Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - mouser

Pages: 1 2 [3]
Classic Roguelikes / Re: Rogue - let's beat it
« on: February 20, 2020, 12:43:00 PM »
So far, the most noticeable diference is that +4 bonus to hit. It really hurts the chances of the player, but also makes some fights more interesting...

Having specific scrolls of identify does not hurt nearly as much as that bonus.


@mouser: true, more of a roguelite tho.

Not to start an I-am-hollier-than-thou flame, but I am curious. What makes Hyper Rogue a roguelite instead of a roguelike in your opinion?

Pasebin is a legit site, and its content looks legit to me too at first glance.

By the way, I think it is missing Hyper Rogue.

Player's Plaza / Re: Ever felt weird playing a roguelike?
« on: February 02, 2020, 02:41:43 PM »
I like both *bands and Rogue (and original Rogue direct derivatives).

Angband has some atrezzo but it clearly very arcade. I don't think it has any actual RPG mechanic in it (like taking, you know, decisions that affect a plot). Strife, which is a First Person Shooter for the ID engine, has decision making that affects the plot and I still don't think it has real RPG mechanics in it....

The only thing that could make me feel weird playing a roguelike is the fact I am playing a game using a curses/ascii interface, in a day and age where everybody needs an ATI 99999 GTX+ to play the most recent Cal of Duty Ultra Commando. And I don't really give a damn.

Classic Roguelikes / Re: Rogue - let's beat it
« on: January 20, 2020, 03:38:11 PM »
I am also all for historical accuracy and all that. And I am also guessing I will be playing V3 more often than V5 at rlgallery. V5 will be for those times when I feel like having a hard time.

The Early Rorguelike Collection elwinR maintains does not look extremely active, but it is not dead, so I suppose the guy is still playing with the code.

I like the historical accuracy myself. That's one of the draws to this kind of thing. Luckily version 3 doesn't have the bug and that's the one I played.
Rlgallery also has competitive elements, so fixing the bug isn't really fair for those people who played the game with it present.
Though I wouldn't mind if a fixed version was hosted alongside the existing ones.

If you wanted to contact the maintainer of the site though, good luck. I haven't seen him around since before I started posting here.
I wanted to tell the guy my scores weren't being updated anymore. I remember having fun trying to increase my average.

Classic Roguelikes / Re: Rogue - let's beat it
« on: January 19, 2020, 02:58:43 PM »
The person who maintains rlgallery has posted here about making some modifications to the hosted versions, so yes, I think they've just been patched for bugs!

If you haven't already, I recommend looking at  the Rogue's Vade-Mecum. It has a lot of useful information, including some of the differences between versions 3, 4, and 5. Happy roguing!

Thank you very much.

I already knew about the Vade-Mecum, but giving it more links is not bad :P

I think the ISRUN bug mentioned earlier in this same thread is making V5 noticeably harder than intended by the developers. It looks like the maintainer of the early roguelikes collection is just keeping the +4 to-hit bonus for the monsters in the name of historical accuracy. I suspect it would be a better idea to do the opposite - fix ISRUN so the bonus is applied when hitting stationary targets only. A patchset for accomplish that already exists.

Any thoughts?

Classic Roguelikes / Re: Rogue - Licensing status
« on: January 17, 2020, 01:49:39 PM »
It looks like some files in Rogueclone III have copyright clausules that forbid for-profit use.

Early Dev / Re: The Red Prison - roguelike based on 5th edition D&D
« on: January 14, 2020, 09:21:38 PM »
I have not read the whole thread, so this might have been covered already, but:

Using rules from a RPG in your game should not be a problem, since rules are not patentable on most jurisdictions. The expression of the rules (ie wording, tables) is copyrighteable, but that does not apply to a videogame unless you put fragments of the RPG manual in your documentation or game.

However, trademarks are an issue. Tradekarking is different than copyrighting. Many iconic DnD monsters are registered trademarks and you cannot use their names. I think Beholders and Mind Flayers are, for example. You might get away by having them in your game (risky!) if you don't call them that, but you can't have a moster named Beholder in your game.

Finally, Dungeons and Dragons is a trademark, so you cannot say that your game is a DnD derivative, or include DnD in the title or promotional material. There are many workaraounds (Rogelike based on the most popular OGL of all times!) but you have to be careful.

I have used a third party server to check the quality of the https provided.

The trust chain seems incomplete. Not the end of the world but I guess some browsers will complain.

Classic Roguelikes / Re: Rogue - let's beat it
« on: January 13, 2020, 02:45:07 PM »
I just noticed that the playable versions at and the ones offered for download on the same site are not exactly the same.  Are the playable versions patched for bugs or something?

Classic Roguelikes / Rogue - Licensing status
« on: January 13, 2020, 02:37:45 PM »

I have just discovered Rogue and I was wondering about its licensing status. The word I have got on the streets is that original Rogue was non-free software (because it excluded distributing the game for profit.) Hence, many Linux/Unix distributions refuse to package it.

However: has many versions of Rogue derived from the Rogue Restoration Project. It looks like they are licensed under a 3-clause BSD license. As far as I understand, the Rogue Restoration Project based their distribution on the original code of the Unix port of Rogue. This does not make sense to me, unless the original Rogue source code was relicensed at some point and the Rogue Restoration Project took it then. If the latter is the case, could Rogue be distributed from a strict FOSS Linux/BSD repository?

Rogue Clone III seems to be licensed under a 3-clause BSD license too. However, Debian distributes it from the non-free repository, and OpenBSD just refuses to include it. Is there an actual problem preventing the distribution of Rogue Clone III from a free software repository as of today?

TL;DR: Is there any actual licensing problem preventing the inclusion of the original Rogue or a close Rogue recreation from being included in the distribution of an strict free-software repository?

This is a reminder so the subject is not forgotten.

Visiting this forum with the Tor Browser Bundle gives a SSL/TLS error. It says the certificate issuer is unknown.

I think search engines are penalizing this forum because of the invalid certificate already.

Proposed workaround: get a certificate from another certification authority. There are free certification authorities that can be tested.

Classic Roguelikes / Re: Rogue - let's beat it
« on: January 12, 2020, 03:02:47 PM »

I have just gotten started with rogue.

I started with RogueClone III by Tim Stoehr. Then I discovered and started experimenting with Rogue V3. An Umber-Hulk smashed my run heh. Too bad because I was Str 18/lots and had a nice two handed swordy toy.

Something I notice is that you are always running light of equipment in this game. It is very easy to not find necessary resources. By the end of my run I had some unidentified rings and I had ran out of the good scrolls.

What are the gameplay differences across versions?

Pages: 1 2 [3]