RL discussion here about WoW generated the comment from someone, "You know, I really think that Mind Control should have like a 1% chance of killing the target as you screw it up and cause an aneurysm and they just fall over twitching."
To which I replied, "You know, if I suggested that to the Roguelike development I'm sure someone would implement it just because of how hilarious that is--'The Archmage tries to mind control you. The the spell goes wrong! You fall over twitching! You have died.'"
On Jun 30, 8:36 pm, Draco18s <draco...@gmail.com> wrote:
> RL discussion here about WoW generated the comment from someone, "You > know, I really think that Mind Control should have like a 1% chance of > killing the target as you screw it up and cause an aneurysm and they > just fall over twitching."
> To which I replied, "You know, if I suggested that to the Roguelike > development I'm sure someone would implement it just because of how > hilarious that is--'The Archmage tries to mind control you. The the > spell goes wrong! You fall over twitching! You have died.'"
> And so I'm following up on that.
I'd throw my laptop through the window if that happened... But the idea makes sense.
> On Jun 30, 8:36 pm, Draco18s <draco...@gmail.com> wrote: >> RL discussion here about WoW generated the comment from someone, "You >> know, I really think that Mind Control should have like a 1% chance of >> killing the target as you screw it up and cause an aneurysm and they >> just fall over twitching."
>> To which I replied, "You know, if I suggested that to the Roguelike >> development I'm sure someone would implement it just because of how >> hilarious that is--'The Archmage tries to mind control you. The the >> spell goes wrong! You fall over twitching! You have died.'"
>> And so I'm following up on that.
> I'd throw my laptop through the window if that happened... But the > idea makes sense.
No, the idea doesn't make sense, at all. Assuming that the archmage that is trying mind control on the player is in fact a "monster" whose final goal is to kill the player. I really don't see why such a powerful mage would bother with that annoying Mind Control spell when a miscast can instead boil the brain of the target instantly.
It should be rewritten as: "The Archmage tries to mind control you. The the spell goes wrong! You are now under the control of the Archmage and stab yourself in the leg! <MORE> The Archmage tries to mind control you. The spell was a great success! Your brain boils and spills through your ears. You have died."
Anyway, we now are back on the "Unavoidable instant death attacks are/are not cool when the player can do nothing to prevent them as long as they have a low chance of happening"
On Jul 2, 5:11 pm, Christophe <chris.cavala...@free.fr> wrote:
> No, the idea doesn't make sense, at all.
I meant the idea of mind control occasionally causing brain damage, not using such a side effect as a weapon by monsters. If mind control is manipulating someone's brain (in a way at least), it *might* cause brain damage instead of giving the expected result (either controlling the victim's mind or no effect if the victim resists). Instakill might be possible, but also things like lowering the intelligence score, confusion, panic, paralysis, loss of hearing/sight, loss of control over one's muscles, epilepsy... All should be temporary, I guess (maybe save for intelligence loss).
> Anyway, we now are back on the "Unavoidable instant death attacks > are/are not cool when the player can do nothing to prevent them as long > as they have a low chance of happening"
dominikmarc...@gmail.com wrote: > On Jul 2, 5:11 pm, Christophe <chris.cavala...@free.fr> wrote: >> Anyway, we now are back on the "Unavoidable instant death attacks >> are/are not cool when the player can do nothing to prevent them as long >> as they have a low chance of happening" > Are we? I haven't noticed...
I don't really believe in "unavoidable." Players with a suitable degree of paranoia can avoid a lot.
Put one-shot-kill-ya monsters on the first level, if they can be outrun. Put them on the second level and not outrunnable if they can be controlled by closing/locking doors or killed by bow-fire at range. Put them on the third level and buff enough to bust doors and take a few arrows, if a prepared player has a decent chance of acquiring a phase-door spell or a monster-detection ability that can be used to outmaneuver them by then.
And so on. Yeah, players will try to melee them and get killed. Losing-type players will go 'boo-hoo, unavoidable, unfair!' but who cares what they think? Winning-type players will start another game and learn to outrun, outshoot, outmaneuver, and outwit. That is why they win (and lose, respectively).
On Jul 2, 8:23 pm, Ray Dillinger <b...@sonic.net> wrote:
> I don't really believe in "unavoidable." Players with a suitable > degree of paranoia can avoid a lot.
Agreed. I did get pissed off when a certain guaranteed greater demon in ADoM sucked my stats whenever I approached him, used spells and such when I was definitely unprepared for such buffed up monster (low level PC). A dozen times or so. Finally, Ruun told me of a simpler way ;). I don't get pissed off anymore since all that grief turned out avoidable.
On Jul 2, 8:23 pm, Ray Dillinger <b...@sonic.net> wrote:
> I don't really believe in "unavoidable." Players with a suitable > degree of paranoia can avoid a lot.
With a given chance of success.
> Put one-shot-kill-ya monsters on the first level, if they can be > outrun. Put them on the second level and not outrunnable if they > can be controlled by closing/locking doors or killed by bow-fire > at range. Put them on the third level and buff enough to bust > doors and take a few arrows, if a prepared player has a decent > chance of acquiring a phase-door spell or a monster-detection > ability that can be used to outmaneuver them by then.
I agree with your broad point. If you make the game easier every time a player complains that it is too hard, you will remove much of the challenge and therefore fun of the game. Great games provide an integrated and interesting set of rules and the game will become about learning the interactions and subtleties of those rules. If the player can win without knowing or understanding those rules, then they become superfluous.
I fear that a too-zealous interpretation of your advice could result in the following:
Drak the Barbarian enters the dungeon wearing only a loincloth and his trusty broadsword. He smashes through the potato bugs and small lemurs with ease. As he confidently strides through the corridors, he sees something called a 'sucker beast'. He advances to attack. Immediately he is paralyzed and then killed by the sucker beast.
Drak II the Barbarian enters the dungeon much more cautiously. If he sees a sucker beast, he walks in the other direction. Unfortunately, there is a 5% change that he will run into a sucker beast around a blind corner. He does so and is promptly paralyzed and killed.
Drak III the Barbarian is even more paranoid. He manages to get to level 2. He sees a swift sucker beast and runs. But the beast tracks him down and kills him.
Drak IV the Barbarian finds a bow on level 1 (a 50% probability). He kills a swift sucker beast on level 2, and then because he fails to find a phase door spell or a detect monster ability (a 25% probability), he is killed by a mean sucker beast on level 3.
Drak V fails to find a bow so is killed on level 2 by a swift sucker beast.
Etc...
There are two problems with this scenario. First, the player's fate is ruled by the RNG. There are many permutations here where the player ends up in a situation where they are doomed through no fault of their own. If playing a barbarian means that there is a 43% chance that you will die on level 7 because you don't start out with itch-proof leggings, it is incredibly frustrating. I would argue that the game needs to be changed. The RNG should be used to provide variety. Any event which could cause the players death should be the result of many RNG rolls in a row and the player should always be left feeling "I should have done something different".
Second, when there are only a couple of ways to deal with a situation, you run the risk of requiring player divination. You want the player to explore a set of rules and learn the emergent properties to take advantage of them. If a designer is too ham-handed about restricting the player's actions, then the player must either resort to spoilers or try to find out what the designer was thinking through trial and error. You end up with odd situations where you can't steal from the shopkeeper by using any of the emergent properties of the game. Instead, you can only steal from the shopkeeper by using the one approved mechanism that you have to guess at.
On Jul 2, 2:23 pm, Ray Dillinger <b...@sonic.net> wrote:
> dominikmarc...@gmail.com wrote: > > On Jul 2, 5:11 pm, Christophe <chris.cavala...@free.fr> wrote: > >> Anyway, we now are back on the "Unavoidable instant death attacks > >> are/are not cool when the player can do nothing to prevent them as long > >> as they have a low chance of happening" > > Are we? I haven't noticed...
> I don't really believe in "unavoidable." Players with a suitable > degree of paranoia can avoid a lot.
I'm implementing tin foil hats in my game. Seriously.
>I'm implementing tin foil hats in my game. Seriously.
It will not be the first roguelike so equipped. -- David Damerell <damer...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> Oil is for sissies Today is Middle Day Again - a public holiday.
