Background attributes


Although the central place for design discussion is ##crawl-dev on freenode, some may find it helpful to discuss requests and suggestions here first.

Ziggurat Zagger

Posts: 8786

Joined: Sunday, 5th May 2013, 08:25

Post Sunday, 14th May 2017, 01:43

Re: Background attributes

yesno wrote:Seriously tbh when I see a dev thank some random idea in GDD i wonder "does this mean this dev will propose this change to the dev team and support it?" I probably wouldn't have put any effort into replying if dpeg hadn't thanked OP...
Well here's a time-saver for you then: the answer to that question is no, it does not mean that, ever

Spider Stomper

Posts: 242

Joined: Friday, 17th April 2015, 16:22

Post Sunday, 14th May 2017, 01:46

Re: Background attributes

yesno wrote:So now suppose skald and wizard are both 4/4/4... What improved about the game?


A book-starved Wizard can transition into being a battlemage or even full-on warrior without having to worry about poor Str limiting their armor options, which is the main thing holding them back from that path normally.

For this message the author Doesnt has received thanks:
Gigaslurp

Ziggurat Zagger

Posts: 4432

Joined: Friday, 8th May 2015, 17:51

Post Sunday, 14th May 2017, 05:23

Re: Background attributes

yesno wrote:One of the main reasons I think Wz isn't a hybrid is that it gets so much Int...


Good thing we have bad Int species and high Str species so for example, HOWz and GhWz are hybrids.
Even HuWz should be played like a hybrid IMHO. If anything, Wz is one of the least "mage-like" book backgrounds because it does not specialize in any magic to go pure caster way.
Underestimated: cleaving, Deep Elf, Formicid, Vehumet, EV
Overestimated: AC, GDS
Twin account of Sandman25
User avatar

Zot Zealot

Posts: 982

Joined: Monday, 29th September 2014, 09:04

Post Sunday, 14th May 2017, 06:55

Re: Background attributes

I'd be interested in trying this in the 0.21 trunk for a few months to see how it plays

Blades Runner

Posts: 548

Joined: Monday, 23rd March 2015, 05:29

Post Sunday, 14th May 2017, 12:22

Re: Background attributes

i just had a terrible thought, is it possible that i am arguing for the sake of arguing about video games?????????????????? bbl gotta figure some stuff out in my life

For this message the author yesno has received thanks: 3
archaeo, Rast, watertreatmentRL
User avatar

Barkeep

Posts: 1788

Joined: Saturday, 29th June 2013, 16:52

Post Monday, 15th May 2017, 21:13

Re: Background attributes

yesno wrote:Seriously tbh when I see a dev thank some random idea in GDD i wonder "does this mean this dev will propose this change to the dev team and support it?"

This is a good reminder to edit the GDD rules to that end (i.e. nope, that's not what those thanks mean), thanks yesno.

I agree with chequers, but I agree more with the OP's more radical proposal mentioned at the end of the post: removing attributes altogether. It's a redundant system of species differentiation and character growth, and it's by far the most opaque of these despite the fact that Str/Dex/Int are pretty standard fantasy stats. I also agree with the OP's assumption that it wont happen, though.

Abyss Ambulator

Posts: 1217

Joined: Sunday, 14th April 2013, 04:01

Post Monday, 15th May 2017, 21:39

Re: Background attributes

Suggestion:

1. Do this change

2. Instead of adding 4/4/4 across the board to species, add 8 points total distributed. I.e., Ogre might get 4/4/0, Troll might get 5/0/3.

3. Make player choice state gains every two levels instead of 3, so instead of 9 increases total you get 13. This makes up for doing 8 total points instead of 12 total points in the above step

This way the stat distribution away from background and towards player choice.
Three wins: Gargoyle Earth Elementalist of Ash, Ogre Fighter of Ru, Deep Dwarf Fighter of Makhleb (0.16 bugbuild :( )

For this message the author TeshiAlair has received thanks: 2
chequers, tankra

Halls Hopper

Posts: 70

Joined: Monday, 21st September 2015, 03:35

Post Tuesday, 16th May 2017, 07:39

Re: Background attributes

As far as I can tell, the effect of this proposal would be to encourage a more generalist playstyle and discourage specialization for all characters.

More 'hardcore' players--those who go for things like streaks, speedruns, or wins with all possible species/background/god combinations--seem to favor generalism because it allows them to react more optimally to unforeseeable situations and drops and thus increase their winrate. Those advocating stricter adherence to acknowledged principles of game design and mechanics also seem to prefer generalization.

In duvessa's words, this leads to "richer" gameplay. I don't believe this to be the case. Gameplay will be richer in the sense of adding more character development options in the mid to late game, but I believe, as others have observed, that it will also tend to make all characters more similar. As long as we keep the current set of attributes and their connection to gameplay, it will be difficult to become a powerful caster, for example, without a complementary set of intelligence-enhancing gear. We will have fewer options in terms of the characters we want to create for the sake of potentially more options in the type of characters we become.

If crawl's target audience is the players who already think the game is too easy, this proposal is in line with the demands of that audience. If one of crawl's goals is to discourage players from having certain builds in mind when they create a character, then this proposal is in line with those goals. I don't like it, just like I don't like the recent Ogre changes, because I have a specific type of character and playstyle in mind when I create, for example, a Vampire Enchanter, a Demigod Wizard, a Formicid Fighter, or a Human Wanderer. You can call that 'roleplaying' if you want to regard it as somehow less pure than play based on Objective Mechanics, but for me it is an essential part of the game.

Currently, character creation is a time to consider playstyle throughout the game. There are combinations that are better for generalization, and combinations that are better for specialization. Both approaches are accommodated. If this proposal or something like it were implemented, the choice for specialization would be less of a real choice because it would be punished by the mechanics of the game. From the beginning, my choices are limited, and choices that I used to enjoy are no longer available to me. For me personally, that doesn't result in a richer experience.

For this message the author monkeytor has received thanks: 3
bananaglory, GravitySqueeze, Malevolent

Tomb Titivator

Posts: 900

Joined: Sunday, 30th December 2012, 05:26

Post Tuesday, 16th May 2017, 15:55

Re: Background attributes

"Not specifically supported or encouraged" is not the same as "punished".
Previous

Return to Game Design Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 27 guests

Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group.
Designed by ST Software for PTF.