Permanent consequences for failure that aren't death

[Endorya]

Somehow you still haven't learned what procedural generation is.

Even with procedural generated worlds you will face similar situations. I mean, the learning process of a game is to understand how it works and you can only know how it works if you replay its events. Sure the land type might be different and sure you will not find foes in the order you last did (though even non-permadeath games can have procedural content) but you will know from your last game that the Minotaur that killed you was still too powerful to be dealt with even with your character at level 10 and you will carry this knowledge to your next attempt. And you shall replay the event of facing the Minotaur again in future.

[Endorya]

Go on derailing yet another thread, bravo guys

\popcorn

This thread has derailed long ago. Anyway, got any soda? Popcorns go so well with coke.

[mushroom patch]

Replaying events, of course.

I really don't have a problem with replaying events as long there is room for improvement and I really don't want to discuss what people might prefer or not as it is pointless, so feel free to classify it as unhealthy for as long as you like.

Oh, that's right. Your opinions are not up for debate. (Or is that the other thread? This seems to be turning into the thread where we remind ourselves of how non-roguelike games work -- I guess I have to admit, between competitive PvP and roguelikes, I kinda forgot how Final Fantasy saving mechanics work. Thanks for the refresher.)

I guess I should be suggesting constructive alternatives and/or explicating my position. Here's an alternative: You play a cast of characters, like in Fire Emblem, each of which can die, but the absolute lose condition is that all of them die. You play one at a time, in true roguelike style, you can switch between them (this might require some extra rules to avoid silliness), and each has an independent existence (e.g. no late Castlevania-style morphing from one into the other), but they live in the same world and although they can't meet each other directly, they can exchange items and revive each other by recovering remains and paying some nontrivial price.

I think this is a reasonable alternative model for roguelike games. Of course, it doesn't solve the problem of neurotic players who can't deal with losing a game ("it's torture!") and people will still want to save scum, but at least the game will be telling them that's not what they're supposed to do and they should really try playing a straight game.

[reaver]

Mordor: Depths of Dejenol had a nice mechanic imo:

If you died, you could be found by adventurers after some time and sent back to the city's morgue (starting point of the game, dungeon level 0).
The deeper the dungeon level you would die in, the longer it could take adventurers to find you: from weeks to years
Aging had an effect on the game, so die too many times and the age clocks starts being against you.
Also, every time you got resurrected by the morgue, there was a chance to lose a point of constitution.

[Endorya]

Oh, that's right. Your opinions are not up for debate. (Or is that the other thread? This seems to be turning into the thread where we remind ourselves of how non-roguelike games work -- I guess I have to admit, between competitive PvP and roguelikes, I kinda forgot how Final Fantasy saving mechanics work. Thanks for the refresher.)

Just to make it crystal clear (even clearer than Breaking Bad's meth developed by Walter). Opinions are open for debate, unlike preferences which are not. I even gave "the blond versus brunette" as well as the "Remstein's" virtual dialog as example in the thread you mention so people could realize that my opinion was completely based on my personal preferences and not based on belief, unless of course you want to go philosophical just to state that one still needs to believe in his preferences (yawns).

So arguing about one preferring oranges over apples its pointless. We can go on and post hundreds and hundreds of additional comments of you and me defending our own preferences which in the end will result into nothing. Maybe you enjoy this but then again it goes against your "unhealthy" designation of repetitiveness you seem to dislike (in theory).

[Endorya]

I think this is a reasonable alternative model for roguelike games. Of course, it doesn't solve the problem of neurotic players who can't deal with losing a game ("it's torture!")

Calling people neurotic because they refuse to be harshly punished but enduring through a "stress free" gaming experience completely baffles me and this is not even my view on permadeath but theirs as I actually enjoy having moderated harsh consequences present.

(...) but at least the game will be telling them that's not what they're supposed to do and they should really try playing a straight game.

If they are already save scumming it means they don't like the way the game was originally intended to be played in first place (they are not that dumb as you seem to imply). You keep telling people what they should do imposing what you prefer to others. Stop doing that; it's not cool.

[rust]

Calling people neurotic because they refuse to be harshly punished but enduring through a "stress free" gaming experience completely baffles me and this is not even my view on permadeath but theirs as I actually enjoy having moderated harsh consequences present.

I guess that applies only for roguelikes. I'd understand speaking about torture if roguelikes were a strictly "relaxing" genre (like match-3 games, for example), but permadeath is one of the things that define the genre. You don't play an FPS and then complain that there's shooting in it.

[Vanguard]

If they are already save scumming it means they don't like the way the game was originally intended to be played in first place (they are not that dumb as you seem to imply). You keep telling people what they should do imposing what you prefer to others. Stop doing that; it's not cool.

People like that can do what they want but their opinions are dumb and bad.  Some things really are better than others.

[Endorya]

People like that can do what they want but their opinions are dumb and bad.  Some things really are better than others.

What opinions are you referring about? Please don't tell me you are also mixing opinions with preferences. Some things that are really better for ones can also be really bad for others. I never thought I would actually need to explain this to roguelike players as they always brag of how smart they are, how they know everything about game play mechanics, while at the same time pointing out how dumb the rest of the human race is.

[Endorya]

ss that applies only for roguelikes. I'd understand speaking about torture if roguelikes were a strictly "relaxing" genre (like match-3 games, for example), but permadeath is one of the things that define the genre. You don't play an FPS and then complain that there's shooting in it.

Yes, permadeath is one of the things, not the ONE thing that defines a roguelike, because if permadeath was exculsive to roguelikes chess would play differently or would also be called a roguelike. Furthermore I'm not here discussing whether permadeath should be discarded from a roguelike or not, actually I vote for having it as well as having controlled saved points. I have a feeling that I'm somehow repeating myself; I think I will just copy & paste my old posts as future responses from now on.

[Endorya]

I consider this whole discussing closed. I've said enough and I've repeated myself quite well.  I'm not even coming back here to read future posts.

[Rickton]

I guess I should be suggesting constructive alternatives and/or explicating my position. Here's an alternative: You play a cast of characters, like in Fire Emblem, each of which can die, but the absolute lose condition is that all of them die. You play one at a time, in true roguelike style, you can switch between them (this might require some extra rules to avoid silliness), and each has an independent existence (e.g. no late Castlevania-style morphing from one into the other), but they live in the same world and although they can't meet each other directly, they can exchange items and revive each other by recovering remains and paying some nontrivial price.

That'd be neat. If the characters all have different powers, it could also help avoid the problem of the player running into a situation that their character is completely unequipped to handle. They could retreat (or, worst case scenario, one character would die), and then they could come back with a character who's better suited for handling that challenge.
Although if that happens too much, it could be annoying, constantly running away, switching characters, running back. I'd think that the game itself would probably have to be a lot harder than normal to make sure there'd still be challenge, since the player would have access to a much larger range of abilities and tools than a single character.

[LazyCat]

People like that can do what they want but their opinions are dumb and bad.  Some things really are better than others.

Expressing intolerantly narrow-minded ignorance is not convincing argument. Talking with you about permadeath is like talking to Hitler about genocide, or talking to Krice about women, the extent of your confusion is not even funny. It's just a bloody difficulty setting, why are you getting emotional?

[AgingMinotaur]

Talking with you about permadeath is like talking to Hitler about genocide […] why are you getting emotional?

wtf? Eat a donut and take it down a notch, human!

Let's just hope Godwin's law kicks in and puts an end to this discussion once and for all.

As always,
Minotauros

[rust]

Expressing intolerantly narrow-minded ignorance is not convincing argument.

Top notch hypocrisy.