Some thoughts after playing Brogue

[d_m]

Just wanted to chip in. I also found Brogue 1.7 to be pretty inspiring overall. I share the love of graphics, and I just find the game design to be really "tight" in a consistent way.

That said, while the terrain, colors, features, of the levels were great I found the generation algorithm really boring. I quickly grew to recognize level layouts, the "trick rooms", the traps, etc. Ultimately it felt like a more complex version of Diablo 3's dungeon area templates, where relatively prefab stuff is stuck together in a fixed size space.

Of course, this fits with Brogue's overall ethos, and isn't necessarily bad. But it wasn't exactly what I wanted. Also, while I liked the XP-less development, I was often frustrated that the type of character you're gonna play is largely based on what items you find early on. Again, this is not necessarily bad, but wasn't ideal for me.

That said, there's a lot to steal from Brogue, and I think all its decisions were pretty well-reasoned.

I also think it makes sense to only use floating point to calculate transient values, rather than storing anything important in a way that might mean different things on different machines.

EDIT: I should say that I mean that the output of the generation algorithm is sort of predictable. I'm sure it's really sophisticated under the hood, I just wish there was more variance of the outputs, and different kinds of levels.

[Patashu]

EDIT: I should say that I mean that the output of the generation algorithm is sort of predictable. I'm sure it's really sophisticated under the hood, I just wish there was more variance of the outputs, and different kinds of levels.

It might be possible to mod Brogue to do this - it already has some framework for parameterizing level generation, and defining the way parameters change as you go deeper in 'sets'. The lake/chasm/lava/brimstone/cave level generation uses a simple cellular automata rule for X iterations and then pick the largest blob, so to vary how those generate you'd need to write something new or find a different cellular automata rule you like. (There are many cool cellular automata rules though - see http://psoup.math.wisc.edu/mcell/mjcell/mjcell.html )

[jday]

Missing XP looks like a common theme. I suppose the reception is really quite good, considering Angband's preference for a steep power curve; the decision in Brogue

The reward for killing an enemy is that that particular enemy isn't left wandering around the level. Sometimes that's worth the trouble. Sometimes it isn't. But because you don't outgrow monsters quite so quickly, even a relatively weak monster can remain relevant fairly late. If you plot an experience curve against Brogue, scale the monsters down, and then introduce a new "virtual" monster when they fall below some threshold, you'll end up with something like five times as many monsters. There's a lot of merit in additional monsters and intrinsic development as a storytelling mechanic, but it's really just a pain when you want to design a tight system.

(The current system of Potions of Life was calibrated to behave the same as the old XP system, except that your accuracy no longer increases. And since Potions of Life are metered, you could make a pretty strong argument that you actually are still getting XP, invisibly, by exploring.)

I prefer Sil's stealth to Brogue's, too. Brogue has some really great stuff going for it in this regard -- and then it just sort of drops the ball in favor of slightly more simplicity than it really needs. One key to stealth is that the player doesn't need to understand it completely, so, like terrain, it can be more complicated. The absence of unaware states that don't give the player the x3 bonus is a major liability, where it comes to making stealth more interesting.

The mouse. I know, it's 2012, but I hate having to hover over monsters or items to get their recall information when they're sitting on the floor.

Tab!

Being chased across floors.

A necessary consequence of deterministic levels; you'll find pretty quickly that this is really just another tool in your bag. You can lure a monster up and then jump back down a chasm, or you can lure it up to a trap you remember.

The supposed lack of fanfare at endgame.

I know many players feel differently (and say so!) but I think this makes it more, not less, exciting. I don't want to feel like the game experience was laid out for me. I want to feel like I'm violating the intent of the game by, you know, winning. I do think Brogue is gradually developing away from these lines.

[Starhawk]

That is truly ancient - I grew up on 1E AD&D and that was all about killing monsters for xp. You must be talking about the original Dave Arneson era D&D from the mid-1970s.

Actually, no -- I started on 1E AD&D too. And the XP rewards for treasure almost always outstripped the rewards for killing, unless we were on a specially bloody or specially chintzy adventure. The awards for monster-killing XP were decent, but paled next to the amount you were supposed to be awarded for GP and magic items. Check pages 84-88 of the old 1E DMG if you still have a copy, and can wade through the Gygaxianisms.

Per the chart on page 85 and the example underneath, an ancient red dragon was worth around 7758 XP depending on special abilities and hp.

However, check the section just previous labelled EXPERIENCE VALUE OF TREASURE TAKEN. XP was supposed to be awarded for GP value of treasure gained, on a 1-to-1 basis.

So if you chop up 100XP worth of orcs and they're guarding a treasure chest with 250 gp in it (a not unusual occurrence), you just got twice as many XP from treasure as you did from combat.

Oww... my geek muscle. I think I pulled it.

[Magnate]

Actually, no -- I started on 1E AD&D too. And the XP rewards for treasure almost always outstripped the rewards for killing, unless we were on a specially bloody or specially chintzy adventure. The awards for monster-killing XP were decent, but paled next to the amount you were supposed to be awarded for GP and magic items. Check pages 84-88 of the old 1E DMG if you still have a copy, and can wade through the Gygaxianisms.

Per the chart on page 85 and the example underneath, an ancient red dragon was worth around 7758 XP depending on special abilities and hp.

However, check the section just previous labelled EXPERIENCE VALUE OF TREASURE TAKEN. XP was supposed to be awarded for GP value of treasure gained, on a 1-to-1 basis.

So if you chop up 100XP worth of orcs and they're guarding a treasure chest with 250 gp in it (a not unusual occurrence), you just got twice as many XP from treasure as you did from combat.

Oww... my geek muscle. I think I pulled it.

That's awesome - thank you! It's so long ago that I had forgotten the xp-for-gp completely. I think I last played AD&D about 20 years ago in the early 1990s, and my wife made me sell all my hardbacks about six years ago.

I stand corrected. Thanks for the tour down Geek Lane!

[Starhawk]

That's awesome - thank you! It's so long ago that I had forgotten the xp-for-gp completely. I think I last played AD&D about 20 years ago in the early 1990s, and my wife made me sell all my hardbacks about six years ago.

I stand corrected. Thanks for the tour down Geek Lane!

No problem -- it's my geek specialty, I suppose. i.e. if I were a Sil character I'd have "D&D affinity".

I'd invite you to play, but it's an awfully long swim for you.


I still have memories of sitting down after a game to hash out xp, using multiple sheets of notebook paper. Every monster had to be worked out by hand, then all the treasure converted to gp value.... magic item xp value looked up..... whaaaaaa sometimes I miss those days!