep levels of the dungeon. (1-2
> >corruptions per level)
>
> I somewhat disagree, now that there's a new location with a heap of
> those scrolls guaranteed, along with the one-time cure-all available
> to all who don't want to be chaotic all game. In that game I mention
> above, I did use one wish for those scrolls and got 3, but I still
> would've had 5 left without the wish.

Yes, because you used an AOLS in the appropriate location, correct?
Without that, you would have no scrolls, and four more corruptions at
that point in the game.

> Of course, corruption can become a problem if you receive all the time
> the nastiest ones that you really want to get rid of. Then again, '1-2
> corruptions per level' is in a regular game a huge exaggeration IMHO.

In my experience it is exactly the amount you will receive on levels
below D:45. Unless of course, you are skipping most of the monsters, or
playing a spellcaster.

Jukka Kuusisto

unread,
Oct 5, 2001, 11:21:25 AM10/5/01
to
Graeme Dice <grd...@sk.sympatico.ca> writes:

>Yes, because you used an AOLS in the appropriate location, correct?
>Without that, you would have no scrolls, and four more corruptions at
>that point in the game.

I make it a point to _always_ have an AoLS for the appropriate location.
I always go for ultra endings, so I have no choice. Sometimes it takes
an eternity to get one, but it's worth it.

I set the follow-ups to r.g.r.adom.

-Jukka
--
Jukka Kuusisto

DarkGod

unread,
Oct 5, 2001, 11:54:35 AM10/5/01
to
William Tanksley a écrit:

> >> of OAngband's sense of design. But then I'm probably wrong; after all,
> >> PernAngband has also started to coalesce into a recognisable game with an
> >> identity of its own.
> >It always been, to me, it is just my view that is changing over time.
> Hmm... Of course, I can't argue what your game is to you, but it seems
> pretty clear that PernAngband was a collection of classes and features
Yeah it was, and that was the way I liked it :)

> which seemed fun to implement. Consider that even now, PernAngband has
> huge sections which you, the author, always leave turned off!

Yeah, but thats something else, I am the one creating the game, but I am
not the only one playing it. But we already had that discution :)

> >Now I want theme, and I will have theme,
> I think PernAngband will have more theme than any other Angband
> derivative. It doesn't have it now, but it's gaining the mechanisms it

Which one have more ?

> needs to get the theme, and I can see you shaping and designing it.

:)

> >I cannot come close to play something themeless
> Thanks for choking down your repugnance and playing PernAngband in spite
> of your dislike ;-).

Was my sentence incorect or something ? I said Im theming PernAngband
and
you say that ? maybe ti was ajoke .. Im too
tired to undertsnad jokes right now .. :)

> >(yeah, thats one of the reasons I dont play NH, and no NH do NOT have a
> >theme, it *IS* a grab-bag with lots of stuff, all "coherent" and working
> >with each others maybe, but still a grab-bag).
> Hmm. NetHack forms its own theme better than many other Roguelikes --
> things in the game fit together remarkably well. I agree that it doesn't
> fit any outside theme, but that's not a bad thing -- on the contrary, it's
> pleasantly original.

Not IMO, it is lots of bits from here and there from lots of existing
sources.

> OTOH, some of the things in the game badly break theme -- "quantum
> mechanics" are just odd, as bad as or worse than any of PernAngband's
> "joke" monsters.

Yeah but as joke monsters they are not really part of the game(thats why
I dont
care if they are balanced or not)

--

-----------------------+----------------------------------------------


DarkGod comes from | Do not meddle in the affairs of wizards

William Tanksley

unread,
Oct 5, 2001, 7:41:22 PM10/5/01
to
On Fri, 05 Oct 2001 17:54:35 +0200, DarkGod wrote:
>William Tanksley a écrit:
>> >> of OAngband's sense of design. But then I'm probably wrong; after all,
>> >> PernAngband has also started to coalesce into a recognisable game with an
>> >> identity of its own.
>> >It always been, to me, it is just my view that is changing over time.
>> Hmm... Of course, I can't argue what your game is to you, but it seems
>> pretty clear that PernAngband was a collection of classes and features
>> which seemed fun to implement.
>Yeah it was, and that was the way I liked it :)

Indeed -- and I really enjoyed it as well. But what I said is still true:
PernAngband started out themelessly, and has only just begun to get a
theme. In fact, it's a little worse than that: PernAngband has only just
begun to become balanced.

>> Consider that even now, PernAngband has huge sections which you, the
>> author, always leave turned off!
>Yeah, but thats something else, I am the one creating the game, but I am
>not the only one playing it. But we already had that discution :)

Options have always been viewed as holy in the Angband community, no
matter how bad they are for the game. I'm surprised that the "birth
options" (options which can only be changed while rolling a new character)
ever got accepted.

IMO, the game designer has the authority and responsibility to design the
game around his or her chosen theme, not around someone else's favorite
features. Of course, if your chosen theme happens to be "grab bag",
that's fine -- but then I get to call it a grab bag.

>> >Now I want theme, and I will have theme,
>> I think PernAngband will have more theme than any other Angband
>> derivative. It doesn't have it now, but it's gaining the mechanisms it
>Which one have more ?

Almost any. Even Angband itself has more theme of its own, even though a
lot of it is derivative from Moria.

>> needs to get the theme, and I can see you shaping and designing it.
>:)

Yup, I'm pretty happy with your progress.

>> >I cannot come close to play something themeless
>> Thanks for choking down your repugnance and playing PernAngband in spite
>> of your dislike ;-).
>Was my sentence incorect or something ? I said Im theming PernAngband
>and you say that ? maybe ti was ajoke .. Im too
>tired to undertsnad jokes right now .. :)

Yes, it was a joke. I had said that PernAngband was themeless back in the
old days; you said you couldn't force yourself to play something themeless.

>> >(yeah, thats one of the reasons I dont play NH, and no NH do NOT have a
>> >theme, it *IS* a grab-bag with lots of stuff, all "coherent" and working
>> >with each others maybe, but still a grab-bag).
>> Hmm. NetHack forms its own theme better than many other Roguelikes --
>> things in the game fit together remarkably well. I agree that it doesn't
>> fit any outside theme, but that's not a bad thing -- on the contrary, it's
>> pleasantly original.
>Not IMO, it is lots of bits from here and there from lots of existing
>sources.

So's PernAngband, and so it will always be; but that doesn't prevent it
from forming those bits and pieces into a coherent theme.

>> OTOH, some of the things in the game badly break theme -- "quantum
>> mechanics" are just odd, as bad as or worse than any of PernAngband's
>> "joke" monsters.
>Yeah but as joke monsters they are not really part of the game(thats why
>I dont care if they are balanced or not)

So make them part of the game. Or get rid of them. Don't be a grab bag!

>DarkGod comes from | Do not meddle in the affairs of wizards

--
-William "Billy" Tanksley

DarkGod

unread,
Oct 6, 2001, 8:16:00 AM10/6/01
to
William Tanksley a écrit:

> >> >Now I want theme, and I will have theme,
> >> I think PernAngband will have more theme than any other Angband
> >> derivative. It doesn't have it now, but it's gaining the mechanisms it
> >Which one have more ?
> Almost any. Even Angband itself has more theme of its own, even though a
> lot of it is derivative from Moria.
Ok then we dont have the same definition opf theme.

> >> >I cannot come close to play something themeless
> >> Thanks for choking down your repugnance and playing PernAngband in spite
> >> of your dislike ;-).
> >Was my sentence incorect or something ? I said Im theming PernAngband
> >and you say that ? maybe ti was ajoke .. Im too
> >tired to undertsnad jokes right now .. :)
> Yes, it was a joke. I had said that PernAngband was themeless back in the
> old days; you said you couldn't force yourself to play something themeless.

I meant, NOW :)

> >> things in the game fit together remarkably well. I agree that it doesn't
> >> fit any outside theme, but that's not a bad thing -- on the contrary, it's
> >> pleasantly original.
> >Not IMO, it is lots of bits from here and there from lots of existing
> >sources.
> So's PernAngband, and so it will always be; but that doesn't prevent it
> from forming those bits and pieces into a coherent theme.

Not in the same way. Yeah sure everything is not form tolkien/pern,
those 2
together cannot fill a RL game. But the imported stuff is there to fill
in, not
to be the important stuff.

> >> OTOH, some of the things in the game badly break theme -- "quantum
> >> mechanics" are just odd, as bad as or worse than any of PernAngband's
> >> "joke" monsters.
> >Yeah but as joke monsters they are not really part of the game(thats why
> >I dont care if they are balanced or not)
> So make them part of the game. Or get rid of them. Don't be a grab bag!

If I make them part of the game, it becomes a grab-bag!
It is fun to have them around for an occasionnal game, not for my all
days games.

--

-----------------------+----------------------------------------------


DarkGod comes from | Do not meddle in the affairs of wizards

David Damerell

unread,
Oct 9, 2001, 10:45:53 AM10/9/01
to
William Tanksley <wtan...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>On 04 Oct 2001 12:13:23 +0100 (BST), David Damerell wrote:
>>Well, perhaps so; but if one wants to design a complicated game, then
>>"one use per object" is a trap for the unwary. I should have been more
>>clear, I suppose.
>That's an odd use of the term 'trap'. Yes, if you define 'complex' as
>'more than one use per item' (as in your definition), then you wouldn't
>want to make only one use per item when building a Damerell-complex game.

I don't think this is just a personal definition of complexity; it seems
like one of the obvious ways that a roguelike may become complex, as
obvious as giving monsters abilities that are not simply damage infliction
or that combine together to produce unexpectedly nasty results (frex, a
gelatinous cube's paralysis passive defence or the sleep bite of a
homunculous will kill you if combined with a 'ticking clock death' like a
cockatrice's touch or green slime - even though none of these is overly
nasty with the right equipment.)

>But that seems more like a truism than a trap.

I think it's a trap because often the default strategy in roguelike design
is to be like Angband - how many games faithfully reimplement non-fixed
inventory letters, or put all object names in Capitals For No Readily
Apparent Reason, or have a surface town?

>>It would be interesting to somehow add a clock to the game. Much as it
>>pains me to say it, ADOM wins here by having a time limit throughout;
>>NetHack only penalises slow play in the opening stages of the game.
>>Angband would be very different if monster (but not item) depth was
>>incremented every <large number> of turns.

>Hmm. Interesting. That's a simple solution, and I'm leery of simple
>solutions -- the results are usually far more complex than were intended.
>We were talking above about haphasard feature accumulation; this would be
>another one, if it were simply added on its own without a major
>realignment of the game itself.
>Add this to Nethack, the result would no longer be Nethack. Add it to
>Angband, the same would be true.

That, I think, would depend to a degree on whether the clock was fast
enough to significantly affect a player playing normally - it is in ADOM,
but I would propose that it only annoy players playing highly degenerate
strategies.

DarkGod

unread,
Oct 10, 2001, 6:20:46 AM10/10/01
to
David Damerell a écrit:

> >But that seems more like a truism than a trap.
>
> I think it's a trap because often the default strategy in roguelike design
> is to be like Angband - how many games faithfully reimplement non-fixed
Because their author likes it ? Im sorry but I do think that angband
inventory system is far better than NH one, it forces to me to THINK.
Thats part of why I dont play NH, I end up with hundreds of objects in
my inventory and cant remember half of them

> inventory letters, or put all object names in Capitals For No Readily
> Apparent Reason, or have a surface town?

If They Like It That Is Their Problem, Isn't It ?

David Damerell

unread,
Oct 10, 2001, 9:34:40 AM10/10/01
to
DarkGod <dar...@ifrance.com> wrote:
>David Damerell a écrit:
>>>But that seems more like a truism than a trap.
>>I think it's a trap because often the default strategy in roguelike design
>>is to be like Angband - how many games faithfully reimplement non-fixed
>Because their author likes it ? Im sorry but I do think that angband
>inventory system is far better than NH one, it forces to me to THINK.
>Thats part of why I dont play NH, I end up with hundreds of objects in
>my inventory and cant remember half of them

You exaggerate a little. Also, I'm not talking about inventory capacity -
if you want to have a 22 object inventory and no containers, fine, but why
have inventory letters change behind your back? It doesn't force you to
think - most Angband players use tags to recreate the effects of a fixed
inventory - just to deal with a gratuitously awkward UI.

>>inventory letters, or put all object names in Capitals For No Readily
>>Apparent Reason, or have a surface town?
>If They Like It That Is Their Problem, Isn't It ?

Object letters in capitals is purely cosmetic, but I see no reason for a
game to be deliberately illiterate. Capitals are not used in such a
context.

A surface town is quite a significant thing; it typically implies infinite
resupply, and hence is not a decision to be taken just because another
game has; a game should have a surface town if and only if that fits with
the overall design.

nyra

unread,
Oct 10, 2001, 9:58:29 AM10/10/01