Temple of The Roguelike Forums
Development => Programming => Topic started by: guest509 on June 19, 2012, 02:25:49 PM
-
So randomly generated spaces and object placement is par for the course. I was wondering if there are any good discussions or examples of randomly created objects. Like items and monsters.
Random realms does a good job at creating randomized creatures with crazy names. It works only because the monsters are described in between levels. Anyone out there creating random objects that are, maybe, described by their name? +1 Lighting Staff? Ferocious Acid Gnome?
Does Slimy Lich Mummy do this?
Is this an old discussion done better somewhere else?
Can randomized stats in a randomized environment be just too much chaos? Too boring? Stupid?
I know WoW has some low level items that have randomized characteristics. Bracers of the Bear, Gloves of the Owl and what not.
The game FATE creates a randomized boss to fight at a random depth. The quests are random as well, mostly "kill x # of y" and "kill x miniboss monster and collect his y". Some of the items seem to have randomized stats, fully visible when you pick the item up. I think it's just random enchants. Seems to make the game interesting in a way.
???
-
I'm not sure about random monsters, but I'd guess it's generally the same as random items.
If I were to go the random item route (which I don't think I am), I would do it much the same way as the random name generators that hide the true nature of potions and such do. Pick a adjective/noun, a item type, maybe a +x or -x, and an effect (probably best to match the adjective/noun and item type with the effect), and put it in the level.
With this, you get things such as "+1 Heated Mail," which protects you from coldness, or "-2 Lightning Rod," which shoots lightning, or even "+3 Shining Sword," which deals extra damage against undead, or many others.
Also, since your title mentioned random quests, you could look at this:
http://roguetemple.com/forums/index.php?topic=2232.0 (http://roguetemple.com/forums/index.php?topic=2232.0)
-
Yeah I checked that out. I responded as well. It seemed to be more about random narrative that really missions or quests.
I'm thinking of something simple, not a story, just a goal. As in, "Kill X" or "Find X". Many roguelikes have a goal and theme but no real narrative. Like Nethack. Find Amulet in this wacky dungeon. That's the entire story from what I can tell, and I like it.
-
Yeah I checked that out. I responded as well. It seemed to be more about random narrative that really missions or quests.
I'm thinking of something simple, not a story, just a goal. As in, "Kill X" or "Find X". Many roguelikes have a goal and theme but no real narrative. Like Nethack. Find Amulet in this wacky dungeon. That's the entire story from what I can tell, and I like it.
Well, if it's just something simple, you can do it the same as random items and monsters. "Kill X" (or "Kill X Amount of Y's") is easy; just choose a random monster and (optionally) a random number for you to kill. Same with "Find X" or "Find X Amount of Y's."
-
Many roguelikes have a goal and theme but no real narrative.
That's the point. Anything more specific makes the game feel more like an adventure game or RPG (which I guess are kind of adventure games with character development). The question of randomness is really wide and interesting. Most roguelikes are quite static and not that random at all, they always happen in the same place, contain more or less same objects and monsters (in superficially random order).
-
Agreed, on both.
-
How to create random content which is also interesting and meaningful? It's the holy grail of roguelike development. If it's too static it has no surprises (like Nethack's way of creating levels), but if it's too random you get silly items like +1 holy steel bread. There are areas that haven't been explored, one of them is the structure of the game world.
-
So randomly generated spaces and object placement is par for the course. I was wondering if there are any good discussions or examples of randomly created objects. Like items and monsters.
[...]
Does Slimy Lich Mummy do this?
Is this an old discussion done better somewhere else?
Can randomized stats in a randomized environment be just too much chaos? Too boring? Stupid?
[...]
The Slimy Lichmummy has a 'regular' pool of predefined monsters and items. The randomization comes from map layout, potion/scroll identity and enhancement pods. It's pretty orthodox in its roguelikeness ;D
I don't think there's a roguelike that does random items in the way that Diablo does it (I'm going to base any further opinions/conjecture off Diablo 2 since that's the one I'm most familiar with), but that's not REALLY super random either.
Mostly it's tiered as such;
-"normal" items with a random quality modifier
-magical items with between 1 or 2 random, item-appropriate bonuses (think enhanced damage/defense/repairs durability over time/+X to [CLASS] Skills)
-rare items with 2 to 6 random, item-appropriate bonuses
-unique items with... as many bonuses as said unique has, though the exact numbers of the bonuses DO vary if the same unique drops twice (Don't overthink it ::))
Disregarding crafted items and set items which confer bonuses according to how many items of the same set you're currently wearing (since those are pretty static).
I don't think that diablo's item randomization system would work very well in a roguelike without a stern look at how things are identified; identify scrolls cost very little, are readily available, you have a free ticket back to town (and then BACK to the dungeon) every time you pick up a town portal scroll which costs just as little AND there's an NPC who will identify EVERYTHING you're carrying free of charge.
Past the first hour of the game you'll be disregarding anything that isn't rare or better...
You'll be happily swapping out your current equipment for one of three things;
A rare that has better modifiers/bonuses than the one you have, an unique that gives you what you want OR a runeword that you've crafted (basically putting rare items into a weapon in a specific order to create a very non-random, predetermined bunch of modifiers).
Usually players will just take any good rare/unique, but the "endgame" is assembling full runewords for all your equipment. What this means is that players have a clear vision of what items they want for endgame, and they KNOW they can get them.
Which kind of renders everything below runewords... somewhat pointless, no?
You can have all the randomness you want, but players will probably choose the static top-tier item over endlessly searching for the perfect set of random bonuses. Not aided by the fact that runeword modifiers far overpower anything you'll ever find on a randomly generated item.
Of course the great fun of Diablo 2 is bringing all the rares/uniques back and comparing them with what you already have in your quest to grow stronger and stronger, but the need to identify things is really an afterthought. A small measure of tedium to make you choose WHAT to bring back to ID and then sell/use, whether it's worth your time to make multiple trips back and forth to ID everything (it's not.)...
For a roguelike (finally getting back on track...) you'd pretty much have to make everything ID'd in advance (at least as far as the weapons are concerned).
And then choose HOW random you'd like to make the items....
Chances are you'll either
a) overdo it, creating the most zany combinations, not all of which will be useful (which might be fun!)
b) overdo it, plunging the player into an obsessive compulsive hell of constant comparison
c) end up with Incursion's random item system which pretty much boils down to "[something] item [+-X] [of element]"; basically a very "factory conveyor belt" feel.
Don't get me wrong, I'm tickled pink if I find an adamantium spiked chain +3 of lightning, but it's not random at heart, see? It's a spiked chain + the material it's made of + a bonus or malus + an element.
A step down from this would be Angband/DCSS's system of items with bonus/malus and/or brand, right?
With the following step down being the even more common plain item with bonus/malus.
As for the concept of randomized equipment, I don't think I feel strongly about it one way or the other...
You could implement it in a game, but a lot of elements of the game would have to be fitted around it.
As for random quests though, why don't more roguelikes do this?
I am amazed that not all angband variants have quests. Having a guildhall in town, going there, picking up a quest to "slay X foo at Y depth for reward Z" is GREAT. ESPECIALLY for a game like Angband, which can get extremely... tedious/boring in between [buying a lantern] and [winning the game].
This sort of quest system is the perfect way to spice things up by giving the player a clear goal that's closer at hand than plain winning the game, yet provides a comparable challenge for his relative strength.
I've only seen it implemented in about 3 or 4 variants though, and sadly NOT in my favorite variants (exception being NPPangband).
There's the problem of 'who' gives out the quests. Angband has a town you usually go back to, problem solved.
For other roguelikes I think a decent solution would be for the player to (be able to) receive a quest when he prays to a/the God. Pray to your god while outside of mortal danger, receive quest, fulfill quest, receive rewards, repeat as needed.
In this context there'd be other possible quests outside of "slay X foo at Y depth", such as "sacrifice X gold to me within Y turns" or "sacrifice something BLUE to me" or "I have put all the foos on the next floor to sleep, reach the stairs down on that floor without waking any of them up" ETC ETC ETC.
I love the concept of random quests, and I'm sure there's plenty that can be done with it without interfering with the (usually) story-lite, single-goal nature of roguelikes. Ie. you could include them without encumbering the game with a story or turning it into an RPG.
I do, however, think quests are more suited for "long" and "safe" roguelikes. They're great for Angband and its variants, but they might be out of place in Rogue, which doesn't have that many floors to descend. Might also be out of place in Nethack, which has a different (deadlier) type of pacing.
-
Random XYZ quests are useful as tutorials, but if they give the player a perceivable edge without providing a significant challenge, they become fed-ex quests. You do them for the bonus to make the rest of the game easier. In a way, this can result in quests being obligatory- a randomly generated game can largely be about playing the odds. A minor increase in your chances to survive isn't typically worth ignoring.
In Brogue, you don't skip a depth that you could clear just because you might die. It's too risky to not take a lesser risk to make a future risk less risky. Similarly in ToME, you farm as many areas as you can at relevant levels to maximize survival. If you incorporate random quests, you balance for the random quests being completed, you add a seemingly arbitrary element to the game. Brogue does treasure rooms- they are 'quests,' but you don't get some contrived artificial narrative. You always try to do them because it's always useful.
Randomly generated quests that branch into other quests in a progressively generated narrative, however, is abso-fucking-lutely awesome.
I think that randomly generated monsters and items work very well when the narrative is randomly generated. Not pure random, per se--
I have been thinking about a way to make a randomly generated game that is procedural relative to the player's progress.
Each element of the game that is randomly generated also comes with a set of un-generated necessary requirements that get randomly placed into a priority queue. When the conditions for that generation arise, you generate something coherently connected with the original randomly generated object.
IE- you wake up in a cave, there is a Malbasian Wooflebuff name Groklus. Groklus has a diet, family, clan, other factional stuff, status, sleep patterns, racial weapons/skill, relationships, children, pets, a house, properties, assets, and friends and family that love him very much. None of these details NEED to be generated when we create Groklus. We can create that later, expanding on the web of the known world relative to the player. Every action is intimate because the world is generated around the consequences of the player's action. Whether Groklus's parents decide to try and hunt you down depends upon whether or not they like Groklus or whether or not they know that you killed Groklus.
It's a difficult approach, but the opportunities to create intensely intimate narratives is astounding.
Similarly, as the entire world is generated, so too are the weapons used. You create paradigms of weapons, ranges of quality, etc etc etc. It'd be useful to give all items weaponized statistics, but keep everything local and gentrified in some way.
-
The game FATE has randomized "Kill baddy X on Level Z" and also "Kill Y amount of X on level Z". If I remember, it also has a bit of "Kill X, Collect his Y on level Z." Then you come back to town for a reward.
Monsters you kill to fulfill the quest are generally just up-stated and strangely colored normal monsters.
But I wasn't so much talking about that. The overarching quest in FATE is also different. Like the end goal of the game is different every time. Not different enough to matter, it's always some large baddie at around level 40 you have to kill. His name and type is different each time. SO that's cool.
EDIT: As for a procedural narrative, you know, I just don't like it. I'm not a narrative gamer anyway. Not only is it not high on my value list, it's actually on my 'devalue' or 'annoyance' list. I love fiction. I love games. Together they are not good for me. I am in the minority I guess.
-
GearHead 2 has random quests. I've heard it's hit and miss whether they are compelling though.
-
I never really got in to the Gearhead games. Not my thing I guess.
-
Randomized narratives would be insanely hard to get right, I think. Also consider that RLs are traditionally lacking in narrative, and more about exploration. I've been thinking that a RL with a randomized setting might be a good idea. Details concerning biotopes/genotypes, cultures etc. could be regenerated every game to give a fresh experience. Random cultural aspects could include stuff like technology (iron or not? literate or not?), architecture (stone houses? tree huts? nomads in tents?), laws/hierarchy (taboo to hurt animals? homicide accepted or not?), economy (monetary/barter? agriculture, crafts, animal husbandry?).
It's often said that designing a game with randomized content saves a lot of work, since you don't have to hand craft the entire game. But it is my feeling that when we're discussing things like these, the opposite might be true. Instead of writing a single narrative, you'd have to write enough "plug-in" content (narremes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narreme)) to fill dozens of different stories/settings before the engine starts to produce interesting content. On the bright side, you can probably get away with using some clichés that you'd otherwise throw away, if randomization is cleverly implemented.
As always,
Minotauros
-
Randomised content never saves work :P The only time it might save some work is using existing level generators in a 7DRL. Otherwise your procedural algorithms should be tailored and tweaked to your game content, and all that tweaking takes just as long (if not longer) than hand-designing every level. The results are totally worth it of course :)
-
The game FATE has randomized "Kill baddy X on Level Z" and also "Kill Y amount of X on level Z". If I remember, it also has a bit of "Kill X, Collect his Y on level Z." Then you come back to town for a reward.
Monsters you kill to fulfill the quest are generally just up-stated and strangely colored normal monsters.
But I wasn't so much talking about that. The overarching quest in FATE is also different. Like the end goal of the game is different every time. Not different enough to matter, it's always some large baddie at around level 40 you have to kill. His name and type is different each time. SO that's cool.
EDIT: As for a procedural narrative, you know, I just don't like it. I'm not a narrative gamer anyway. Not only is it not high on my value list, it's actually on my 'devalue' or 'annoyance' list. I love fiction. I love games. Together they are not good for me. I am in the minority I guess.
If you don't like randomized narratives, then it isn't particularly important to have genuinely randomly generated gear/monsters. To make a game coherent, you'll have to have the RNG make basic solutions for monsters that you would have otherwise pre-conceived. Randomized stats are, in a sense, trivial because they tend to reduce coherency and a player's ability to understand his/her environment.
Random archetypes and paradigms and objects chained together in meaningful ways IS about the narrative, but it's also about creating coherence. You can exclude the narration from this idea and still have a variety of ungenerated properties for each object generated- it's still a narrative, but it doesn't have to be about the story. You might find a particular brand of sword which later turns out to be preferred by a particular racial type-- your experience with that type of weapon may or may not help you understand how to defeat them.
-
What I think you might be saying is that procedural architecture and spawns create re-playability, exploration and surprise. Hard coded Items and Monsters create the strategy and balance (assuming an adequate drop rate).
I guess completely random stat Items and Monsters would create a sort of identify heavy game. The ID game is my most hated aspect of roguelikes. It's like a frustrating chore you must do in order to play...but that's just me.
As a bit of a compromise I was thinking of a game that had binary mutants, like in Ancient Greece. Bull+man (minotaur) goat+man (satyr). Each part of the beast has hard coded stats and abilities. For example Bull would have a charge attack and bonus hit points while the goat would have the ability to eat anything it wants.
So instead of learning the monsters and weapons, you'd learn the components of monsters and weapons.
"The Massive-Robo-Lizard-Man is killed by your Full Metal Jacketed Explosive Tipped Energy Javelin?"
That may be a bit over the top...but then again....
The real issue would end up being balance. There is bound to be monsters and weapons that break the game.
-
For modern weapons you could create them procedurally.
Muzzle Velocity
Ammo Type
Accuracy
Penetration (this is actually based on velocity, range, gauge, bullet density and shape)
Flesh Damage (based on velocity, gauge and the shape and mash/shatter characteristics of the bullet)
Rate of Fire
etc...
The real issue would be communicating this with the player so they know how to use this weapon. Also, thematically, naming gets to be an issue. Heavy Auto Shotgun and Penetrating Energy Caster says quite a bit about what you are wielding, but being able to describe the weapon in ways the player understands without having to stare at the stats puts limits on what is possible. At least from a fun perspective.
-
I guess completely random stat Items and Monsters would create a sort of identify heavy game. The ID game is my most hated aspect of roguelikes. It's like a frustrating chore you must do in order to play...but that's just me.
If properly done, a (pseudo)random world might also make id-ing less important. In fact, setting up a traditional id subgame might be difficult in such a game. It would be much more important to find flexible ways to convey this information to the player, rather than finding ways of keeping it hidden.
Of course, the player would still get to know the game more and more. But instead of going: "There are six of this potion in my inventory, so it's got to be healing", an accomplished player might go: "In this world, feline predators are super fast forest dwellers, so I need some strategy to counter that before I enter the jungle."
As a bit of a compromise I was thinking of a game that had binary mutants, like in Ancient Greece. Bull+man (minotaur) goat+man (satyr). Each part of the beast has hard coded stats and abilities. For example Bull would have a charge attack and bonus hit points while the goat would have the ability to eat anything it wants.
My abandoned game Squirm does this to a certain extent. Centaurs have one horse part and one human (sometimes animal) part, tweaking the individual's stats. So one described as "the head of a baboon, attached to a horse's body with four legs" is much faster and stronger than "the head of a horse, attached to the body of a child". At later levels, centaurs spawn with stronger body parts. In the early game, one also encounters monstra biformii (brown C's), which similarly consist of two animal parts.
I didn't develop very much content for these systems, but for instance, chimerae with bird parts are flagged as flying. And of course I had grandiose plans :) Setting up the system was trivial (some classes of monsters/items/features pick and inherit random subclasses when the game is initiated, others have every singly individual pick their unique subclasses when they're spawned). As you already said, getting good and balanced content in place is always the difficult part.
But it can be done!
As always,
Minotauros
-
What I think you might be saying is that procedural architecture and spawns create re-playability, exploration and surprise. Hard coded Items and Monsters create the strategy and balance (assuming an adequate drop rate).
Well, the idea is that you don't randomly generate monsters, you randomly generate incomplete paradigms and archetypes, and then you pseudo-randomly generate monsters, filling in the blanks of the archetype as you go along.
What I find lacking in roguelikes is a complete lack of indication as to what is going to happen. If you have tablets, tomes and cave-drawings that gave you information about what you may face next, you don't have to make it a game of surprise. In a game where we generate everything, we don't want players to die frequently, but to appreciate the intricate landscape and what not.
The real issue would end up being balance. There is bound to be monsters and weapons that break the game.
Genetic Algorithms!!! You can test any randomly generated creation using background cycles with GAs. You don't really just set bounds, fill in parameters, and expect for the game to be playable? I mean, you could have a set of base stats/qualities and give each generated monster 20 extra points, or so, to pump into stats/abilities- but that does assume that all the skills are somehow sensible and balanced... Beam attacks, for example, in ToME are ridiculous. If a set of 8 monsters spawned with beam attacks you'd have a problem...
-
[...]
What I find lacking in roguelikes is a complete lack of indication as to what is going to happen. If you have tablets, tomes and cave-drawings that gave you information about what you may face next, you don't have to make it a game of surprise.
NPPangband has mystical wall writings that give you hints about monsters on your current floor (they disintegrate when you read them too often).
Brogue might have some subtle indicators as to what is going to happen (ie you see a locked door; you know there's going to be something key-based going on on this floor).
IVAN drops indicators to the upcoming first boss battle by spawning those goddamn plants every so and so on that floor.
That's three examples I can remember where a roguelike gives you an indicator of what's coming up, while still remaining close to Rogue.
ADOM gives clear indicators once you step foot on the world map.
Legerdemain gives indicators, but that's really pretty much a barely-roguelike story-driven RPG.
Sword in Hand gives you mission briefings...
Most roguelikes give you one indicator; there's this floor you gotta go to, see? And there's this thing there, see? It'd be really swell if you could bring it back to the surface. (Or something along those lines usually :D)
Any MORE indicators you drop and you're rapidly going towards story-driven gameplay.
I don't really see a solution though... All my imagination comes up with is "You see a mysterious sign, conveniently left by some previous adventurer. It tells you there might be grues ahead in the darkness."
[...]
In a game where we generate everything, we don't want players to die frequently, but to appreciate the intricate landscape and what not.
I disagree!
First off, I like my games to kill me. I want them to try to kill me as brutally and quickly as possible, while remaining fair. I'd rather have a game that tries to kill me like Nethack than a game that tries to kill me like Angband.
(Ie angband not giving you any challenge untill it decides to kill you with a monster that has more speed than you)
Second, I'd appreciate the intricate landscapes if there were any intricate landscapes to appreciate! Most games either take rooms-with-corridors or big-empty-plain-with-some-trees (whoop dee doo).*
Only roguelikes with real landscapes to appreciate I know of are Brogue and Incursion (especially incursion).
* I'd like to add here I avoid playing roguelikes with tiles/graphics.
-
[...]
What I find lacking in roguelikes is a complete lack of indication as to what is going to happen. If you have tablets, tomes and cave-drawings that gave you information about what you may face next, you don't have to make it a game of surprise.
...
Most roguelikes give you one indicator; there's this floor you gotta go to, see? And there's this thing there, see? It'd be really swell if you could bring it back to the surface. (Or something along those lines usually :D)
Any MORE indicators you drop and you're rapidly going towards story-driven gameplay.
I don't really see a solution though... All my imagination comes up with is "You see a mysterious sign, conveniently left by some previous adventurer. It tells you there might be grues ahead in the darkness."
I'm taking issue with the idea of randomly generated creatures (more or less what the thread is about). If you see a goblin and you've played the game previously, you know what to expect from a goblin. Even if there is a bit of random stat-fudging.
If you have genuinely randomly generated monster archetypes and paradigms then the player is incapable of having any idea of what to expect without being given some degree of previous information.
Anyhow- you typically don't get those indicators in the game, but from playing it. Those indicators should somehow be integrated with the UI in a meaningful way. My first run-through in Brogue I didn't know that the Key was specifically for the level it was found on. I didn't know that the only spawned potion was necessary to get to the door (or see it). It wouldn't be unreasonable for the Key itself to provide some form of indication. Brogue's philosophy, in regards to mechanics and UI, is transparency, but knowing the Key is on the same level isn't hinted at in the least. The Key is only a hint that there is a treasure room on the floor when you've already familiarized yourself with the game.
Ivan is one of the more Mature RLs, IMO. It does so much so wonderfully...
That said- markers or indicators don't create story. If your RNG whips up a fire-breathing race of lizards, having some swampy pools and scorch marks in the area may be ample. Similarly, if you have a Key your character might make the observation that it is made of similar materials as other constructions seen on your current depth. Etc.
There's also nothing wrong with being story-driven. IVAN, again- is wonderful in that regards.
[...]
In a game where we generate everything, we don't want players to die frequently, but to appreciate the intricate landscape and what not.
I disagree!
First off, I like my games to kill me. I want them to try to kill me as brutally and quickly as possible, while remaining fair. I'd rather have a game that tries to kill me like Nethack than a game that tries to kill me like Angband.
(Ie angband not giving you any challenge untill it decides to kill you with a monster that has more speed than you)
Second, I'd appreciate the intricate landscapes if there were any intricate landscapes to appreciate! Most games either take rooms-with-corridors or big-empty-plain-with-some-trees (whoop dee doo).*
Only roguelikes with real landscapes to appreciate I know of are Brogue and Incursion (especially incursion).
* I'd like to add here I avoid playing roguelikes with tiles/graphics.
Thread context. If we put a lot of care into monster generation, then we would like to give the player a decent amount of opportunity to explore what that uniquely generated world has to offer. I'm not saying that the player shouldn't die, but they should live long enough to engage the sense of wonder we're likely trying to produce.
-
Yes. Communication to the player of what he's facing is the issue. With tiles and binary monsters you can do paper doll monsters. Top is a lions head, bottom a spider's body and feet. That sort of thing. Show it graphically. Can you do that with text? It would look a bit wrong I think.
With ascii you can use color, capitalization and letter. You might also use bold and itallic in some way. Or, like Brogue, you can list monsters in sight on the side of the HUD. By the name (Slimy Bitch Mommy) you can discern stats and behavior from knowledge gained through play and tropes. No need to communicate too much graphically. The above monster example would be a capitol 'B', have a viscus quality and give birth to canine minions. :-)
-
I'm taking issue with the idea of randomly generated creatures (more or less what the thread is about). If you see a goblin and you've played the game previously, you know what to expect from a goblin. Even if there is a bit of random stat-fudging.
If you have genuinely randomly generated monster archetypes and paradigms then the player is incapable of having any idea of what to expect without being given some degree of previous information.
Anyhow- you typically don't get those indicators in the game, but from playing it. Those indicators should somehow be integrated with the UI in a meaningful way. My first run-through in Brogue I didn't know that the Key was specifically for the level it was found on. I didn't know that the only spawned potion was necessary to get to the door (or see it). It wouldn't be unreasonable for the Key itself to provide some form of indication. Brogue's philosophy, in regards to mechanics and UI, is transparency, but knowing the Key is on the same level isn't hinted at in the least. The Key is only a hint that there is a treasure room on the floor when you've already familiarized yourself with the game.
Ivan is one of the more Mature RLs, IMO. It does so much so wonderfully...
That said- markers or indicators don't create story. If your RNG whips up a fire-breathing race of lizards, having some swampy pools and scorch marks in the area may be ample. Similarly, if you have a Key your character might make the observation that it is made of similar materials as other constructions seen on your current depth. Etc.
There's also nothing wrong with being story-driven. IVAN, again- is wonderful in that regards.
Ah, that explains so much. Then what about God of Change?
It shows the full bestiary on screen, in a list. Every so and so turns the evil God may choose to add/remove properties to the monsters (territorial/friendly/fire-breathing/telepathic/undead etc) and your bestiary gets updated. That way the player knows what to expect.
Then again, it wouldn't do for a game with more monsters, eh?
Yes. Communication to the player of what he's facing is the issue. With tiles and binary monsters you can do paper doll monsters. Top is a lions head, bottom a spider's body and feet. That sort of thing. Show it graphically. Can you do that with text? It would look a bit wrong I think.
Kind of like how Crawl handles the tiles for player characters. Would probably be the cleanest way to do it.
-
I've thought about making a game where the player has no idea what sort of monster they're facing.
"Hey, look. I think that's a... oh my god, what is that thing?!"
This is a type of gameplay more reasonable for ASCII-based graphics than for tiles. You want to depict a location on-screen without giving an indicator as to what it is.
My idea is that, (1) the player could identify certain aspects of the creatures depending on what is being done, then (2) visit local bars/taverns and gossip about what it might be.
You wouldn't even need to indicate what is being seen, just keep a counter of the amount of time observed.
And, of course, some of the gossip would be wrong. Better still, the wrong gossip could actually favor monsters the player has seen in earlier games. The wrong information would then play to the players' expectations.
You wouldn't even need to provide a computer-generated name. You can make it random and still make the player name it.
Then about random quests...
Even simple fetch quests are about narrative. A story-driven game has quests that relate to each other within a broader framework. The problem with quests outside of a narrative framework is that you're left continually dealing with short-term issues which act as distractions from the main plot.
Quests are side-plots that shouldn't feel tacked on to the main story arc. There should be reasons the character wants to go on optional quests -- outside of just being a fan of completeness.
For me, it is better to have compelling game play and no quests than it is to have boring forced quests.
Quests should never feel like grinding. In some games they can feel that way.
Cheers,
Steven Black
-
There is a tabletop RPG plot generation system called "Mythic GME" that I really, really like. It tracks rising tension and throws in plot twists and other interesting things. It's pretty awesome to use with random solo-play stuff like the 1st Edition DMG, Dungeon Bash, etc. :3
The problem is, it requires a great deal of human intuition to interpret the results. I haven't been able to figure out how to adapt it to a computer program without the results just turning into a weird mess. D:
I think the human intuition is the key thing. The computer just can't provide it. So with sandbox-style games that offer no random quest system but /do/ offer a high degree of simulation, the player kind of makes up their own plot/quests, using their own intuition, and the game is Fun. But if you take the same game and add in some kind of technically (in the programming sense) cool but still obviously machine-generated quest/plot to it, the player looks at the quest/plot that isn't really very different from the last 20 quest/plots, finds that it is Lame, and gets bored.
If there was some sneaky way to get the game to underhandedly "read" things from the player's human intuition as play progresses and recycle it back into a plot generator, that would be cool, but I see too much possibility of the results going weird to make it robust. :s
-
There is a tabletop RPG plot generation system called "Mythic GME" that I really, really like. It tracks rising tension and throws in plot twists and other interesting things. It's pretty awesome to use with random solo-play stuff like the 1st Edition DMG, Dungeon Bash, etc. :3
The problem is, it requires a great deal of human intuition to interpret the results. I haven't been able to figure out how to adapt it to a computer program without the results just turning into a weird mess. D:
I think the human intuition is the key thing. The computer just can't provide it. So with sandbox-style games that offer no random quest system but /do/ offer a high degree of simulation, the player kind of makes up their own plot/quests, using their own intuition, and the game is Fun. But if you take the same game and add in some kind of technically (in the programming sense) cool but still obviously machine-generated quest/plot to it, the player looks at the quest/plot that isn't really very different from the last 20 quest/plots, finds that it is Lame, and gets bored.
If there was some sneaky way to get the game to underhandedly "read" things from the player's human intuition as play progresses and recycle it back into a plot generator, that would be cool, but I see too much possibility of the results going weird to make it robust. :s
That could just be an issue of flow management. If quests are chained together with interesting degrees of branching factors and result in visible changes to the simulation, then the quests don't have to be singular atoms.
IE- If there is a quest to kill the dark lord by the year's end and you fail, the simulation could adapt to become an undead warzone. It just depends on how you want to approach the problem. A variety of quests with different scales will keep people interested.
-
There is a tabletop RPG plot generation system called "Mythic GME" that I really, really like. [...] The problem is, it requires a great deal of human intuition to interpret the results. I haven't been able to figure out how to adapt it to a computer program without the results just turning into a weird mess. D:
That could just be an issue of flow management. If quests are chained together with interesting degrees of branching factors and result in visible changes to the simulation, then the quests don't have to be singular atoms.
IE- If there is a quest to kill the dark lord by the year's end and you fail, the simulation could adapt to become an undead warzone. It just depends on how you want to approach the problem. A variety of quests with different scales will keep people interested.
Easier said than done. Just writing/tweaking the content for a scenario like this would take weeks, if not months. You'd need dozens of branching scenarios, some small and some big … throw stuff like insanely subtle&complex AI into the cauldron, and you might have a nice game in ten years' time.
I think one could contrive a system that takes human intuition into account, not by "intelligently" filling in the gaps, but by leaving stuff to the imagination much like a pen and paper "random plot generator" does. Let the player connect the dots that the algorithm is spitting out. Unfortunately, I haven't really a clue how such a system could be implemented in a computer game. A possible starting point could be a structure inspired by the "Hero's Journey" archetype[1] or Vladimir Propp, or some pattern used in Tarot or other divination. In any case, it'd probably require more wits than established know-how to pull it off.
As always,
Minotauros
[1] I think a RL based on "Hero's Journey", with randomly chosen twists for every step in the narrative, could work well. It's not an idea I see myself using for a game, though.