duvessa wrote:dpeg wrote:Crawl Light had branch-wide effects for runes picked up. I think it'd be nice to have something like that, if it's good enough.
Desiderata:
1. Rune effect affects its native branch, not more.
2. Effect is desirable (otherwise we encourage players to clear the levels but leave the rune).
I don't like this (and I actually don't like rune/lord removing hell effects either for the same reason): if you can get the rune on Snake:4, surely you can do Snake:1-3 just as easily. What does the game gain from making Snake:1-3
even easier once you get the rune? I have the same complaint about rune lock: if you make the player do the harder level before the easier level (whether by forcing them to via rune lock, or just by increasing reward enough that it outweighs the risk),
the player is still left with the easier level and it's going to be boring when they do it.
I think you just expect too much from the mechanic. Also, two different issues are conflated: the rune/sentinel effects I have in mind are minor, and wouldn't affect actual gameplay very much. They are more a non-distracting, quality-of-life ways of padding you on the back for doing the rune. PollenGolem's proposals also fit with this (Snake obviously exempted).
For example, with my Vaults rune suggestion (it allows you to use sealed doors/staircases): it'd rarely matter, occassionally it might safe your life if you get caught, but can soldier on and fetch the rune. I don't think it's a big deal.
Clarity should not be a problem: rune effects should be simple and could be listed on the new } screen.
Regarding the rune lock, my perception is different (obviously):
(a) Players can skip dangerous content for quite a while, and are actually well advised to do so. This is an innate problem with a non-linear game structure, where content generation is static (aside: it wouldn't have to be; we could make Shoals monsters harder after having entered Swamp etc.).
(b) As long as we have branches, that's a given. The idea to force players is to increase overall difficulty: yes, some generic level will be easier after a Lair branch rune. But the branch end itself will be harder. I think this way of doing it leads to more tension, more deaths and hence to more depth.
(c) The rune lock was always intended as a first step, or a guinea pig. To get people thinking about global rules for the dungeon in the first place. I think a lot more could be done. Or it could be retracted. But having completely open, parallel branches is not a given, the rules are ours. I wanted a simple test balloon to make lives a bit harder for players, and one (just one) branch end a bit more exciting.
duvessa wrote:A rune effect that only affects the rune's branch seems especially bad in this regard, since it's only going to be affecting the levels that are absolutely certainly already easier than the rune level.
Yes, but I don't have a problem with this. Again, different expectations what this is about. There's a flavour component, too, and we all know what you think of flavour.
duvessa wrote:For what it's worth, Crawl already tried doing pretty much exactly this: before -cTele was removed, picking up Hell/Tomb runes removed -cTele from their levels/branches.
This was not removed because the mechanic (rune effect) was so bad, but because cTele stopped existing.
Thursday, 19th November 2015, 22:59 
