Don't generate randarts that could be normal items

[ludamad]

Hey all. After finding a +0 Robe with some special name or other, but with the only attribute being +rC, I was a bit annoyed that I *could* make it a useful item, if not for being unable to enchant it.

Just wondering what everyone thinks of a filter that, if a randart would be generated that could easily be a normal branded item, either reroll the generation, or just make it generate as a normal item.

It doesn't come up terribly often, but just my 2cents.

[seth]

well, these can still be useful, as items immune to corrosion. But I wouldn't mind if we didn't see these kinds of artifacts

[Bloax]

It's useful in the sense that it's corrosion proof, but it's useless in the sense that if such didn't generate, you might've had a pretty kickass item instead.

[nicolae]

It's useful in the sense that it's corrosion proof, but it's useless in the sense that if such didn't generate, you might've had a pretty kickass item instead.

Or you might have gotten a shitty randart instead with *Rage or -CAST or Ponderous or whatever. In the grand scheme of things, randarts that are boring are still better than randarts that will get you killed.

[One-Eyed Jack]

A lot of people see that as kind of a problem (I feel like this has been discussed before)

[zasvid]

I don't really see the problem. Most randarts are useless anyway.

The problem is that most people expect artifacts to be special, exciting finds. This is due to the fact that the word 'artifact' is usually associated with special, exciting items in other games and media, so that's the connotation that will spring to mind for many players (except those that are archeologists, I guess). Then they will identify the artifact they found and it turns out to be a entirely unremarkable magical item, like the one in the OP. This will disappoint those players. That's bad, because being disappointing is not a good trait for a game like DCSS. It would be okay as a design goal for some artistic game that wanted to get across a message about getting your hopes up and the reality crushing them like fragile eggs. That doesn't really work for Crawl, though.

[XuaXua]

CRAZY WIZARD: OH HEY, I'M GONNA SACRIFICE PERMANANT HEALTH AND MAGIC AND ATTRIBUTES TO CREATE AN ARTIFACT OF -7 Splint Mail with +Rage! BECAUSE I'M AN ASSHOLE!

[nicolae]

It would be okay as a design goal for some artistic game that wanted to get across a message about getting your hopes up and the reality crushing them like fragile eggs. That doesn't really work for Crawl, though.

Crawl isn't a game about getting your hopes up and then crushing them like eggs? Are you sure you're playing the same game as everyone else?

[Tenaya]

I don't really see the problem. Most randarts are useless anyway.

The problem is that most people expect artifacts to be special, exciting finds. This is due to the fact that the word 'artifact' is usually associated with special, exciting items in other games and media, so that's the connotation that will spring to mind for many players (except those that are archeologists, I guess). Then they will identify the artifact they found and it turns out to be a entirely unremarkable magical item, like the one in the OP. This will disappoint those players. That's bad, because being disappointing is not a good trait for a game like DCSS. It would be okay as a design goal for some artistic game that wanted to get across a message about getting your hopes up and the reality crushing them like fragile eggs. That doesn't really work for Crawl, though.

So, the message is that one should not expect artifacts to always be useful. Furthermore, using consumables (such as scrolls of identify) on randart weapons, or taking risks to retrieve items from vaults, might not be an obvious choice.

[dd]

ar·ti·fact
   [ahr-tuh-fakt]
noun
1.
any object made by human beings, especially with a view to subsequent use.
2.
a handmade object, as a tool, or the remains of one, as a shard of pottery, characteristic of an earlier time or cultural stage, especially such an object found at an archaeological excavation.
3.
any mass-produced, usually inexpensive object reflecting contemporary society or popular culture: artifacts of the pop rock generation.
4.
a substance or structure not naturally present in the matter being observed but formed by artificial means, as during preparation of a microscope slide.
5.
a spurious observation or result arising from preparatory or investigative procedures.

[JeffQyzt]

The RPG use comes from sense 2, in that D&D used the term to describe things made by a "lost civilization" or otherwise unknown "higher power" provenance (i.e. you can't make one of these MacGuffins of your own, Munchkin!) The whole "fantabulous" connotation is purely RPG secondary association, since they all have D&D in the back of their various creators' minds. However, since this *is* an RPG, it's relevant...

Rather than change what DCSS artefacts are, Is there another term that you'd like to substitute, that describes it immutability without implying suitability for purpose?

[dd]

Crawl artifacts can stay as artifacts IMO. Just because something means something in D&D, doesn't mean it has to have the same meaning in Crawl.

[zasvid]

It would be okay as a design goal for some artistic game that wanted to get across a message about getting your hopes up and the reality crushing them like fragile eggs. That doesn't really work for Crawl, though.

Crawl isn't a game about getting your hopes up and then crushing them like eggs? Are you sure you're playing the same game as everyone else?

Well, the way I see it, once past early game it's not Crawl that does the crushing, you crush your hopes yourself through bad play - and for the early game, I gave up any hope long ago.

So, the message is that one should not expect artifacts to always be useful. Furthermore, using consumables (such as scrolls of identify) on randart weapons, or taking risks to retrieve items from vaults, might not be an obvious choice.

That's easily accomplished by finding a randart with *MUT* or a randart ring of slaying found by a pure spellcaster, no need to have pitiful things like the ones in the OP.

Crawl artifacts can stay as artifacts IMO. Just because something means something in D&D, doesn't mean it has to have the same meaning in Crawl.

The meaning bled over to most (if not all) uses of the word in other roguelikes & video games, board games, RPG games and traditional media with themes similar to DCSS, therefore giving a lot of people most likely to try Crawl a strong preconception about 'artifacts'. In the end, DCSS is fighting that preconceived notion and providing disappointment to some (though probably most) of its players for no good reason, which makes it a (very, very slightly) worse game than it could be.

So, anyway, I didn't write all of this because a randart robe of cold resistance is a particularly thorny issue in my side, but I've noticed that some of the vocal posters here look at DCSS as if its only value were that of an abstract puzzle to be solved - even though Crawl neither isn't just that, nor it strives to be - and inspiration struck me to explain this issue, though to what end, I'm not sure anymore. Still, it's good to think and talk about the things that make games fun, in hope of positively influencing the future of games.

[ludamad]

There's enough generally useless randarts, as was mentioned. Making them more towards the extremes of good stats, and cursed +MUT would at least be more flavourful. Maybe even have some that animate and attack you when you approach (weapons, at any rate).
A +0 robe of +rC doesn't have the flavour of an artifact at all to me. It has a randomly generated name, thats about as far as its depth of interest goes. -1,-1 uncursed and single brand randart weapons are similarly silly seeming.

[dpeg]

I believe that there's way too much dungeon rubbish in general. This concerns mundane and artifact items.

There is no point in heaps of scale mails after you've seen ten of them. I like the bold (if unrealistic) approach of just suppressing items after a while. There are issues to be considered: the generally useless scale mail is a resource under certain conditions.

As another example, I don't think there should be +2 rings of foo. Make the enchantment larger (or bias it towards bigger numbers). They will still not be used much, but it will be more interesting.

Likewise, randarts should try to be interesting (does not necessarily mean good). A simple solution would be to just not generate a randart if it fails to meet certain criteria (that way item balance would be unchanged, if that's considered relevant).

[hxy]

Sounds good.. but you might want to limit this item generation logic to stuff generated on the floor.. Orcs and other creatures still need their plain vanilla plate armour

[JeffQyzt]

If you wanted more rational randarts (and simultaneously reduce the incidence of "hey, this is exactly like a regular foo, except non-corrodable/enchantable") you'd need to make them less random. Right now, there is already a limited system of preventing certain "invalid" combinations (e.g. a holy wrath demon whip), which is a bit more extensive for acquirement and god gifted randarts, but it's all rather ad hoc.

You could instead create a system for randart property assignment, perhaps one somewhat analogous to how mutation sets are chosen.

Consider, for instance, a point based system where when generating a randart, a pool of points is assigned (perhaps the number of points could scale with depth of generation.) Properties subtract (if they are beneficial) or add (if they are detrimental) to the pool. Perhaps certain "higher tier" properties could only be "unlocked" if the "lower tier" properties are already present on the weapon; likewise, certain properties could exclude others.

For instance (not intended to be exhaustive):

Tier 1 Beneficial
rElement+
+1-3 Acc or Dam
Vorpal
+1-2 Int (excludes Antimagic)

Tier 2 Beneficial
rElement++ (unlocked with rElement+)
+4-7 Acc or Dam
Antimagic (excludes +int, +mana, etc.)

Tier 3 Beneficial (requires either very high depth or detrimental qualities to add to pool)
+Speed
+8-?? Acc or Dam

Tier 1 Detrimental
rElement- (excluded with rElement+)
-1-3 Acc or Dam
Recurse
-1-3 Stat

Tier 2 Detrimental
+MUT
Slow
-4-6 Stat

I'm not sure that the pool of abilities assignable to randarts is currently large enough to justify a more complex system like this, but could definitely be approached in this way. Personally, I think the current system with its possibility for "wacky" combinations is rather interesting though, even if it results in "boring" or "unusable" items much (most?) of the time.

[Bloax]

Honestly, they shouldn't be detrimental. And the bad effects ought to give a multiplication of how much a point is worth.

As an example: Recurse could be 0.85, so that recursing randarts would be about 18% better than ones without a detrimental effect. (Hey, you gotta blow a scroll of remove curse on switching.)
While items with MUT+, would have a multiplier of about 0.5, which would be >100%< better than ones without, because you can't have it equipped at all times, and it'd be annoying if it was just trash.

And yes, recursing MUT+ would become a multiplier of 0.425. Though that combination is arguably much worse than either of them separately, but whatever.