New to the boards

[Derakon]

In most, if not all, games where dying is allowed you receive a limited number of lives in which to accomplish your mission. Angband when played with save-scumming has no such restrictions.

That may have been true fifteen years ago, but "lives" are such an outmoded concept these days that they're practically never used any more. Instead the game kicks you back to the last checkpoint (whether manually or automatically created) and you try again. I think the Mario and Sonic games are the only modern games I've seen that still use lives -- and there, running out of lives simply kicks you back to a slightly more distant checkpoint (in Mario, back to your last savepoint, losing completion of any levels finished since then; in Sonic you go to the beginning of the level instead of the last in-level checkpoint).

There's plenty of people out there who want to play games as an "experience", not as a "challenge". They want to see what kinds of items and monsters show up in the late game, without having to master the early game to get there. Hence, savescumming. Angband won't have the same replayability for them, but that doesn't mean that their approach to it is somehow flawed.

Certainly you should make it clear that you savescummed, if you did. That's only politeness. But again, that doesn't mean that winning with a savescummed game is meaningless.

[buzzkill]

This started out as a one line reply, sorry about the sprawl.

That may have been true fifteen years ago, but "lives" are such an outmoded concept these days that they're practically never used any more.

But lives are still used in Angband, and you get only the one you start with.

Beyond that, I feel the evolution of harshness in gaming is part PC and part sales gimmick. If you play long enough, you wins, everybody wins. Buy the sequel. Woo-hoo.

I love GTA (Grand Theft Auto). I've been playing it since the original. In the original, although you had multiple lives, there was no way to save a game until you completed a level (which could take hours). This effectively eliminated save-scumming. I saw this as a design flaw (because I would have loved to have been able to just save the frickin' game sometimes), but it did make the game genuinely hard. In fact, I don't know if I ever did complete it, but I would still play it, even today.

Modern day GTA just gives you unlimited lives. Play it long enough and you will win assuming you're reflexes are quick enough. I'm by no means a great GTA player but I beat the game eventually. How many times did I die. Don't know. Don't care, but it was a lot. Despite this being the norm in GTA, I don't consider it a great accomplishment. If I beat it without dying, I'd be shouting it from the rooftops. I'd have it tattooed in my flesh.

But again, that doesn't mean that winning with a save-scummed game is meaningless.

But it's meaningless in the context of Angband as it is intended to be played, and playing without dying is as intended. It's meaningless because there's nothing to gauge it against, there's no way to rate it. Without additional record keeping, it can't even be compared to over save-scummed wins.

If you go out to the golf course and take as many mulligans as you like, then you can't walk into the clubhouse and brag about shooting 16 under par... over the course of 3 days. If it means something to you, that's great, but I wouldn't expect real golfers (or anyone who knows the first thing about the game) to take your accomplishment too seriously.

I wouldn't discourage anyone from save-scumming if that's the only way that they find Angband to be fun. I would heartily encourage anyone who has only save-scummed to play with just one life (or maybe 2 lives or 3, set some limit before you begin). You're not going to be taken seriously by anyone if you just make up the rules as you go along. Anyone can suceed doing that.

[Derakon]

But it's meaningless in the context of Angband as it is intended to be played, and playing without dying is as intended. It's meaningless because there's nothing to gauge it against, there's no way to rate it. Without additional record keeping, it can't even be compared to over save-scummed wins.

Who cares? The people playing this way aren't competing with anyone, not even themselves. They're playing the game to play the game, not to try to beat some prior achievement. It's a non-competitive attitude towards the game.

And no, it's not something you can really brag about. Again, that's not the point.

Finally, you can play modern GTA games with permadeath. Just delete the savefile if/when you die.

[buzzkill]

Rereading the thread, it sounds like the OP was under the impression that almost everybody save-scummed to some extent or another, and those that didn't certainly didn't win.

Now I was wondering has anybody ever gone through the whole game without dying? Seems impossible to me.

I don't see the harm in letting him know that while any win (I suppose) is exciting, that most people play without save-scumming, and that hard-scummed victories might be personal accomplishments, that's all they are.

[s-man]

Actually the OP (meaning me) didn't give "save-scumming" a second thought. I had actually never heard that term until I read through this post. And let me say, wow, you people really do take this game seriously don't you!

I was playing for the enjoyment of getting through the game and seeing all there was to see. I wasn't trying to beat anybody's personal best and brag about it or even claim my so-called "win" (which I guess wasn't a real win according to the rules). I just wanted to have fun and not have to die over and over for a year to get to Morgoth. For me it is all about seeing the variety of monsters and weapons.

So I apologize for posting this "win", I take it back, it wasn't a true game at all. I save-scummed, am sorry, it will never happen again!

[Timo Pietilä]

Allow me. It doesn't remove all challenge from the game. It removes all challenge from winning. In short, a save-scummed win is inevitable.

Well, it does remove most of the challenge as well, and it also teaches you wrong habits (what to have and what to fight and where to be and what needs to be avoided).

If you only play save-scum -games you never learn how the game should be played. It leads to this "Now I was wondering has anybody ever gone through the whole game without dying? Seems impossible to me" -comment. He doesn't know how to play this game, so he thinks it is difficult.

If you save-scum use it as learning experience to what to expect, not as how you should play the game.

Only real threats in the game are death by frustration and death by boredom. Both make you do stupid things. Everything else is easy.

[will_asher]

Okay people, I think we all agree that a savescum win isn't a real win, but don't be saying the game is easy just because it's easy for you.

You can say the only the real threats in the game are death by frustration and death by boredom, true enough, but there's plenty of challenge there in not dying to frustration or boredom. ...which makes the game sound really bad. What you call boredom, I would call overconfidence or carelessness. That way we don't insult the game by saying it's a challenge to avoid dying to it.

We must be playing the most boring game in the world, yet we all love it...

[Timo Pietilä]

Okay people, I think we all agree that a savescum win isn't a real win, but don't be saying the game is easy just because it's easy for you.

You can say the only the real threats in the game are death by frustration and death by boredom, true enough, but there's plenty of challenge there in not dying to frustration or boredom. ...which makes the game sound really bad. What you call boredom, I would call overconfidence or carelessness. That way we don't insult the game by saying it's a challenge to avoid dying to it.

We must be playing the most boring game in the world, yet we all love it...

I count "carelessness" as stupidity which might be caused by overconfidence, boredom or frustration, but overconfidence is something game is very good at tricking people. This is why so many people warn RNG causes you to die just after getting some super thing. super thing = overconfidence = death. I think I have played a bit too many games to fall in that trap anymore (often anyway. can still remember death by dracolisk paralyzation after rearranging just about every item in inventory and equipments, at the last row of CGV), so I tend to overlook it.

So three real threats: boredom, overconfidence and frustration. All of those make people do stupid things.

[buzzkill]

So I apologize for posting this "win", I take it back, it wasn't a true game at all. I save-scummed, am sorry, it will never happen again!

Come on now, don't be like that. Being over dramatic rarely plays well around here. It won't gain you any friends, respect or sympathy.

Your post just happened to bring up a topic that some of us obviously have strong feelings about. We don't all walk around on eggshells either trying not to offend each other (some more than others).

I apologize if my opinions upset you, but that's no reason to quit playing the game any way that you enjoy it... and for the record, I never said this game was easy (but it would be if you played with unlimited lives).

[Derakon]

Sorry about the argument, s-man. Please don't take it personally. I'm fairly certain it's not meant personally, anyway.

[Timo Pietilä]

I just wanted to have fun and not have to die over and over for a year to get to Morgoth. For me it is all about seeing the variety of monsters and weapons.

Now that you have won using save-scumming, try without. The challenge might prove being way more fun than without. It gets a bit mental rearrangement to get rid of thinking that nothing you do is fatal, but at least to me it is way more fun without save-scumming.

[AnonymousHero]

I can only second Timo's recommendation. Angband is much better when played with no second chances.

You will die a lot at first, but the important thing is to learn what you can from those deaths and to approach things differently next time.

[Djabanete]

Some people honestly prefer exploring the sandbox and finding out what's in the game. I'm pretty sure most people prefer non-scumming once they've tried it, but definitely not everyone.

I certainly wouldn't want any newcomer to feel bad about save-scumming. It's not a crime. Most people find the game more exciting when they "graduate" to playing with permadeath, but to each his own.

S-man, all you need to know is that people can and do win without save-scumming. Some people can even win quite consistently if they wish, and create challenge games with extra restrictions. Welcome to the crazy world of Angband, where your fellow netizen is probably playing a mage without books or a shovel-wielding warrior

Personally, I play with such a stubborn code of conduct --- and sometimes, so stupidly --- that my characters drop like flies, but for some reason that's part of the fun. And since I pick my characters at random, it stays fun!

[LostTemplar]

where your fellow netizen is probably playing a mage without books or a shovel-wielding warrior

or shovel-wielding hobbit mage without books.

[Djabanete]

or shovel-wielding hobbit mage without books.

I did that once but it was too easy, so I did it again with no artifacts or egos and without using the Left or Down keys.

Edit: You know, actually I really did once try a bookless hobbit shovelmage, and it was just as terrible as I thought. I don't remember whether I was playing with artifacts, but either way I died too soon for it to matter.