Questions regarding vanilla dungeon design

[Hariolor]

clearly M has never heard of the "right/left hand rule"....

[buzzkill]

Furthermore I think this makes for a pretty effective series of underground defensive structures. The reason no map of Angband exists is because it is impossible to map. If I'm holing myself up 100 levels down I would rather be in an un-mappable series of caves than in a place where @ can pull a blueprint.

Difficult to map, not impossible, not with GB's of memory. Allow me to half-heartedly, half-jokingly propose parallel persistent levels. Perhaps 5 or 10 or 20 or 100 of each level exist, all persistent. The 'maze of staircases' leads you to a randomly chosen parallel level. Maybe you've been there before, probably not. Your odds of encountering a level you've previously explored, quite obviously, increases with the amount of scumming/revisiting you do.

It might also be fun to (stow 'em all and) occasionally retrieve levels from previous games. That sword you were so fond of once upon a time (before you tossed it aside in favor of something better).... it's back.

The more I think about it, the more I like it, so I better stop thinking.

[Timo Pietilä]

Note that if the level's persistent, we can run away...but we may never be able to go *back* to that level, if the threats are also persistent.

One way to do infinite random persistent levels is to always have more than one up and downstairs that take you to different levels. If you make it three you have six different options to make for each level, and if you level-teleport that's eight but that is then really random with no going back.

You will get lost really fast in that (which stairs I took previously? I have been here before, but can't remember anything).

You could also make town "stairs" and recall a portal to dungeon with each time random start. Recalling back to already explored dungeon would be boring. Want a boring level: "this looks like a level you have already emptied".

Not that persistent levels make any sense in Angband, but that would be one way of doing it.

[Timo Pietilä]

clearly M has never heard of the "right/left hand rule"....

In three-dimensional maze right/left hand rule doesn't work very well. It is possible to create a maze which makes you go in loops with right/left hand rule.

[Bostock]

Wait. didn't get your point.

If I can extrapolate a bit: there already exists a highly Angband-like game with permanent levels, and its name is Dungeon Crawl Stone Soup. Above all, it has the same factor of monsters that block or impede staying on or returning to a level safely, toned down just enough to still be workable in a game where you cannot cause the problem level to disappear forever (i.e. a permalevel roguelike).

(I think the unspoken problem with non-permalevel roguelikes here is that they break suspension of disbelief. But really, a rogueliker suspends disbelief on so many things already, this too is doable. I know - I warmed up to 'bands very slowly myself for this very reason - slowly, but also "successfully.")

The amusing thing is that IME no other rogueliking community exhibits such severe and blind prejudice towards 'bands and 'banders on the whole than that for DCSS, due to the assumption that it is normal or at least common to power grind in Angband much more than people really do.

[Timo Pietilä]

(I think the unspoken problem with non-permalevel roguelikes here is that they break suspension of disbelief. But really, a rogueliker suspends disbelief on so many things already, this too is doable. I know - I warmed up to 'bands very slowly myself for this very reason - slowly, but also "successfully.")

Like, you hold your two-handed sword at one hand, bow at another, lantern at another and shield at another, and yet manage to read a book while doing combat? Very realistic, right?

[Hajo]

"Realistic" is often a bad argument in discussion of games. More important is, if some feature works well in a game, if it's interesting to the player.

Chess is not very realistic, but still a good game.

I don't say "realistic" is always a bad idea (can be quite good in some games), but saying a feature is bad because it's "not realistic" reaches too short for discussions about games.

[Bostock]

"Realistic" is often a bad argument in discussion of games. More important is, if some feature works well in a game, if it's interesting to the player.

Chess is not very realistic, but still a good game.

I don't say "realistic" is always a bad idea (can be quite good in some games), but saying a feature is bad because it's "not realistic" reaches too short for discussions about games.

I deliberately avoided the word "realistic" for this reason. Suspension of disbelief is closely related to realism, but not quite the same thing. A mage in heavy armor is no less realistic than one without, but for many people, it breaks disbelief more. A PC who needs to urinate once every fifty moves is more realistic than usual, but doesn't break suspension of disbelief any less than the more fun/sane Not Having a Urination System that is the norm.

[Timo Pietilä]

I deliberately avoided the word "realistic" for this reason. Suspension of disbelief is closely related to realism, but not quite the same thing. A mage in heavy armor is no less realistic than one without, but for many people, it breaks disbelief more. A PC who needs to urinate once every fifty moves is more realistic than usual, but doesn't break suspension of disbelief any less than the more fun/sane Not Having a Urination System that is the norm.

Suspension of disbelief works in fantasies like it works in Bond-movies. Bond car can cut other cars with lasers, and that is OK, but when Bond gets an ordinary truck to pop a wheelie then that shatters the illusion of this being something sensible.