Angband Philosophy III: Theme, Races and Monsters

[Gwarl]

This is starting to sound more like a remake than a new version. Which, given the refactoring it might well be.

I think the game we know and love is a tolkein-themed addon for moria. To understand elves (and not high elves) and the balance of the race and classes, I think you need to look at the original.

[Gwarl]

Regarding the elf/dwarf int/wis stuff:

I know you made the swap in FA and it confused me at first, but I think these stats shouldn't be understood in terms of the english words which give their namesakes but instead are more like 'magic' and 'sanctity', i.e. is this a race you pick to be a mage or one you pick to be a priest. Dwarf mages just seem kind of wrong. I would look into fixing this problem with the stats themselves (as Sil did) before looking at the racial stat distributions.

[fizzix]

I should also say something about monsters.

I've commented before that I think the second half of the game tends to drag a lot. There are a couple problems that cause this.

Unique monsters are often much more difficult than other at-level monsters. This means you usually cannot kill unique monsters when you first find them. Consumables have actually helped resolve this problem up to about dlevel 30, but once you get to uniques like Scatha or Itangast, you absolutely cannot fight them without double resistance or immunity.

There are too many late game uniques and each battle can be long and drawn out.

Many monsters cannot be handled without specific resistances (or even immunities). Monster avoidance is interesting, and a key part of Angband (and other roguelikes). But Angband too often has binary resistances that make the interaction a bit less interesting. If we're reworking the monsters we should keep this in mind.

Angband has a lot of monsters that deal 50% of a characters HP or more with a single attack. A lot of monsters can do this, even through resistances. This winds up limiting tactically interesting possibilities. You simply can not afford to interact with more than one monster that can deal 50% of your health in an attack. Currently Angband resolves the problem by giving the player powerful abilities to control the rules of engagement. Teleport, destruction, teleport other, terrain modification, etc. Any rework in monsters should consider serious nerfs to monsters along these lines, to be compensated by nerfs to player escapes, resistances, or boosts to other monster abilities.

Basically if I had to sum up the changes I'd like Angband to be, Angband currently looks like, "I need to do X now or I may die next turn." I'd like it to be "I need to do X now or I may die in 5 turns"

[fizzix]

This is starting to sound more like a remake than a new version. Which, given the refactoring it might well be.

I think the game we know and love is a tolkein-themed addon for moria. To understand elves (and not high elves) and the balance of the race and classes, I think you need to look at the original.

In some sense, it should be. Moria is 20 or so years old. We've learned a lot about games and gameplay since then.

[Pete Mack]

@fizzix--
Going from +2/-2 on dwarf spellcasting state to +1/-1 makes them boring, a la Sting in the current artifact set. There was a recent discussion on this: +1 is boring and makes for less distinction from comparable entities.

[Derakon]

Angband has a lot of monsters that deal 50% of a characters HP or more with a single attack. A lot of monsters can do this, even through resistances. This winds up limiting tactically interesting possibilities. You simply can not afford to interact with more than one monster that can deal 50% of your health in an attack. Currently Angband resolves the problem by giving the player powerful abilities to control the rules of engagement. Teleport, destruction, teleport other, terrain modification, etc. Any rework in monsters should consider serious nerfs to monsters along these lines, to be compensated by nerfs to player escapes, resistances, or boosts to other monster abilities.

Basically if I had to sum up the changes I'd like Angband to be, Angband currently looks like, "I need to do X now or I may die next turn." I'd like it to be "I need to do X now or I may die in 5 turns"

We're getting pretty far afield here. But I'd like to see you justify that "should nerf monsters so we can nerf the player" argument. Why is it desirable to make combat less binary? Current combat is very high-stakes, and the player has plenty to think about and plenty of options. That means they have difficult and important choices to make, and that's good.

I'd like to see your vision for what combat would look like in your hypothetical rework, and in particular I want to see that that vision is at least as compelling as the combat we have currently. Sure, there are things that the current system does poorly (the dominance of Teleport Other comes to mind), but it does an awful lot well too. If we're going to toss all that out then we need a really good replacement for it.

(I'd also like to see that vision be in a separate thread, since this one seems to be more about thematic and minor balance changes, not systemic reworks)

[fizzix]

@fizzix--
Going from +2/-2 on dwarf spellcasting state to +1/-1 makes them boring, a la Sting in the current artifact set. There was a recent discussion on this: +1 is boring and makes for less distinction from comparable entities.

Sure, change it back to +2/-2 or even more. I'm not particularly attached to any of the numbers. They're rough stabs.

[Sky]

Sounds like y'all really just want Sil.

[Nick]

Thanks, lots of food for thought there. Some specific responses:

Honestly I'd say that, so long as you (rightfully IMO) aren't worried about keeping the races balanced with respect to each other, more races is better than fewer.

This is a very good point. I should say too that my main problem with gnomes and kobolds is their name, and I recognise that they fill niches. Renaming them petty-dwarf and goblin and leaving them otherwise unchanged would be an option (although some tweaking might be good).

However, if the rework involves even more, such as racial abilities, racial specific interactions etc., perhaps you could share your thoughts on what the final state of the rework would look like.

I am certainly playing with this idea. It exists to a small extent now (dwarves having gold-sense, for example), and I had thought of things like some races being better with different kind of melee/missile weapons.

Also, I do have slight issue with Dwarf Int. Perhaps you're taking reference from the Silmarillion and literature, but vast majority of popular media has not been kind to dwarves and their intelligence. Even in Peter Jackson's middle earth movies, the dwarves look like they're there as bumbling comedy relief. From a general populace POV, it might seem... odd for Gimli to have more innate intelligence than Elrond.

I take your point (while noting that we pre-date Mr Jackson ), but would it not be just as odd for Gimli to seem wiser than Elrond? I think the problem here lies in what INT and WIS actually mean. IMHO from a popular culture standpoint intelligence tends to mean being good at anything brain-related (like IQ tests), with the opposite being "dumb" (and hence an object of ridicule). Wisdom doesn't get talked about much, so we don't react as quickly to the idea of Gimli getting +2 to WIS, but Tolkien talks about it much more than he does about intelligence.

As regards dwarves being better as priests than mages, I would tend to think that they'd be better at making flashes and bangs than at having deep spiritual awareness

My personal inclination is usually to focus on the gameplay considerations, with roles 2 and 3 providing flavor but taking a back seat. I know that many people disagree with this approach, and that's ok. But I can outline where the races go considering gameplay.

I find this approach from you incredibly valuable, because I tend to come from the other direction. Interesting ideas on the races - yeeks are a possibility, particularly. Having race activation-like abilities I don't think I'll go to yet, but variants have done it and it is always there as a possibility.

Angband has a lot of monsters that deal 50% of a characters HP or more with a single attack. A lot of monsters can do this, even through resistances. This winds up limiting tactically interesting possibilities. You simply can not afford to interact with more than one monster that can deal 50% of your health in an attack. Currently Angband resolves the problem by giving the player powerful abilities to control the rules of engagement. Teleport, destruction, teleport other, terrain modification, etc. Any rework in monsters should consider serious nerfs to monsters along these lines, to be compensated by nerfs to player escapes, resistances, or boosts to other monster abilities.

Basically if I had to sum up the changes I'd like Angband to be, Angband currently looks like, "I need to do X now or I may die next turn." I'd like it to be "I need to do X now or I may die in 5 turns"

My opinion on this is that the sudden danger and instant escape is a defining feature of Angband gameplay. As a solution to the second half of the game dragging, I prefer the idea (seen in Steamband, for example) that the monsters are getting increasingly dangerous, so you need to go and fight Morgoth before something kills you.

[jevansau]

From the last discussion, maybe this is a good time to rename Wisdom. Maybe Faith or Devotion or something similar would lead to less jarring results.

[wobbly]

Is a name for Smeagol's people ever given? Seems a reasonable fit for kobold. Someone mentioned the wizards all being Maia? Elrond, Galadriel & the wood elfs in the hobbit all use magic. The dwarfs use magic doors and writing, usually crafts.

I'd see no problem with giving elfs +1 wis/int where they'd have exactly the same issues, just better suited to the more solid priest/paladin. If druids (& rangers?) are going to be wis casters elfs need both if you want mage/druid/ranger/rogue to fit.

I'd certainly be happy to see Medusa & co go. More generic monsters don't bother me as much. A lot depends on how stripped down a monster list you want. Longer? Same? Shorter? What's the plan.

[Mondkalb]

Is a name for Smeagol's people ever given? Seems a reasonable fit for kobold.

They were called Stoors and were heavier and broader than other hobbits.

[Pete Mack]

I disagree on your determinism for races, at least for Angband proper. There are only two crieria:
* is it fun? (Half-elf fails.)
* is it distinct from other races? (Gnome and hobbit fail.)
I actually like playing kobold. Low EXP penalty, and no messing with swap ring of rPoison.
Another possibility:
Wood elf can have intrinsic archery bonus by level. Huge for mage, but only incremental for ranger.

[PowerWyrm]

If you want to stick to Tolkien for races:
- humans: regular humans and dunadans are different, others are mainly regular humans (easterlings, southerings...)
- elves: many races (see Sil or the Silmarilliion -- Noldor, Sindar, Avari, Teleri...)
- dwarves
- hobbits
- maiar
- orcs
- trolls
- ents
- more?

[kaypy]

Just to add to the priest/mage debate, I would add:
"The dwarves of yore made mighty spells"

(Of course, that might not be entirely fair as I don't think there's any evidence of *anyone* in middle-earth being directly priestly... Requests for divine assistance are sent not so much by prayer as by ship)