Reverse Rune Lock Vaults

[dynast]

You can enter Vaults without any runes but you can only leave if you have at least one.

[wizzzargh]

In that case, rename Vaults to 'Hotel California'

[greedo]

Naw, in that case you can NEVER leave

[Magipi]

You can enter Vaults without any runes but you can only leave if you have at least one.

Is this a joke that I don't get?
Or is this a semi-serious proposal based on some considerations that I cannot figure out?

[daggaz]

I almost jumped on it too, but started thinking and realized it subtly leads to some rather serious changes.

Namely, it throws a wrench into 'farming' or collecting the easy XP, of which it is generally agreed there is too much of, and forces players to take the full branch. This in turn also brings up a question about the sudden magnitude in difficulty increase that defines branch endings. Why is that there again? Right now, unless you have a very strong character (who would not be affected by this change), this metric just forces people to 'farm' the branch beginnings, leaving the endings until the character is much stronger, and the endings become more trivialized. This inherently means you spend a lot of time doing a lot of tedius backtracking.

I think it is actually a good idea, the more I think about it. It at least warrants some open discussion.

Of course, without tweaking things around the rest of the game, you might just start forcing other tedius behavior, like abyss farming.

[MainiacJoe]

Imagine getting a character to the Vaults door for the first time ever, dipping your toe inside, and then discovering that you had to beat Vaults:5 to get out!

[jejorda2]

Go ahead and put the same mechanism on the lair runes.

[archaeo]

If you put rune locks on every rune branch, reversed or not, you remove a lot of the reasons for having a branching game structure at all.

[neil]

Go ahead and put the same mechanism on the lair runes.

Pushed to branch lobster-trap.

[dynast]

Some players dont like the idea of having a rune lock on vaults since for some combos its easier to enter vaults first then crypts, the excuse for the lock is to prevent branch exp farming since v:1-v4 is not really that hard unless you find a strong unique or unique room. With a reverse rune lock on vault it becomes a interesting decision for the player to make. Keep in mind that you can get the golden rune or the abyss rune inside vaults as well.

Of course the player will be warned before entering Vaults.

[dynast]

Go ahead and put the same mechanism on the lair runes.

Pushed to branch lobster-trap.

Well, that backfired horribly. But lets see how it plays out.

[dpeg]

If you put rune locks on every rune branch, reversed or not, you remove a lot of the reasons for having a branching game structure at all.

I see where you are coming from: branches are a way to make the game non-linear. Rune locks (of whatever kind) make the game more linear.

However, I disagree with the "a lot" in your sentence -- this is, of course, where things get subjective. Having runes (even with locks) still allows you to choose branches, and the order. This should be a non-trivial decision.

From a more distant point of view: A tree-like game structure (like Crawl's) can also be used in other ways. For example, there could be a choice between A and B, but taking one forfeits the other (seen in the shmup Darius Gaiden, which certainly was intended to increase the replayability of that game). Or entering A first could make B much harder (something I toyed with for Lair branches, to no effect).

[archaeo]

Heh, I'm pretty sure one of the reasons I started posting on Tavern was to complain about rune lock. The more things change, etc., right?

Having runes (even with locks) still allows you to choose branches, and the order. This should be a non-trivial decision.

Except that rune locks make certain decisions trivial. Consider the fact that with a Lair lock, the entire post-Temple, pre-Vaults game becomes an enforced battle of attrition; at any given point, optimal play would call for significantly more movement between branches, players would be more likely to do branch:3 and branch:3 before grabbing a rune (something the Vaults rune lock was intended to discourage!), etc.

From a more distant point of view: A tree-like game structure (like Crawl's) can also be used in other ways. For example, there could be a choice between A and B, but taking one forfeits the other (seen in the shmup Darius Gaiden, which certainly was intended to increase the replayability of that game). Or entering A first could make B much harder (something I toyed with for Lair branches, to no effect).

Sure. But I find Crawl's "tree-like game structure" one of its best features; I like games like Super Metroid where part of learning the game is poking around an ever-expanding world, seeing places where you can't really get to yet. Rune locks cut down on that significantly, since instead of discovering those things for yourself, the game just tells you "You Must Be This Tall To Ride."

Of course, I feel like I made this argument the last time around, and rune lock's still in the game...

[njvack]

The big difference is that in a Metroidvania, you really *can't* get to those places yet; they're tantalizing you but you just don't have the key to the gates.

Here, you *can* explore all over the place, it's just that some of them may get you killed. It's more of a traditional RPG structure.

I think a change where you can't do Swamp 1-4, then Spider:1-4, then Swamp:5, then Spider:5 sounds defensible. Especially now that itemdest is gone and wandering around with consumables for a branch end is OK.

[MainiacJoe]

You guys are all thinking about this as masters of Crawl who have become bored with it.

Please don't do this to noobs. The rune lock on Vaults signals that it's a dangerous area, and that's good information for noobs to have. But at least you can't innocently enter it and then not get out, like the proposed Lair lock would do! That is a noob trap.

A Lair lock would also require a player to decide before entering Lair whether their character is ready for it or ought to do some Orc first. Noobs are not equipped to make that evaluation, both because of unfamiliarity with Lair and because of inexperience with judging their character's strengths and weaknesses.

[Wahaha]

^There would obviously be a warning before entering. The locks would be on Lair branches, not on Lair.

The lock could be on floor 2 or 3 of the branch to make it less severe. I am indifferent about these locks btw.

[jejorda2]

I think better than the "can't leave without a rune" would be "you can enter, and you can leave, but you can't re-enter before gaining a rune from here or somewhere else." So it's like a portal vault, but once you get a rune, you can re-open the portal.

So you can flee Snake because you found Nikola, but you have to get the rune from Shoals or Slime or Abyss (or somewhere) before you can take a potion of resistance back and defeat Nikola.

The scheme is complicated to explain and maybe complicated to implement. But I like that it makes the decision to enter a branch matter for a while.

[dpeg]

Heh, I'm pretty sure one of the reasons I started posting on Tavern was to complain about rune lock. The more things change, etc., right?

Perhaps you're allergic to locks in general?

Having runes (even with locks) still allows you to choose branches, and the order. This should be a non-trivial decision.

Except that rune locks make certain decisions trivial. Consider the fact that with a Lair lock, the entire post-Temple, pre-Vaults game becomes an enforced battle of attrition; at any given point, optimal play would call for significantly more movement between branches, players would be more likely to do branch:3 and branch:3 before grabbing a rune (something the Vaults rune lock was intended to discourage!), etc.

*Any* significant changes affects decision-making like this: some aspect becomes less relevant (or even trivial), hopefully something else is stressed instead. (Really, all of them: weight removal, branch roulette, new monsters etc., it is always two-sided.)

You have stressed what you perceive as drawbacks of the current Vault rune lock and of a hypothetical Lair lock. I am not a very good player, but for me, the Vault lock has helped a bit, in that early Vault is now taken out of the "where can I commute to build up strength before one of the (noticeably harder) branch ends"? Because I am not really good as a player, I may very well miss some drawbacks. (On meta-reason for me to argue in favour of the rune lock was that it might encourage more out-of-the-box thinking about the game's structure. Which happens right here.) Remember, one of the goals of forcing players to do some places earlier than otherwise necessary is to have more interesting tactical situations, i.e. leading to more god/consumables use. I think the current lock is too lenient for that, but one can hope...


I am not sold on the Lair lock idea -- if had to suggest something in this vain, my reasoning would be this: currently, there are two Lair subbranches (we ignore Slime). Inevitably, doing one (inclusing the branch end) makes the other one easier. That's an inevitable drawback of having branches in the first place. However, branches have the advantage of having to choose/adapt to different kinds of threats, so it's interesting to have. Therefore, I might try to consolidate the situtation by keeping Lair subbranches, runes and roulette, but entering one and coming back without the rune removes all items (bar the rune) from the other. [Storyline: if you storm Swamp, say, in one go, the denizens never had time to warn their brethren. If you start commuting, they do, and locals in the other S-branch will clean up their branch completely.] That's a mixed carrot and stick approach, and I am not saying it is really good. But thinking about these things is useful, in my opinion.

[archaeo]

The big difference is that in a Metroidvania, you really *can't* get to those places yet; they're tantalizing you but you just don't have the key to the gates.

Here, you *can* explore all over the place, it's just that some of them may get you killed. It's more of a traditional RPG structure.

Well, that's exactly what has kept Super Metroid relevant for so long: you often can get there, often without really "breaking" the game all that significantly. The "any%" route for Super Metroid only does glitches for speed, not really for sequence breaking. (v. late edit: I forgot about mockball, which does let you get super missiles early, mea culpa)

The "RPG structure" is really the same kind of deal, if we want to reduce things to clear design motifs. You have a semi-linear path dictated by increasing monster statistics, and part of the fun is discovering a) where you don't belong yet, because the numbers are too high, or b) ways to circumvent that stat curve and get where you're not supposed to go. This kind of illusion of exploration is important to me as a gamer, and it's part of what drew me to Crawl originally.

Remember, one of the goals of forcing players to do some places earlier than otherwise necessary is to have more interesting tactical situations, i.e. leading to more god/consumables use. I think the current lock is too lenient for that, but one can hope...

But "*Any* significant changes affects decision-making" implies that there are numerous ways to affect how players make decisions, and I don't think forcing players with gates is the best possible way to shape their decision making. It creates a small benefit (the game is marginally more difficult/"tactically interesting") for a relatively high price (it removes a significant part of the "exploration potential" I'm talking about above), as I see it. To put that another way, adding more locks ends up prioritizing tactical gameplay over strategic gameplay. But, as you note, the tactical gains are pretty modest, and I don't think a new lock would really solve that leniency.

Personally, I don't think we need to venture too far outside the box to create better tactical situations. I think if you slowly cut levels over time, you'll dial the XP/loot down enough to maintain tactical interest for a lengthier part of the game. That'd be my preferred solution; instead of trying to gate content to try and get players to face challenges with less resources, just give them fewer consumables to begin with by giving them less territory to cover.

But hey, I've more than said my piece on this, and I have been wrong about game design before, so I'll let other people weigh in instead.

[mopl]

Go ahead and put the same mechanism on the lair runes.

Pushed to branch lobster-trap.

Well, that backfired horribly. But lets see how it plays out.

Just to be sure, that's experimental, no ?

[archaeo]

Just to be sure, that's experimental, no ?

For now!

[all before]

I'm not convinced that branches succeed in making the game non-linear. The fact that there is a consensus about what (almost always) is the correct branch order suggests that this isn't the case.

[njvack]

If there's a way we can get "Dungeon Crawl: Stone Soup" renamed to "Dungeon Crawl: Lobster Trap" I'm all for it.

[njvack]

The "RPG structure" is really the same kind of deal, if we want to reduce things to clear design motifs. You have a semi-linear path dictated by increasing monster statistics, and part of the fun is discovering a) where you don't belong yet, because the numbers are too high, or b) ways to circumvent that stat curve and get where you're not supposed to go.

That first time you start poking around in Slime is actually pretty great. And then learning that there's a Jiyva altar there, and that if you get to it before getting murdered, you're all good... yeah, worthwhile.

[ontoclasm]

The problem with giving players the freedom to explore/choose their path/whatever we want to call it is that most players aren't wandering starry-eyed through Crawl, entering branches with a mixture of hope and fear about what new wonders this strange "Swamp" place might contain. They've either played before, or read spoilers, or at least gotten an inkling of what's up ahead based on descriptions/hearsay/whatever. Yes, new players dedicated to playing unspoiled exist, and it's worthwhile to think of them, but they're a tiny minority.

So in the vast majority of cases that so-called freedom is really just one more thing to painstakingly optimize. You don't discover or explore anything, you just look at your options and pick the easiest one for your character, every time, no matter what. And the more options, the less likely you'll ever be forced to do anything actually challenging. Part of the reason the mid/late game is considered easier than the early game is that once you hit Lair the game "opens up," which in practical terms means you have 8 floors of Lair, 4 floors of Orc, 6ish floors of D, and 6 floors of Lair branches to breeze through before you have to make any sort of real progress. That's 24 floors of cruise control, compared to the 8ish floors of early-game. The monsters don't get a whole lot stronger along the way, you can switch between branches anytime a crisis arises, and at the end you have all your important skills at end-game levels and stacks of consumables to burn. By the time you're finally forced to get your first rune you're pretty much ready for Zot:5.

[njvack]

By the time you're finally forced to get your first rune you're pretty much ready for Zot:5.

That's kind of hyperbole, I think. But is true that Crawl has very few "you just need to jump in and deal with what you find here" situations -- portal vaults, Pan, and Abyss are the closest things I can think of. The lobster trap idea is one possible way to make that happen more.

[neil]

You guys are all thinking about this as masters of Crawl who have become bored with it.

I was thinking about it as a bad player who doesn't want to have to bounce around half the dungeon before getting my first rune in order to play optimally. If some of the rune branch ends need to be nerfed slightly to make the difficulty reasonable, I'm okay with that.

(I have won the game, several years ago, which I guess puts me ahead of the average player; but every time that happens, someone goes and nerfs something to make sure that it doesn't happen again: Twisted Resurrection, Evaporate, Elyvilon pacification, fixing meleebug. I make it to Lair in about 4% of games, and get a rune in 0.3% of games, so I cannot possibly be confused for a master of Crawl.)

[archaeo]

You don't discover or explore anything, you just look at your options and pick the easiest one for your character, every time, no matter what.

But I don't think that's true, ontoclasm, or at least it isn't ideally true. In my average game, I test to see how much further I can get in Dungeon before committing to Lair, and I switch branches when I discover some terrifying unique, or I decide to do a branch early because of cool drops. Because Crawl's levels are procedurally generated, there's always some sense of exploration, and while rune locks don't remove that entirely, it certainly curtails it.

That's 24 floors of cruise control, compared to the 8ish floors of early-game.

Which is why I tend to suggest cutting more levels, which will make the game trickier/"more tactical" no matter what order you decide to tackle it in.

Of course, as neil points out, the goal isn't to make the game trickier, but to reduce the stuff I extol as "exploration" for being annoying "bouncing around the dungeon." That's ok, tastes differ, etc. As I said above, though, I think a Lair lock would end up just encouraging more bouncing around.

[duvessa]

the problem with rune lock is that if it's accomplishing its intended purpose and forcing people to do a rune level even though there are easier levels, then there are still easier levels, they'll just be done after the rune level instead of before it, which makes them even easier and more trivial
if it isn't forcing people to do a rune level even though there are easier levels, then it isn't doing anything and might as well not exist

which of these two possibilities is true doesn't really matter, because either one indicates that it's a bad feature!

[tabstorm]

I wish rune lock could just be removed. At least going right to vaults can be an amusing challenge for those of us who think the game is too easy. As it stands, between the two lair branches, Orc, Elf, and D, you can probably get to XL20 or so without even entering a rune branch end, maybe higher on high XP apt races (or a bit lower on Demigod). I understand there is a desire to make the branch ends "special" but I do not think it works that well if people are actually willing to put off the rune branch ends as long as possible. I don't think the rune branch ends are significantly less "special" at XL25 or whatever than 21.

[jejorda2]

The problem with enemy elemental resistance is that if it forces you to use a weak irresistible spell even though you have a stronger resistible spell, then there are still stronger resistible spells, they'll just be used on the non-resistant enemies, which will be relatively weaker because XP was gained killing the resistant enemies. If elemental spells aren't stronger than irresistible spells, then they might as well not exist.

Either way, enemy elemental resistance is a bad feature.


Seriously, I think it's fun to develop a character and see whether that development works with what the dungeon throws at you. If you can run away, then you don't really ever find out what makes that build die, so you might as well not have played the game. But I recognize some weirdos actually try to win instead of exploring the possible roles to see where they get weak and die.

[njvack]

the problem with rune lock is that if it's accomplishing its intended purpose and forcing people to do a rune level even though there are easier levels, then there are still easier levels, they'll just be done after the rune level instead of before it, which makes them even easier and more trivial

I don't know that this is necessarily bad, as long as it doesn't make you play through very many trivial levels. There's a certain joy to doing a hard part of the game, and then going back and slicing through previously-difficult areas and feeling how far you've come up the difficulty curve.

You don't want a ton of it, but a bit can be fun.

[Siegurt]

Hm, how about a 'rune exclusive' lock, once you've entered any branch which has a rune in it, you can't enter any other branch with a rune until youv'e gotten that rune (With Abyss, Pan and Hell not participating)

[dpeg]

the problem with rune lock is that if it's accomplishing its intended purpose and forcing people to do a rune level even though there are easier levels, then there are still easier levels, they'll just be done after the rune level instead of before it, which makes them even easier and more trivial
if it isn't forcing people to do a rune level even though there are easier levels, then it isn't doing anything and might as well not exist

which of these two possibilities is true doesn't really matter, because either one indicates that it's a bad feature!

This dichotomy is oversimplifying matters: yes, the other, locked out, levels are easier afterwards, that is obviously true. What is missing:

• I believe [0] that branch ends are responsible for many non-early deaths. If so, sending players there earlier than they'd do otherwise might lead to deaths, which is an option not listed above, and certainly desirable.
• Even if the above assessment about status quo was correct, it suffers from a very static assessment of Crawl. The game undergoes changes, and the rune lock should be seen as a test balloon, to be followed by further steps, or by something else, or possibly to be retracted. But ontoclasm's description of the underlying problem is spot on [1], and I think more should be done to address it, rather than claim no action is better than any first step.
• In particular, "might as well not exist" completely misses that the simple, (in your words) completely non-functional Vaults rune lock could trigger more mechanics, that change Crawl drastically, and are functional (even for you). [2]

[0] That's my experience, at least. I lack the sequellential skills to check this.
[1] This is subjective. By saying this, I imply that Crawl's focus is on interesting tactical combat, and all else is (perhaps interesting but) secondary.
[2] An example from Crawl development: while some players argue that Labyrinths don't add anything to the game (or rather are a negative asset), they were the blueprint for all further portal vaults. If Labyrinths didn't exist back then ("they might well not exist"), the other portal vaults would probably never have been suggested.


Just because there is some space left, here are ideas I've seen how to add up on rune locking (list is not cumulative):

• Lobster lock: treat a branch like a portal vault, i.e. only one attempt (can only get with rune).
• The same could be applied to a single level (a branch end).
• Entering one S-branch and leaving it without the rune removes all items (but the rune) from the other S-branch.
• Can only enter second S-branch with a rune, and that branch is then much harder than the first S-branch entered. (This requires maintaining two monster sets for each of the S-branches.)
• Exclusive runes (Siegurt): entering a branch with a rune prevents entering any other rune-branch until the rune is obtained.

It is alright if you disagree with our position. Then the problem we perceive (i.e. what ontoclasm wrote) isn't yours. However, we think it should be addressed, and for this, actual ideas are certainly better than "give us back old game without rune lock". That sentiment just says that you don't care about the problem, or don't think it exists. It doesn't help designing the game.

To be clear, if making a game from scratch, I'd probably do it with a linear game plan, or come up with clear-cut discrete choices. There's a reason that games like FTL or Curious Expedition do that. Given that Crawl has branches and they're good for something, we cling to them. That means we have to admit the fact that players can wring the game... but the ruleset is not fixed.

[dpeg]

That's 24 floors of cruise control, compared to the 8ish floors of early-game.

Which is why I tend to suggest cutting more levels, which will make the game trickier/"more tactical" no matter what order you decide to tackle it in.

The concepts are not mutually exclusive. We started shrinking the branches a long time ago, and I believe that most of us think there's still something more that can be cut.

[Sprucery]

How about having rewards instead of locks? If you get the rune from the rune branch without leaving it, you get a reward. If you get a rune before entering Vaults, you get a reward.

[Utis]

I like to try out different build strategies rather than to stick with one that I know to work. The branches can have a very different level of danger for different characters. So, I sometimes go into a branch, notice through experience that my char is not ready yet. Then I have to figure out what is the least dangerous route. All the suggestions here would remove that decision and make me build my chars much more conservatively.

Another case is when I encounter a threatening unique, such as Aizul or Mennas when my character is not ready for them. With the current structure I say "Uh, I just go play somewhere else then." Which leads me to a re-evaluation of my situation in terms of the paragraph above. Being forced to stay means I have to deal with multiple retreats and escapes while exploring the level. That's fine and cool for D until Lair, but it gets really old after that.

Is "XP-farming" really a thing? I always found that when I can cope with lvls 1-3 of a Lair branch, I can also deal with 4 with just a little bit more care. Going to clear the first three levels of another branch does nothing for me except provide more opportunities to become inattentive and really screw up. So, I do one Lair branch, then the rest of D, V and U until I'm ready to enter Zot. I then get the "third rune" (my second) and then just dive for the other Lair rune -- which is usually fast in real-time and hastle free at this point. So, with the exception of things like I described above, I very strongly feel that the situation is already the one that a reverse rune lock (or something to that effect) purports to achieve.

EDIT: (Removed anecdote not contributing anything substantial).
EDIT2: For some reasons I overlooked ontoclasm's post. Yeah, that sounds bad, but ... really? Maybe I'm completely deluded, but I have a hard time believing that jumping between, say, Spider and Shoals is optimal play. But, well, I suppose I better shut up now.

[Magipi]

By the time you're finally forced to get your first rune you're pretty much ready for Zot:5.

The number of thanks for this message just strengthens my impression that the best players play an entirely different game. In my world, claiming that a lvl 15-17 character is ready for Zot:5 is just absurd.

[njvack]

Entering one S-branch and leaving it without the rune removes all items (but the rune) from the other S-branch.

It'd be pretty funny if entering Spider took away all the polearms and javelins in Shoals

[Bart]

I do not think that lobster-trap is a good idea. It has a chance to increase the number of tactically interesting situations, true. It will also increase the number of painful, unavoidable deaths caused by sloppy difficulty curve, which is not good anymore. In a game full of randomness we need three staircases to avoid challenges we're not ready for yet. The same is true for branches, which are not always finishable when entered for the first time. Unavoidable deaths are fine in early game, but they are hardly acceptable after investment of several hours in a character.

If you keep the lobster-trap, you will kill a lot of unprepared/unlucky characters for no obvious benefit. If you remove the loot as a punishment for altering between branches, you will remove the reason for such altering (by making better preparing for a challenge impossible) and indirectly kill characters - again without obvious benefit.

If there's a need to make branch entries more interesting, I believe there's a more severe, yet more interesting solution. Rune branches shall work like pan runes - if you leave a branch before getting its rune, you lose it forever. A player could choose to leave a branch if he found it too difficult at the price of having to get the rune elsewhere. This solution has much better chance of forcing the player to visit unusual/challenging places, because none of non-lair runes shall be considered trivial even for ~24lvl character.

[dpeg]

How about having rewards instead of locks? If you get the rune from the rune branch without leaving it, you get a reward. If you get a rune before entering Vaults, you get a reward.

Sure! PleasingFungus also liked the carrot better than the stick. Do you have an idea for a reward? (Note that my proposal of removing items has both carrot and stick in it.)

Entering one S-branch and leaving it without the rune removes all items (but the rune) from the other S-branch.

It'd be pretty funny if entering Spider took away all the polearms and javelins in Shoals

"Funny" in which sense? It might be unrealistic, but it would present an actual choice, right? (I tried to argue that it doesn't have to be unrealistic, but that's really an important concern. Whatever rules we have, though, they should be simple -- that is important.)

I like to try out different build strategies rather than to stick with one that I know to work. The branches can have a very different level of danger for different characters. So, I sometimes go into a branch, notice through experience that my char is not ready yet. Then I have to figure out what is the least dangerous route. All the suggestions here would remove that decision and make me build my chars much more conservatively.

Please read what ontoclasm wrote above. You are defending the exploration aspect, but what you call "remove decisions" does create new decisions instead. It's not clear, and a personal matter, which decisions anyone likes better.

Another case is when I encounter a threatening unique, such as Aizul or Mennas when my character is not ready for them. With the current structure I say "Uh, I just go play somewhere else then."

Situations like these are *exactly* what I want. So you aren't fully prepared? Deal with it! This is a good opportunity to make mistakes (tactical, under/overuse of consumables or god powers, wrong threat assessment), so this is how game depth is increased.

I'll point to Brogue (for lack of having played Rogue) as a completely linear game; there are no branches at all, just one dungeon. The inability to branch away from threats creates a lot of tension and excitement. Granted, Brogue is shorter than Crawl, but it is not *that* short. What I am trying to say is: being forced to tackle content when it is harmful is a good feature, not a bad one. Crawl could do a lot more in that direction.

[Utis]

Please read what ontoclasm wrote above. You are defending the exploration aspect, but what you call "remove decisions" does create new decisions instead. It's not clear, and a personal matter, which decisions anyone likes better.

Well, I actually have an easier time understanding the reasoning in this than in ontoclasm's post. (I'm still not convinced that hopping branches without compelling need is a good strategy.) Yes, it's an exploration aspect that draws me to the game, though exploration of strategies, mechanics and how to utilize them. Winning for the sake of winning alone lost it's appeal to me after the first or maybe the second time. Agreed, that's a personal matter. So, I guess, all I'm saying is that there's more to the exploration aspect than wandering unspoiled and starry-eyed through the game world, wondering what's coming next.

Situations like these are *exactly* what I want. So you aren't fully prepared? Deal with it! This is a good opportunity to make mistakes (tactical, under/overuse of consumables or god powers, wrong threat assessment), so this is how game depth is increased.

Again, I can understand the reasoning in this. And if it does lead to a tangible increase in tactical depth, I even agree that it is worth the cost. So, I guess, all I'm saying in the end is that there is a cost with regard to other aspects of the game. I often feel that the more sensible contributions on the the development of crawl all focus on the tactical aspect alone. I'm personally a little ambivalent about that. On the one hand what draws me, personally, to the game wouldn't even exist without a strong tactical aspect. On the other hand I feel that the discourse often needlessly disregards other aspects that make crawl attractive, even where a balanced solution or a good compromise might be feasible. (I don't see any such thing with regard to branches, but that's not the point. I'm speaking in general terms here.)

[njvack]

It'd be pretty funny if entering Spider took away all the polearms and javelins in Shoals

"Funny" in which sense?

"Funny" in the sense that Shoals would be rather a lot easier if all the merfolk had their gear taken away.

[Siegurt]

It'd be pretty funny if entering Spider took away all the polearms and javelins in Shoals

"Funny" in which sense?

"Funny" in the sense that Shoals would be rather a lot easier if all the merfolk had their gear taken away.

What if whichever lair branch you entered second was all durably summoned shadow critters (gear and all) then you can't xp farm. (Of course I don't know how popular that is, I haven't backtracked from a lair rune branch in years myself, and typically if I do backtrack on the vaults before v5 it is to do crypt first)

[all before]

Think about the inventory problems caused by lobster trap and variants. Any situation where you're not allowed to backtrack encourages you to carry anything you might need with you. So before entering the branch I want to drop all strategic items, and go through several searches seeing if there's anything on the dungeon floor I might want in the next 5 floors.

I'll repeat the arguments I made a while back: The inherent problem lies in asking players to complete multiple branches of the same difficulty. You could up the difficulty in the second branch entered, but at that point you're really just inventing a different branch. The difficulty balance and design of the S-branches is already screwy, doubling their number is likely to exacerbate these problems. Here are potential solutions: 1) Generate only 1 S-branch per game, 2) Only require players to complete one S-branch per game, 3) Drop the pretense of making the S-branches equal in difficulty, and design two of them to be harder and completed after the first two. Rune locks really aren't the problem.

[archaeo]

I'll point to Brogue (for lack of having played Rogue) as a completely linear game; there are no branches at all, just one dungeon. The inability to branch away from threats creates a lot of tension and excitement. Granted, Brogue is shorter than Crawl, but it is not *that* short.

I'd argue that the reason Brogue works well as a linear game is precisely because it's a shorter game. Crawl's length necessitates a little downtime, imo; one of the advantages of having branching content that "opens up" after you hit Lair is that the actually difficult slog of D:1 to Lair:1 recedes a bit. You've spent a dozen hard levels establishing your character, and now the game lets you spend time actually getting acquainted with that character. That works for me, from a pacing and game feel perspective, though the "downtime" goes on a bit too long.

[Baldu3]

Just wanna add a data point that in my latest game I was playing a demigod and managed to get to level 19 before snagging my first rune. I then needed fewer turns to get 10 runes then to get my first rune.

[MainiacJoe]

You guys are all thinking about this as masters of Crawl who have become bored with it.

I was thinking about it as a bad player who doesn't want to have to bounce around half the dungeon before getting my first rune in order to play optimally. If some of the rune branch ends need to be nerfed slightly to make the difficulty reasonable, I'm okay with that.

(I have won the game, several years ago, which I guess puts me ahead of the average player; but every time that happens, someone goes and nerfs something to make sure that it doesn't happen again: Twisted Resurrection, Evaporate, Elyvilon pacification, fixing meleebug. I make it to Lair in about 4% of games, and get a rune in 0.3% of games, so I cannot possibly be confused for a master of Crawl.)

My apologies, I inferred from your orange username (which I interpreted as signifying that you are a developer) that you are an expert player. And if you are indeed a dev, then I think it's a good thing that there is a variety of skill levels in those ranks.

[MainiacJoe]

Please don't do this to noobs.

Having seen how this thread is developing, I begin to see why some people are in favor of this change. I have certainly myself taken advantage of the opening of choices once Lair is reached to bail from threatening situations and attempt less dangerous ones. I can appreciate that more linearity forces people into dangerous situations, which is good because it seems that more deaths in the midgame are desirable. Here is why I still think that increased linearization is bad for noobs, even as I recognize that earlier I was objecting to a mechanism that wasn't exactly what others were suggesting.

1. Noobs die lots in the mid-game notwithstanding all the options available, because of sheer ignorance of the nature of these areas. Dangerous situations that more experienced players recognize in time to escape from are deadly learning experiences for the uninformed. So the idea that linearizing the mid-game will increase deaths applies IMO only to expert players.
2. The opening up of options after the early game is exhilarating for players encountering it for the first time. The endless sequence of deaths prior is now seen as merely a prelude to "the real game." It is a joy to discover all that the game has to offer, even as it kills you again and again in novel ways you never dreamed possible before. So IMO the variety is itself a reward for players encountering it for the first several times.
3. For noob and expert alike, just getting to Lair is an accomplishment. I get the impression, however, that expert players tend to see the attrition of the early dungeon as a form of extended start scumming, whereas for noobs reaching a branch stairs is an achievement to take genuine pride in. IMO scripting the entire game through to the decision point of "3 runes or extended?" lessens for new players a tangible benchmark of their increasing skill in the game, since the linearized game wouldn't feel any different at various parts of the game.

[dpeg]

Thank Trog that the internet never forgets. Here's an ancient usenet posting by Erik (one of the DCSS founders), and it describes the problem from a purely player point of view, i.e. how to exploit it