Tuesday, 16th May 2017, 07:39 by monkeytor
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