7DRL 2014 Hype it UP!

[Krice]

How is it possible that generic tileset is better. It requires much less work and I can't see the logic in how creating a custom tileset for the game (before the contest week) is somehow more against the rules. Not to say that I actually care about the rules.

I was also thinking this could be good opportunity to create SDL 2.0 framework, but I don't know.. does 2.0 offer anything better than 1.2 in roguelike context? Maybe I'll stick to 1.2 for now.

[Quendus]

The point of the 7 day roguelike challenge is that the work of making a game is finished in 7 days. Most people wouldn't count programming a compiler, a standard library, a game library, or drawing a generic tileset as part of the work of making a specific game.
But if you make a game about ninja pirate zombie robots and using a ninja pirate zombie robot tileset that no-one ever uses for another game, that probably counts as part of the work that made the NPZR game. So if you made the NPZR tileset before the challenge, it wouldn't be unreasonable to say that's not in the spirit of the competition.

We're lucky that there are no cash prizes or world-wide fame at stake, otherwise people would actually care about it!

[Z]

As Darren said, you can use whatever you want, as long as you declare it. If Krice feels that using graphics made before the challenge is okay, then it is okay, and he can declare a success if he feels he was successful. I think the original rules of 7DRL would actually allow me to work on my Vapors of Insanity during 7 days, release the result as my 7DRL entry, and have it rated in the reviews. Although for some reason it seems that nobody ever did anything like this, as far as I know.

But the best 7DRL is not the same as the best roguelike created during the 7DRL challenge. Suppose that Crogue and Drogue have been created during the 7DRL challenge. Crogue is beautiful and Drogue is ugly, and other than that, they are similar, so Crogue is a better roguelike. However, Drogue's graphics were created during the 7 days, while Crogue's graphics have been created before. Therefore, Drogue is more impressive than Crogue as a 7DRL.

The problem here is that, to make an innovative 7DRL, innovation is probably the hardest part, and it is typically done before the challenge. Having ideas, discussing them on fora, writing design documents, or thinking about the balance, all of this is serious work. For some reason it seems that people don't count it into seven days.

Maybe we should think about the 7DRL review system. Should features made before or after the challenge be scored? I am for YES. I think the purpose of the reviews is to (a) have every entry played by at least two people, (b) provide clues to the players which of the hundreds of games are worth to try, (c) tell who was successful. Both (a) and (b) are arguments for YES, (c) is for NO, but (c) also goes against the original spirit of the challenge, which said that success or failure is decided by the challengers themselves. Although I think it would be okay if the Committee can declare that a game is a failure (either because of quality, or because of being only a tiny change on pre-existing content) even if the challenger declared it a success.

From the last years' experience, the delay between the challenge and the publishing of reviews was also a big problem. Maybe we should change the rules that you need to review at least 4 other random entries to consider yours a full success? Or something like that.

[Quendus]

I'd agree with most of that. The values embodied by the challenge have some contradictions which make cases like this difficult to answer, but its informal nature means that resolving them isn't crucial.

From the last years' experience, the delay between the challenge and the publishing of reviews was also a big problem. Maybe we should change the rules that you need to review at least 4 other random entries to consider yours a full success? Or something like that.

I wouldn't recommend switching to a Ludum Dare style rating system. In the 7DRTS mini-LD, the set of reviewers is the same as the set of developers, and they choose which games to review. Games are not "suggested" for review unless their developer reviews several games. So developers who want to take a break after a game jam don't get any feedback on their hard work. This could be a nasty surprise for someone new to the challenge who expects to spend only 7 days. Reviews are a list of numbers and an optional comment. Most reviews are quite generic, very few are thoughtful or deep, and barely any contain useful feedback for the developer. These problems may be less pronounced in a 48-hour LD, but I don't think anyone would accept replacing the 7DRL challenge with a 2DRL challenge.

I think this happens because text feedback is optional, the feedback interface is presented like a blog comment system, there's nothing asking for feedback on specific aspects of the game, and many of the reviewers signed up to make a game rather than to type meaningful feedback.

The current model puts a lot of work on the shoulders of those who sign up to produce reviews, and as the 7DRL challenge grows it may turn out to be unsustainable. Still, I think replacing it with an open review model, especially an enforced one, would deprive a lot of participants of constructive feedback on their entries.

[Krice]

The point of the 7 day roguelike challenge is that the work of making a game is finished in 7 days.

That's not reality in most cases. And I still don't see the logic in using "generic" tileset is ok. In that case also it takes away the work of creating tiles which makes the game work in the first place (when you need tiles and ascii is not an option).

I'm starting to think that I should make this game outside 7DRL crap.

[mushroom patch]

Huh, it would seem pretty obvious to me that original content for a 7DRL would have to be created during the 7DRL period. What seems somewhat surprising to me is that it appears to be okay to base a 7DRL on pre-existing code for other games, assuming a sufficiently different outcome is achieved. So, e.g., an angband variant could qualify if it's sufficiently different from angband. (Like if Sil had been derived from angband in only 7 days, it would qualify.)

Is it permissible to provide the finished product only by public telnet or similar? It seems to me that it would be much easier to produce an interesting product if no thought needs to be given to packaging it for use on users' systems.

[ekolis]

Is it permissible to provide the finished product only by public telnet or similar? It seems to me that it would be much easier to produce an interesting product if no thought needs to be given to packaging it for use on users' systems.

Some of last year's successful 7DRLs, such as Pugnacious Wizards, were web-based games. I don't see why telnet would be considered any less acceptable a delivery mechanism.

[mushroom patch]

Yeah, good point. I hadn't thought of that until after I had posted and looked at some old entries.

[guest509]

Mushroom the 7DRL is pretty wild west. It doesn't even have to be an RL, and you are free to lie to your heart's content about what when you created what you created. There's really no incentive to lie though, you don't really in anything and we don't penalize people for reusing old code.

This year I'm going to be using the engine I built up last year, and an idea and graphics I've been poking about with since last year as well. No biggie.

I'd love to see the Han Yolo guys take their engine from last year and make a deeper game.

[ekolis]

So last night I was dreaming about various ideas to use for a 7DRL, because I STILL don't have something I want to use yet! One was a party-based roguelike that I soon realized was basically the same thing as my entry from last year (TriQuest) only without the tactical placement of characters within a tile. That sort of morphed into a Star Trek roguelike inspired by "Star Trek: 25th Anniversary" in which you would control Captain Kirk (a yellow @) leading an away mission with two other characters (Spock and a redshirt, maybe? I remember it was a blue @ and a red @), and the NPC's would be controlled by their own AI, but you could issue orders using a text-adventure style interface. So you'd hit "t" to "talk" to your party, and then you'd type something like "spock scan the mechanism" or "redshirt phaser the klingon". It seemed pretty cool at first, but then I realized text adventures and roguelikes don't mix all that well - pausing to type commands just destroys the flow of the game!

[chooseusername]

It seemed pretty cool at first, but then I realized text adventures and roguelikes don't mix all that well - pausing to type commands just destroys the flow of the game!

If the game is turn based, whether orders are given to team members via menus or command line, is just different levels of abstraction.  If I were prototyping something up, I could likely see myself starting with the command line and adding the menu replacement UI when I got the time.

[Rickton]

It seemed pretty cool at first, but then I realized text adventures and roguelikes don't mix all that well - pausing to type commands just destroys the flow of the game!

Not necessarily, as long as the NPCs are intelligent enough that you don't need to constantly micromanage them.
Pausing in the middle of battle to give specific orders, yeah, that'd get annoying, but stopping outside a new room to order the redshirt to go check it out ahead of you? Or going in yourself and asking the others to follow you at a distance? That sort of thing seems like it could work.
I'd imagine the bigger issue would be making sure the parser is robust enough to understand what the player is saying the majority of the time.

[mushroom patch]

I've given a certain amount of thought to these kinds of multi-actor mechanics. In my opinion the way to do this is to provide the player with a policy-based NPC/retainer/pet control interface providing triggers for key actions, e.g. retreat or healing, general tactics that may be tailored to specific situations with a considerable granularity available if the player wants it, travelling and battle formations, etc. Policy changes would cost in-game time and require communication, so there would be situations where you can't back out of the decisions you've set for what to do.

[Trystan]

you would control Captain Kirk (a yellow @) leading an away mission with two other characters (Spock and a redshirt, maybe? I remember it was a blue @ and a red @)

Awesome. I would play that.

...the NPC's would be controlled by their own AI ...

I've been thinking of how to do a party-based roguelike too and I really like the idea of slightly different ai for each person. My current idea is that instead of issuing commands, you have a roster of adventurers to chose from and each has their own personality. So not only do you choose between warriors, archers, wizards, etc, but you have to choose between people who are reckless, cautious, compassionate, anxious, diligent, etc. You don't control other's actions but you decide which 5 or 6 people are in your group.

[guest509]

So last night I was dreaming about various ideas to use for a 7DRL, because I STILL don't have something I want to use yet! One was a party-based roguelike that I soon realized was basically the same thing as my entry from last year (TriQuest) only without the tactical placement of characters within a tile. That sort of morphed into a Star Trek roguelike inspired by "Star Trek: 25th Anniversary" in which you would control Captain Kirk (a yellow @) leading an away mission with two other characters (Spock and a redshirt, maybe? I remember it was a blue @ and a red @), and the NPC's would be controlled by their own AI, but you could issue orders using a text-adventure style interface. So you'd hit "t" to "talk" to your party, and then you'd type something like "spock scan the mechanism" or "redshirt phaser the klingon". It seemed pretty cool at first, but then I realized text adventures and roguelikes don't mix all that well - pausing to type commands just destroys the flow of the game!

Lol Eko I rally like this. I've done Startrek games for two years in a row. It's great. Sun Crusher!!! and Klingon were a real kick in the pants. Yellow, Red and Blue Kirk, Spock, McCoy would be awesome. Kirk would shoot good, Spock would figure traps and stuff well and McCoy could heal. Diggity.