Recently, I’ve been having many conversations about the same subject. People see that we’ve removed various buffs (spells that temporarily improve the player’s stats – Stoneskin, Condensation Shield, Phase Shift), or that we’ve changed others (Ozocubu’s Armour) to be more situational. So they ask, why?
The Problem With Buffs
Dungeon Crawl is a long game. A 3-rune game, on average, takes about six and a half hours to win. (Often longer – very skilled players drag down the average.) An ‘extended’ game, getting all 15 runes, takes twice as long – about 13 hours, on average. And, of course, not all games are won – only one in a hundred! The average unwon game is considerably shorter (about 20 minutes), but weight of numbers will tell – on average, each won game represents a great amount of playtime, thousands of fights and hundreds of thousands of turns.
There’s nothing wrong with a long game, of course, but it does change what makes sense to design. In a shorter game – a sprint, perhaps – a spell that you cast at the start of every fight, or just every 50 turns, isn’t too bad. In Crawl’s main game, though, remembering to refresh your buffs regularly gets tiring very fast! And if you don’t, you’re just reducing your chance to win (passing up free AC, EV, SH…) for no benefit but retaining a tenuous grip on sanity. That’s exactly the sort of choice that Crawl is opposed to; opposing ‘optimal play’ to ‘fun’.
This was the space that many of Crawl’s ‘buff spells’ found themselves in. If you’d memorized and learned to cast Stoneskin, it was totally possible to keep it running at all times, and generally a good idea to do so. But, the work involved wasn’t any fun.
The fact was, Stoneskin and friends were certainly good for a character – they were useful spells! They provided interesting strategic decisions, about skill investment, armour, spell slot use. But, in practice, the annoyance involved over the course of a long game – the choice between ‘good play’ and ‘avoiding tedium’ – made the game less fun. That’s why we cut them!
But Why Didn’t You Just…?
There’s quite a lot of suggestions I’ve seen for what we should have done instead of removing these spells. The simplest is probably to dramatically reduce the duration. If a buff doesn’t stay up for more than a dozen turns, it becomes impractical to keep it running constantly!
The trouble is that this only solves one part of the problem. You’re still left with the choice to cast your buffs at the start of every encounter, and many characters will be well-advised to do so – if you’re waiting for your enemy to close to melee, why not take a turn and a little MP to give yourself some extra defense? Well, because it’s a pain to do that at the start of nearly every encounter in a game with hundreds or thousands of fights… and so we’re back, more or less, where we started.
Another suggestion goes in the opposite direction. So players are keeping these buffs up all the time, or should – why not just automate it for them, and make the spell never expire once cast? That’s how Repel Missiles and Deflect Missiles work these days – they have a chance of expiring when they repel an incoming attack, but stay up forever otherwise.
The problem is that Dungeon Crawl’s spell system is fundamentally built around the assumption that spells are being cast in combat. In combat, the turn spent casting a spell matters – that’s a turn for enemies to act! The MP spent matters – that’s less MP to use for the rest of the fight! And the chance of failure matters – your turn is gone, your MP is gone, and you’re no better off than you were before!
Out of combat, none of those things matter. A turn doesn’t matter, MP doesn’t matter, failure doesn’t matter – you can just rest and try again. This is a problem for buffs in that you don’t need to worry about failure chance very much – get it below, say, 80% failure, and you can just recast until you succeed. What’s more, armour doesn’t matter – normally the choice of body armour is an important strategic choice for spellcasting (something heavy and protective, or something light and easy to cast in?), but for out-of-combat spells, you can just shuck your armour, cast the spell, and put the armour back on. This effectively means that Repel Missiles, for example, is a free, permanent buff for anyone who finds a spellbook containing it – no noticeable skill requirement, just a couple of spell slots. Not too much tactical annoyance, but no strategic decisions, either. It’s no good.
You can try to start patching this problem – what if taking off your body armour took off the spell! (Well, would that also apply to switching in a staff of wizardry, or a couple rings of wizardry?) What if the chance of the spell expiring when it reflected a projectile was based on your current spell failure chance, not spellpower? But when you have to keep suggesting a series of unintuitive mechanics that work like no other spell in the game, in an attempt to make an effect work within Crawl’s spell system, you have to wonder whether it makes sense for that effect to be a spell at all.
There are other variants on the ‘permanent buff’ approach – one suggests making buffs reduce your maximum MP when active, to make it less of a ‘no-brainer’ to keep the spell around all the time. But that doesn’t solve the spell failure issue, and has other undesirable effects – should armour buffs be more useful for melee warriors (who aren’t using much MP otherwise), rather than lightly armoured ‘casters’? Should these buffs become eventually almost ‘free’ later in the game, when MP pools become larger? There aren’t easy answers here.
What Does Work?
We haven’t removed all buffs quite yet. In fact, almost all of them are still around. Why?
Well, let’s look. Something like Swiftness is clearly a buff – you move faster! But the drawback when it wears off, slower movement for a time, means that it’s pretty silly to try to cast it all the time, or even at the start of every fight. It’s situational – useful, but situational. A fine spell to learn, but not one you feel like you should be casting every fight, or every 50 turns!
Other good buffs follow the same pattern. Portal Projectile teleports your shots directly to their target, letting you shoot past intervening enemies – useful, but each shot costs MP, and a miss is totally useless, whereas normal shots could hit another enemy behind your original target. Excruciating Wounds gives your weapon dramatically better killing power (against living enemies, and with investment in Necromancy…), but makes a considerable noise when cast. Invisibility makes you invisible (perhaps unsurprisingly), but the contamination means that you’re not gonna be able to turn invisible again for a while afterward, and haste would be dangerous – which can leave you in some pretty tight spots…
Adding ponderous to Ozocubu’s is an attempt to make it fit that same pattern – useful, but situational. This is an experiment! It may not work out – the drawback may be too weak, or too irrelevant (as for Cheibriados worshippers, perhaps) – or too strong in other cases! We’ll see how it works out.
A Dash Of Context
We don’t want to kill your playstyles, and we won’t. Statue Form has already been buffed to make up for the loss of Stoneskin; other forms will likely have some similar compensation in the near future. Transmuters and other light-armour characters will not stop being viable; trust us on this one.
Dungeon Crawl: Stone Soup has a long and storied history of removals. Remember Alter Self, the spell that randomly mutated your character? (Repeat until desired mutations achieved…) Or Divinations, the spell-school entirely made up of out-of-combat spells? Or, perhaps, Mountain Dwarves?
Every removal’s led to some wailing and gnashing of teeth. This one’s far from the worst in that regard, and it certainly won’t be the last – but it is one of the removals with the most history behind it, and which the most thought and design effort has been applied to. It’s my hope that this post is helpful to those who were confused, informative to those who were curious, and, if perhaps not a perfect salve to those who were angry, at least reassuring with regards to the care which has been invested here.
Thanks for reading, and happy crawling!
Many thanks to dpeg for the help with this post.
1. Comment by kripto
25/Feb/2016 at 03:30
I appreciate this kind of post, as a peek into the thought process and logic behind design is always interesting. Never enough of these.
I also agree with your reasoning. A real choice is always more interesting than a fake choice, in rogue-esques and otherwise. DCSS has always been a prime example of a well made, thought out and balanced specimen in the genre, and this post is testament to that. Keep up the good work.
2. Comment by mgarr1219
25/Feb/2016 at 03:43
Well put.
Thanks for taking time to elaborate on the changes.
DCSS is still the Gold Standard imop.
3. Comment by Edward
25/Feb/2016 at 03:48
Thanks for the detailed explanation! I was happy to begin with, but it is really nice to see the detailed thinking and responsivness to crawl’s design.
Thanks for sharing!
4. Comment by hand of trog
25/Feb/2016 at 10:47
thank you for this info, im playing for mybe 3 years i like the approach that dcss has taken
5. Comment by hand of trog
25/Feb/2016 at 10:48
thanks, nice insight, i like the direction of the game, im playing 3 years
6. Comment by Andrew
25/Feb/2016 at 11:43
I’ve been playing for 7 years and the game is getting better.
7. Comment by Jason
25/Feb/2016 at 14:22
What about using Dragon Age: Origins’ method, and reducing max mana by the amount the buff uses? That’s then a strategic decision; cast the spell, and leave yourself with much less mana to work with in combat, or use some other strategy.
8. Comment by blami
25/Feb/2016 at 16:37
Thanks for the explanation. The way you put it it makes sense to remove some buffs. Never thought about the tediousness of buffs before or lets say I was too lazy to keep buffs up all the time and rather died. When players get used to a certain tediousness, they might even be proud to perform recurring tasks. But that’s kind of contraindicated to gain new players and getting stuck in repetitive patterns sure leads to boredom (or neurosis).
9. Comment by PleasingFungus
25/Feb/2016 at 16:56
@Jason: Check out the last paragraph of the “But Why Didn’t You Just…?” section.
10. Comment by Sublime
25/Feb/2016 at 20:09
So the solution is to make low level characters much squishier? Sure, you’re leaving in Stoneform. A high-level spell that characters can’t start with. (So I require MORE luck to have a decent chance of not dying.) The point of Stoneskin, etc. is to REDUCE the amount of luck required to stay alive long enough to have a reasonable chance of winning, even if it adds a small amount of tedium.
11. Comment by dpeg
25/Feb/2016 at 21:21
Sublime: Yes, that is the solution. If you want more AC, train Armour. Why should part of your AC come from a spell you keep casting? If AC is too low after the nerf, we can and will react.
The way you put it, we could never change anything, because everything had some purpose.
Of course, you’re also exaggerating. It is perfectly possible to win “pure” casters in any DCSS version without using buffs.
12. Comment by Anon
26/Feb/2016 at 03:49
Thanks for this, glad to see a post outlining the reasons (and rebuttals) to this controversial change.
13. Comment by Somebody
26/Feb/2016 at 21:19
You have good design principles. Thank you.
14. Comment by mattlistener
27/Feb/2016 at 05:46
Ok — Swiftness, Invisibility, etc are kept around because drawbacks have been added to them to make them situational and fulfill the (laudable) “avoid tedium” design goal. Makes sense.
Stoneskin, Condensation Shield, and Phase Shift are removed because… that approach to rehabilitating them wasn’t possible?
I would like to have seen the rationale for why the game would be better off without these particular spells compared to tedium-free modifications of them.
15. Comment by PleasingFungus
27/Feb/2016 at 06:22
I’m not sure I’d say “not possible”, but I would say that we’ve been discussing this ‘charms problem’ for many years, and no satisfactory change to those spells was ever implemented.
If someone comes up with some really genius ideas, we can always add the spells back, of course – it’s quite easy. But we go to design with the ideas we’ve got, as the famous saying probably goes.
16. Comment by elderviii
27/Feb/2016 at 08:17
I will say it’s perfectly reasonable why you removed/changed such spells. I’ve been playing for years and found defensive buffs to be tedious to always keep up (then again, I’ve yet to win with a caster period, so take that as you will). IDK if you’ve considered some of these options, but here goes some ideas:
Stoneskin: Increased AC with decreased EV. Character suddenly gets tougher skin, but doesn’t quite feels as nimble.
CS: Apply some form of spell penalty/weapon delay as with normal shields. The shield would require some sort of passive concentration meaning you wouldn’t be as focused on other spells and weapon use
Phase shift: If hit, remove EV bonus and take minor irresistable damage. Making contact with reality pulls you back to this dimension somewhat violently.
17. Comment by shubi32
27/Feb/2016 at 09:39
I got stumped at this part: “other undesirable effects – should armour buffs be more useful for melee warriors (who aren’t using much MP otherwise), rather than lightly armoured ‘casters’? Should these buffs become eventually almost ‘free’ later in the game, when MP pools become larger?” These rhetorical questions indicate that these effects are considered undesirable. That’s rather odd. Especially the first one, unless Guardian Spirit is next on the chopping block. A whole lot of things are more valuable to certain chars at certain points in the game. That’s part of what makes this game an actual game. Since there are no “easy answers”, couldn’t it be good to have players making these decisions, in-game? These are elements you throw together and see how they work out. Without a filter of negativity, the quoted questions sound meaningless, since they’re merely direct consequences of how those things would work. Might as well point at anything and ask if it should be so: Should slaying be more valuable on faster weapons? Should it always be a good idea to train some fighting for the HP, when XP is plentiful? Should evocations like +Blink be more useful for ‘non-casters’, rather than those that can reliably cast the spell?
18. Comment by dpeg
27/Feb/2016 at 12:01
shubi32: No, I don’t think so. MP has a clear, primary function. It’s alright that Guardian Spirit provides an additional use for MP.
Having maxMP costs on buffs would not lead to interesting decisions, in our assessment. The goal of design is not to provide as many options to the player as possible, it is to step up and provide what we think is a get set of options. Buff spells are very problematic from various points of view (the posting did not even mention all of them), and we’ve outlined why we did what we did.
All other questions you pose have better answers in gameplay than the one about maxMP cost on buffs. Seriously, it’s been contemplated for years and will not happen.
19. Comment by Jeremiah
27/Feb/2016 at 14:17
IMO, Phase Shift made for an interesting strategic decision for a primarily melee character (significant investment in translocations or wear heavier armour.)Now I guess armour always wins, so sad to see this taken away…
20. Comment by Anonymous
28/Feb/2016 at 00:22
You should have added to the list of removed things the spell Extension….
http://crawl.chaosforge.org/Extension
21. Comment by Alphanumerix
28/Feb/2016 at 21:55
Thank you for this post, now I really understand why you removed those buffs. The last comment about the extension spell gave me an idea that could help reduce the tediousness of buffs while allowing low level characters to take advantage from them : introducing a spell that could make buffs permanent (like repel missiles), but with a chance of expiring based on spell success rate, and at the cost of maxMP. It would require skill investment to be useful, so melee characters would have to choose between training armor and raising spell success. You would still have to cast buffs often before you learn the spell, but once you have it, it provides a strategic alternative while reducing tediousness. That’s not perfect, but I thought it could be a starting point to an interesting solution. Again, thank you for your amazing work on this game.
22. Comment by kefirnik
1/Mar/2016 at 08:29
While the reasning is clear for me, I still fail to understand the need for this change. Why would one buff oneself before every fight? Not to mention keeping the buffs all the time. I honestly don’t see how buffing yourself before a tough fight once in a while is ‘tedious’. Light armour casters will now lose quite a bit of their survivability reducing most of their fights to slow and painful kiting fest as opposed to frontal assault under buffs.As a player, who likes to play a nuker, which spends a lot of time in melee, this makes me sad.
Anyway, thanks for making things clear, I guess I’ll just have to deal with it somehow.
23. Comment by Gail
5/Mar/2016 at 06:54
You failed to go with an even simpler route
Have buffs reserve max MP, consuming more % based on the current fail rate of the spell
24. Comment by Ceyah
6/Mar/2016 at 05:19
This could be a solution: When you cast a ‘buff’ spell, you must concentrate on it. While you are concentrating on a spell, the chance of failing further spell casts is increased. You could concentrate on several buffs at the same time, but doing so would hinder your spellcasting such that you might only be able to cast lower-level spells with any degree of success. This could also be applied to summonings allowing you to summon permanent companions.
Additionally, certain effects or types of damage might have a chance to interrupt your concentration, causing the buffs to be dropped. This would be a nice addition for combat with enemy spellcasters, as well. They would have to re-up their spells, risking valuable MP and a turn.
25. Comment by Brickman
8/Mar/2016 at 13:35
Interesting decision. I think Shroud of Golubria is a lot more annoying than Phase Shift though–it has a much lower skill investment and cost, and for a significant set of characters (any early character whose best magic school is translocations) optimal play is to cast it over and over in every fight despite the ridiculously short duration. Phase Shift, meanwhile, has a high cost (you’ll miss those 6 MP), high level of investment (especially if you want it reliable), and short enough duration that you have to cast it in combat. If you had to axe one, I’d much rather see Shroud get axed. Maybe both would be moer fun if MP got drained whenever you still get struck (in exchange for being boosted in some other way).
As for stoneskin, I understand that one. There’s no simple debuff like accuracy of EV that’d work because ultimately, it’d still either be worth casting all the time or none of the time. Adding Ponderousness to it would be cool, and a nice parallel to swiftness (same level spell, and you could give it the exact same magnitude of change), but again if you were planning to stand your ground optimal play would always be to cast it. Which is why I don’t think the Ozocubu change will work.
Speaking of Ozocubu, that one seems like a good candidate for the repel missiles treatment, since fire attacks already break it in some fights. I think both it and Stoneskin might be ok melee buffs if they were permanent but borrowed that “lowered casting success” penalty from some transmutations, and fizzled if you tried to switch to heavier armor than you cast it in.
26. Comment by amethyst_igor
10/Mar/2016 at 11:40
This is a well-explained change. The writer had me persuaded in the first five paragraphs. I skipped the rest. :-)
Now, how about spending some dev love on expanding the Hells, so that the players can loot and pillage the lair of Trog, Kithuaqaba, Mahkleb, Yreldeysmal, etc., and stick a sword in ‘em? ;-)