Monster threat descriptions

[njvack]

The Magic resistance feedback thread got me thinking about how Crawl handles warning of threats in general. The way I see it, Crawl currently has (at least) three main mini-games players must succeed at to win:

1: A tactical minigame -- knowing when to fight, when to run, when to use consumables, how to use terrain and other opponents to win every encounter
2: A strategic development minigame -- deciding on religion, skill training, and weapon and armour enchantment
3: A memory minigame -- knowing what each of the 500+ monsters in Crawl can do including melee damage, ranged damage, and spell sets

(Knowing other things such as dungeon level generation helps, but is really not necessary.)

Of these three, the memory game has a couple problems:

* Unlike tactics and strategy which are roughly the same from the early game on, each time you meet a new monster you must watch for its abilities and memorize them.
* Knowledge bots exist. They enumerate monsters' threats much more completely than they teach tactics or strategy.

So, my thinking is that, for monster descriptions, it would be good design to "go Brogue" and just straight-up say what monsters can do -- in addition to the very useful info we have now. Sigmund's description might say:

  Code:

Sigmund (@)

The elder of a pair of brothers who came for the Orb. No one knows what Sigmund saw in the dungeon to drive him mad, but his shrewd magical tactics and wicked scythe now leave little time for his victims to wonder. Despite his reputation as a vicious murderer, his grandiose and dramatic ways have earned him the admiration of many denizens of the dungeon.

He looks extremely dangerous.
He is about the same speed as you.
He is wielding a scythe of unknown enchantment. An unenchanted scythe in his hands could kill you in 3 hits.
He has a stack of darts. He can throw them to kill you in 4 hits.
He can turn invisible.
He can conjure a puff of flame, which can kill you in 2 hits.
He can conjure a magic dart, which can kill you in 2 hits.
He can attempt to confuse you. His attempt is very likely to succeed.


I know this is making a bunch of hidden information visible. But:

Clarity

Things ought to work in an intuitive way. Crawl definitely is winnable without spoiler access. Concerning important but hidden details (i.e. facts subject to spoilers) our policy is this: the joy of discovering something spoily is nice, once. (And disappears before it can start if you feel you need to read spoilers - a legitimate feeling.) The joy of dealing with ever-changing, unexpected and challenging strategic and tactical situations that arise out of transparent rules, on the other hand, is nice again and again. That said, we believe that qualitative feedback is often better than precise numbers.

In concrete terms, we either spell out a gameplay mechanic explicitly (either in the manual, or by in-game feedback) or leave it to min-maxers if we feel that the naive approach is good enough.

Note that I'm also not advocating that someone does this (huge) amount of work. I'm really trying to start a discussion about the design merits and tradeoffs. So: thoughts?

[Psieye]

Definitely no to the equipment giveaways, that doesn't count under the 'memory mini-game'. I also disagree on the "could kill you in X hits" thing.

each time you meet a new monster you must watch for its abilities

I'd say this is a large part of the fun for a new player - seeing a new monster and wondering what it can do. Your issue was with the memorisation part, not the discovery part. In which case, (if we utterly ignore the huge_cost/questionable_benefit analysis for now) I'd want to have some sort of in-game monster database. "You've seen this monster do X, Y and Z in the past".

I view crawl as advocating 'learn by dying to it'. Countless dead characters before a first win is an absolute given. This is also why I would advise new players to learn the game with melee characters first: you learn the tactical 'minigame' and you have enough HP/defences to afford some ignorance of hard-hitters. My point being: after Lair, the prose text should make it clear if a never-seen-before monster does something unusually dangerous (like banish you) and if it's just "it can hit you very hard" then that's something a player ought to learn by taking that hard hit. If a player doesn't want to pay that price, they either turn to knowledge bots or Wizmode/fsim/arena to speed up the learning. I don't see a problem with a rusty veteran having to consult with the bots for a reminder of what makes a particular monster dangerous.

[Dacke]

I think that "learn by dying" is fine as long as it feels fair in some way. (You knew Psyche could banish you, but you didn't run away. YASD.) But the fact that each new enemy may be able to surprise-kill you doesn't feel very fair to me, as you don't have chance to be smart about it.

I feel that playing the game unspoiled is impossibly annoying right now, due to unfair deaths. But with just a bit more in-game information unspoiled playing could become an actual option.

[dpeg]

This question has a long history. There was a time when the monster descriptions would just give the flavour blurbs (which were often just single lines, and rarely had gameplay relevant information -- the forum task force helped a lot here).

Showing information you have seen in previous games is done in some roguelikes (*bands, I think), it is called "monster memory". We didn't want that. Measuring lethality is really hard, the current three or four tiers are perhaps acceptable but certainly not perfect. On the other hand, monsters now tell you speed, resistances and vulnerabilities. This is something you don't have to remember or look up anymore.

Regarding Brogue-style "it call kill you in two hits" -- it works very well in Brogue and it's a better game for that feature. Crawl spells etc. have a huge variance, however, so perhaps the approach has to be modified: instead of going with the worst case, take a slightly higher point for evaluation.

[njvack]

Showing information you have seen in previous games is done in some roguelikes (*bands, I think), it is called "monster memory". We didn't want that. Measuring lethality is really hard, the current three or four tiers are perhaps acceptable but certainly not perfect. On the other hand, monsters now tell you speed, resistances and vulnerabilities. This is something you don't have to remember or look up anymore.

Yeah -- monster memory would encourage kiting a monster to get it to do its tricks. Kinda like the #@$! Monster Ability Materia from FF7.

The current monster threat level display is probably my second-favorite addition to Crawl since I've started playing. (The other is the current skill training system.) Visible resistances and speed are also, I think, noncontroversial now?

Regarding Brogue-style "it call kill you in two hits" -- it works very well in Brogue and it's a better game for that feature. Crawl spells etc. have a huge variance, however, so perhaps the approach has to be modified: instead of going with the worst case, take a slightly higher point for evaluation.

The other consideration here is that Crawl's spell mechanics are really widely varied. How do you describe Ozo's Refrigeration or Tornado or Freezing Cloud in this context?

And, of course, actually computing these things is nontrivial. It might be rather impractical to need to run a monte carlo for a monters' abilities every time you inspect them.

[Pereza0]

This proposal is good, but there are a couple of things that I don't like that much.

Spoiling every single detail about a unique, makes them kind of pointless, the thing with uniques is that they should have challenging and unexpected abilities.

For other monsters though (maybe those you have killed once or more?) its fine, except the "can kill you in two hit" thing, players should be able to assess the threat and enemy poses by themselves. There is only so much you can tell to the player, and crawl has too many things to take into a account to say things like it can kill in two hits. For example, would that calculation take into account player resistance to different elements, his AC, his EV etc? It is very useful to AC characters, since im guessing it would scale with it, but to EV based characters? It doesn't tell them a lot, since what they want to know is whether they are being hit or not.

One thing that bothered me about the game, is that the threat level of monsters is too broad, you have harmless, easy, dangerous and extremely dangerous. The thing is that extremely dangerous is too broad, mid-game or so, your character is perfectly able to deal with many "extremely dangerous" monsters, yet some others will be absolutely devastating. For example, often player ghosts show up as extremely dangerous when they are only a few levels above the player (since they were roughly that level when they died) and are very easy to take down. If an orb of fire (kind of extreme I know) shows up next to that ghost (say level 14 ghost) and the player examines it, its going to show the same threat level as the nearly harmless ghost. I think they should show different threat levels.

One thing I like crawl is that it shows information without relying too heavily on numbers, which is one of the things that bothered me about roguelikes when I started playing them, I like having the descriptions of the monsters showing more information, maybe they could also tell whether a monster is more melee, magic or ranged combat inclined

[galehar]

I think it would be good to directly integrate monster's data into the game (monster is the program which generate data for the bots). Add a spoiler option with 3 possibilities: on/off/toggle. When active, it shows in monsters' description the same data as the bots (make the description scrollable so that it fits, which needs to be done anyway). If the option is set to toggle it doesn't show up by default but you can call the data when viewing a monster's description.
The spoiler option could be used for other things btw. Make crawl self-documenting.
Many (most?) players use the bots regularly to check monsters' stats and spell lists, and that's fine. Would be convenient to be able to do it in-game.

[njvack]

Spoiling every single detail about a unique, makes them kind of pointless, the thing with uniques is that they should have challenging and unexpected abilities.

I'd say you're half right -- their abilities should be challenging. Mennas and Xtahua don't have a lot of tricks, but can definitely be challenges. Knowing their abilities doesn't make them pushovers.

And yes, to your questions about AC, EV, and resistances showing up here. Put on that rF ring and see how much more survivable the Orb of Fire's spells are. What about adding a +5 Ring of Protection?

Some feedback about how often various attacks would hit would be welcome too.

[Pereza0]

Spoiling every single detail about a unique, makes them kind of pointless, the thing with uniques is that they should have challenging and unexpected abilities.

And yes, to your questions about AC, EV, and resistances showing up here. Put on that rF ring and see how much more survivable the Orb of Fire's spells are. What about adding a +5 Ring of Protection?.

Hmmm I like it says how threatening spells are depending on that stuff. Still not very convinced about the can kill you in 4 hits thing. Maybe it should just say more qualitative stuff, like how deadly it is (damage scaling with AC and HP) and what your chances of dodging it are (to hit scale with EV). It would be also cool if it said what spells ignore your EV and AC.

Also, although I just said that not everything should be spoilered, the idea of having the bots accessible in-game makes me really, really happy

[njvack]

Yeah, I'm agreed that qualitative descriptions of how deadly an attack is could be better than "kill you in n hits" text.

[Davion Fuxa]

I think it would be good to directly integrate monster's data into the game (monster is the program which generate data for the bots). Add a spoiler option with 3 possibilities: on/off/toggle. When active, it shows in monsters' description the same data as the bots (make the description scrollable so that it fits, which needs to be done anyway). If the option is set to toggle it doesn't show up by default but you can call the data when viewing a monster's description.
The spoiler option could be used for other things btw. Make crawl self-documenting.
Many (most?) players use the bots regularly to check monsters' stats and spell lists, and that's fine. Would be convenient to be able to do it in-game.

If my videos on YouTube are worth noting - you'd probably see me spending more then half my playtime not playing. Having to look up what new monsters do was part of that reason, which I actually did in the videos. I'd be for such a change since I'd like to know what enemies do before engaging them if such information is available; which it is but it requires having to look up the monster and correlating abilities as necessary.

[some12fat2move]

An in-game database of all the numbers and specifics about everything (monsters, spells, etc) would be very cool. I too make extensive use of the knowledge bots.

[varsovie]

Make crawl self-documenting.

In that philosophy, what would you think if we "show: the effect of certain items and spells rather than a short (sometime cryptic) description. In lot's of games nowadays when you get a new ability the game show you a little animation/video showing you what effects you could expect and how to use it.

I think it would be a great addition for Crawl with some elements (spells, god abilities, some items like wands), just showing a little frame by frame animation.

E.G. For conjure flame, @ is next to a corridor, followed by a slime and an ogre, he conjure it in front of the slime, the slime goes pass through, the ogre step aside. Then the player goes in the corridor, cast it again, the slime goes through again and die, the ogre wait until the flames goes off and kill the player while the player cast again on the former cloud to revives it.

It shows easily that conjure flame is : a non permanent single tile smiting cloud of flame that doesn't block LOS but block intelligent monsters and can catch mindless ones.

Sure it's a simple example, but for more complicated stuff, like berserk (just show that you can escape if near a staircase), passage of Globuria, Chei's abilities, the rod of lightning... those videos could give some hint on how to use efficiently while showing WHAT it does, what you can expect.

Any ideas on the subject other than the technical stuff of time to make the animations and coding requirements?

[nicolae]

It shows easily that conjure flame is : a non permanent single tile smiting cloud of flame that doesn't block LOS but block intelligent monsters and can catch mindless ones.

A simple text description does that too and doesn't require the player to properly interpret the glyphs. Updating descriptions that need to be fleshed out more would be much easier, both for implementers and the players.

[dpeg]

The big problem with always showing all those numbers, in my opinion, is that it suggests to (new) players that parsing and using all this information is necessary to improve at the game. I think this is why galehar's proposal makes this disclosure optional, but I am still not convinced. (Of course, I'm the one who is generally reluctant to give excessive data.)

[some12fat2move]

The big problem with always showing all those numbers, in my opinion, is that it suggests to (new) players that parsing and using all this information is necessary to improve at the game. I think this is why galehar's proposal makes this disclosure optional, but I am still not convinced. (Of course, I'm the one who is generally reluctant to give excessive data.)

I don't think it would scare off anyone as long as the information is kept in an accessible behind-the-scenes repository, like the "civilopedia" in Civ.

[Pereza0]

A good way to do this would be to have the usual monster information, written in plain english saying qualitative things about the monster and the threats it poses given the player's status.
Then there should be an "extended information" section that basically gives you all the numbers like the bots. The default description information must include tons of relevant information, otherwise this will happen.

it suggests to (new) players that parsing and using all this information is necessary to improve at the game.

Finding a balance between giving away useful information, or outright spoiling the game must be hard though

[njvack]

The big problem with always showing all those numbers, in my opinion, is that it suggests to (new) players that parsing and using all this information is necessary to improve at the game.

Well... at some level, you do need to understand the effect of AC, EV, resistances, and buffs on your defense. (Yes, offense is equally important, but one thing at a time

For example, I get the sense that right now, the character sheet causes new players to overemphasize the importance of resistances -- you've got three pips there, and that interface kind of invites you to try and fill 'em. Getting in-game sense that hey, raising my AC helps with that dragon's breath in addition to making his melee attacks more survivable would make it easier to learn how those systems work and make better choices in skilling and gear.

[Davion Fuxa]

Another thing to note is that while the information can be helpful - it doesn't necessarily mean you aren't going to get killed. You need to have a high capability of understanding all the numbers and stats; new players are likely going to miss more then half the information their are viewing and simply be learning through Trial&Error and sometimes loss of character as they proceed in the game.

[Grimm]

How about an ingame database that adds entries only after you've encountered the monster, like Wesnoth's does?

[some12fat2move]

Another thing to note is that while the information can be helpful - it doesn't necessarily mean you aren't going to get killed. You need to have a high capability of understanding all the numbers and stats; new players are likely going to miss more then half the information their are viewing and simply be learning through Trial&Error and sometimes loss of character as they proceed in the game.

Which is IMO another good reason for a database in the background you can access rather than having the info in monster descriptions. The players who understand the numbers and stats will have them, and those who don't won't have the information thrown at them.

[Davion Fuxa]

How about an ingame database that adds entries only after you've encountered the monster, like Wesnoth's does?

Games that do this sort of annoy me, I use information from the CrawlWiki or Knowledge Bots to avoid dying to monsters or to defeat them. After I've beaten them I think I know how to avoid dying to them and to defeat them.

Probably the most annoying of the games that I played that did this was Diablo 1 for the record; where you would likely find out quickly if an enemy was Magic Immune before the game told you.

[Steel Neuron]

As a new player myself, I wouldn't like having all that information readily available to me. One of the beautiful things about this game is learning the threats, mistake by mistake. For instance, the first time I encountered a Ballistomycete I almost killed myself by hitting the spores, and thaht's awesome.

However, what I would like to see is a Scroll, or something along those lines, that works similarly to the spell "Libra" in final fantasy. By reading it, it displays detailed information on the targeted monster.

[mumra]

The thing is that extremely dangerous is too broad, mid-game or so, your character is perfectly able to deal with many "extremely dangerous" monsters, yet some others will be absolutely devastating. For example, often player ghosts show up as extremely dangerous when they are only a few levels above the player (since they were roughly that level when they died) and are very easy to take down. If an orb of fire (kind of extreme I know) shows up next to that ghost (say level 14 ghost) and the player examines it, its going to show the same threat level as the nearly harmless ghost. I think they should show different threat levels.

Yes, I noticed this particularly in my last play through. I wonder if we need a 5th tier, something like "It looks utterly deadly."

[Galefury]

The danger level is based on the exp value of the monster. A fire immune monster is going to be more dangerous to a pure fire caster than to a char with good melee ability or powerful spells of a different element. This is not taken into account. All other such information is also not taken into account. On top of that, the exp values of some monsters are a bit off.

Overall the danger level does a good job of warning of possible danger. Determining precisely how much danger that is is left to the player, as it should be.

[Tiber]

What if we broke down the threat, but didn't give numbers? For instance:

  Code:

Elephant
It can attack multiple times, and can trample.
It has high health, medium defense, and low evasion.

  Code:

Ghost Moth
Its attack does medium damage and can drain dexterity.
Its attack does medium damage and can drain strength.
Its attack does low damage and can inflict nasty poison.

These are just samples, but I am at least in favor of spoiling innate branded attacks (meaning not due to weapon enchantments), and spells for monsters that always have the same spells. These things are never going to change no matter how many times you meet the monster. More controversially (even I'm less sure on this), it could perhaps point out if a monster can do something 'more than average'. If I were a new player, I would mostly just like to know which monster hit harder than usual (maybe check damage to HD or character level) or do something I can't expect. Maybe even just a better monster description might help. An example might be an orc priest, which a new player might not expect can attack without line of fire. So turn the description from:

  Code:

A servant of Beogh, the ancient and cruel god of the orcs. Beogh rewards the prayers of devoted servants by striking down their enemies.

to:

  Code:

A servant of Beogh, the ancient and cruel god of the orcs. It has been rewarded for its service with the power to heal its allies and smite anything it can see.

Maybe not my best work, but even a new player could read it and understand how it behaves.

Either way, I strongly dislike the "learn by dying" philosophy (in the sense that a new player should be expected to die in order to learn, not in the sense that someone should learn something by dying), because I think that a player using good tactics should be able to succeed. They shouldn't be punished for not knowing something they couldn't have known without spoilers.

[Pereza0]

If the descriptions were to tell something about the monsters abilities, it should be like galehar said, self documented. Doing so for every monster manually would take forever, plus if any change was done to the monsters behavior the description should have to be manually changed too.

And orc priests are not the best examples really, within two hours of playing the game I had already learned to dread and fear orc priests

[Bim]

I agree with Tiber (and others) that certain monster descriptions should be expanded. However, I only think it's necessary for creatures with 'strange' attacks which aren't seen elsewhere and can be instantly deadly/terrible. For instance (and I'm sure there are better examples) Orc Priests have smiting, which no other creature has for a good while, similarly for draining and rotting attacks.

As someone who regularly introduces new people to crawl, I do find that there are some aspects of it which are impossible for an unspoiled player to work out without a large amount of trial and error which few people have the time to do.

[Tiber]

I used orc priests as an example because it was a well-known monster with an ability that would take you by surprise the first time you saw it. I was not suggesting that its description was in serious need of change; I was demonstrating how the text could be used both for flavor and advice (including hinting that you can turn invisible to avoid smiting). As long as you understood the point I was trying to make, it was the right example to use.

[Pereza0]

I used orc priests as an example because it was a well-known monster with an ability that would take you by surprise the first time you saw it. I was not suggesting that its description was in serious need of change; I was demonstrating how the text could be used both for flavor and advice (including hinting that you can turn invisible to avoid smiting). As long as you understood the point I was trying to make, it was the right example to use.

Yes, it was a good example. The problem is having to change the descriptions one by one to make them fit the behavior of the monster, since there are so many.

[galehar]

A lot of monsters' descriptions have been changed already to give more information about their ability. See the DCSS Text Improvement Project thread in contributions. Although there are always more which could be improved. Don't hesitate to contribute improved descriptions if you want.

[Grimm]

Yes if you're interested in rewriting descriptions please join the effort. If you need help getting started or want to polish your descriptions, contact me or post in the Contributions forum.