Option: Downgrade permadeath mode after death

[Psyringe]

Because it cheapens playing roguelike mode if you can just change your mind when you die.
When I decide at character creation that I am playing roguelike, I know death is final and I won't be able to change my mind, no matter how good the run was or how close I was to clearing it. In a lot of cases I would have changed my mind and switched to adventure in the moment of frustration. I don't even want to have that option and be tempted by it, that is why I choose roguelike mode and not adventure with the idea to get 0 deaths. We already have a legitimate way of playing with multiple chances, so why do you want to take away real permadeath for people who enjoy that sort of thing?

I don't think my suggestion is taking away "real permadeath" mode, since you're not forced to use it - but I understand how "being tempted in the moment of intense frustration" amounts to something similar.

In any case, it seems that some people agree that the current interaction of Nightmare difficulty and achievements ("Play roguelike mode or you can' get acievements") is suboptimal, but there doesn't seem to be a lot of support for the particular solution I'd prefer.

You took my post as some sort of a lecture and almost got offended...I was just trying (poorly) to get across why I play on roguelike mode, and in retrospect it did sound like a lecture. I apologize.

I think I have to apologize as well. Upon re-reading your post, I noticed that you were talking about "roguelike mode", not of "roguelikes in general", so your post wasn't as general as I perceived it. I've probably been in one too many general discussions about roguelikes and permadeath, and that influenced my way of reading your post. Sorry for that, and thanks for getting back to me. No hard feelings on both sides, I suppose?

[supermini]

No hard feelings on both sides, I suppose?

None whatsoever.

[Doctornull]

I think this idea has a lot of merit, and I say this as a ToME noob who has played lots of other Roguelikes over the years.

The noob perspective is that, to get better at this game, I must do one of three things:
1 - "Experiment" (very time-expensive), or
2 - Read spoilers (guides or source code), or
3 - Cheat.

IMHO cheating and reading spoilers can, well, spoil the experience. However, experimentation takes a lot of time, especially experimentation at high levels. It can be frustrating.

This suggestion allows more & better experimentation, so that I can learn as much as possible about how to win against the foe who just ruined THIS game, such that when I return NEXT game I'll be able to get that much farther. What I do now when I'm creamed by some new threat is to come here & read spoiler threads, so I'd view this mode as a partial replacement for that.

Seen as a choice -- "not dying" mode vs. the player getting frustrated and going source-diving -- which spoils the game less?

[SageAcrin]

Yeah, but if you're still in the experimentation phase, you can just play on Adventurer.

[ohioastro]

I think that Nightmare would be tried a lot more, and better balanced, if you could get achievements in Adventure mode. And I'd like a parallel roguelike achievement set across the board as well. Learning Nightmare on roguelike is intensely frustrating, since the difficulty ramp is radically different for different dungeons. Things that are easy on normal (for an experienced player) can either remain easy on Nightmare or become extremely rough, and it's a tedious matter of trial and error to uncover them. I'd be much happier doing this if I had a few lives to play with, and I suspect that I'm not alone. And the achievements are a fun way to track progress.

[Amphouse]

I agree with most people here: the easy thing to do would be to add a set of adventure achievements for all difficulties. I still have yet to try Nightmare despite playing ToME a ton on normal, but if I could play on adventure and feel comfortable doing so than I probably would have by now.

[Atarlost]

How does it differ to have achieved something without dieing based on an option selected at birth that has no effect until you die?

There's no actual need to have multiple modes at all. If you win (or accomplish some other achievement) without dieing that's no easier than a roguelike win or achievement. Either way you have accomplished something without dieing.

[SageAcrin]

How does it differ to have achieved something without dieing based on an option selected at birth that has no effect until you die?

There's no actual need to have multiple modes at all. If you win (or accomplish some other achievement) without dieing that's no easier than a roguelike win or achievement. Either way you have accomplished something without dieing.

If there's a point at all to making Roguelike required for the Nightmare/Insane achievements, it's to make getting them more challenging.

But there's two different elements to challenge; How hard something is to do, and how much you lose for failing to do it.

Within that, while it is no easier to get the Nightmare achievements with the situation you suggest, the cost for failing would be lesser-you would simply lose a crack at the later achievements, rather than the character.

So, basically, changing that makes Nightmare/Insane achievements easier in a sense. There'd never be a reason for most players not to play on Roguelike, for the chance at those achievements.

That's a big psychological impact that...simply would not have been there the same way if I knew I could have gotten "close enough" to winning, died, and cleared out anyways and just not gotten Evil Denied(Nightmare). Some people crack more under heavy stress, some people play better; Either way, it's an element of difficulty design when it comes to high cost penalties for failure.

Quoting myself rather than repeat my same comments that answer that question. (It's easy to have missed them, this isn't that small of a thread anymore...)

[Atarlost]

That's all in your head. The feat of accomplishing something before dieing becomes no easier for lack of permadeath. Lack of permadeath is only significant after you die, not before.

The change would be that you always get credit for accomplishing a thing without death when you accomplish it without death, rather than only getting credit if you promise to stop playing the character in the future.

[Kaja Rainbow]

Just ask for nightmare/etc. achievements on adventure mode and leave roguelike mode to those who actually want to play it. I'm saying this as someone who doesn't play roguelike mode, by the way.

[SageAcrin]

That's all in your head. The feat of accomplishing something before dieing becomes no easier for lack of permadeath. Lack of permadeath is only significant after you die, not before.

The change would be that you always get credit for accomplishing a thing without death when you accomplish it without death, rather than only getting credit if you promise to stop playing the character in the future.

Psychological stresses are all in your head, yes.

Joking aside, I can extend your logic pretty easily.

Why have achievements based on lives consumed at all? After all, if you're sufficiently good enough to do an area at all, you are clearly sufficiently good enough to do it by slamming into it enough times. To a degree, this is only a test of your stamina, isn't it?

If someone can clear these areas at all, and have limitless time, the worst person that can clear them at all is, in a sense, as good as the best person who can consistently clear them, aren't they, for achievement purposes?

If there's a tactical advantage from lives(say, starting within a certain range of the enemy), why, just force people to port out of the area if they want to keep their achievements-any strict tactical advantage is lost, then, right?

And obviously, any difference between this and getting it all right on the same run is in your head.

[Atarlost]

That's all in your head. The feat of accomplishing something before dieing becomes no easier for lack of permadeath. Lack of permadeath is only significant after you die, not before.

The change would be that you always get credit for accomplishing a thing without death when you accomplish it without death, rather than only getting credit if you promise to stop playing the character in the future.

Psychological stresses are all in your head, yes.

Joking aside, I can extend your logic pretty easily.

Why have achievements based on lives consumed at all? After all, if you're sufficiently good enough to do an area at all, you are clearly sufficiently good enough to do it by slamming into it enough times. To a degree, this is only a test of your stamina, isn't it?

If someone can clear these areas at all, and have limitless time, the worst person that can clear them at all is, in a sense, as good as the best person who can consistently clear them, aren't they, for achievement purposes?

If there's a tactical advantage from lives(say, starting within a certain range of the enemy), why, just force people to port out of the area if they want to keep their achievements-any strict tactical advantage is lost, then, right?

And obviously, any difference between this and getting it all right on the same run is in your head.

You're reaching for strawmen here.

My argument is about getting credit if you have done something. You are trying to extend that to getting credit for things that the player hasn't done, but might, potentially do given unlimited time. They are not the same thing at all and I'll thank you to retract your slander.

[SageAcrin]

That's all in your head. The feat of accomplishing something before dieing becomes no easier for lack of permadeath. Lack of permadeath is only significant after you die, not before.

The change would be that you always get credit for accomplishing a thing without death when you accomplish it without death, rather than only getting credit if you promise to stop playing the character in the future.

Psychological stresses are all in your head, yes.

Joking aside, I can extend your logic pretty easily.

Why have achievements based on lives consumed at all? After all, if you're sufficiently good enough to do an area at all, you are clearly sufficiently good enough to do it by slamming into it enough times. To a degree, this is only a test of your stamina, isn't it?

If someone can clear these areas at all, and have limitless time, the worst person that can clear them at all is, in a sense, as good as the best person who can consistently clear them, aren't they, for achievement purposes?

If there's a tactical advantage from lives(say, starting within a certain range of the enemy), why, just force people to port out of the area if they want to keep their achievements-any strict tactical advantage is lost, then, right?

And obviously, any difference between this and getting it all right on the same run is in your head.

You're reaching for strawmen here.

My argument is about getting credit if you have done something. You are trying to extend that to getting credit for things that the player hasn't done, but might, potentially do given unlimited time. They are not the same thing at all and I'll thank you to retract your slander.

Not at all.

Your argument is about lowering the penalty for death, with the argument that it isn't actually a factor to challenge.

I am extending that to lowering the penalty for death more, with a-honestly, possibly quite valid!-argument that it isn't a factor to challenge.

Nothing more, nothing less.

One's a psychological factor, and the other's a randomization factor-in either case, does your skill at playing really reflect in these circumstances?

(I've certainly caught myself wondering how much it really matters, getting it right on one life vs getting it right in multiple-this is definitely something I've thought a lot about, how much difference it is.

I can give arguments against it, of course-that consistency is what is valued by doing it all in one life, that there's a real factor to challenge due to that. But at the same time, restarting the game over and over means you're more likely to get that sweet draw of perfect gear that functions as a perfect storm.

How much skill is involved in that? Is it more or less than getting through the game with infinite lives but terrible gear? How about seven lives? It's not a simple question.)

[Kaja Rainbow]

That's all in your head. The feat of accomplishing something before dieing becomes no easier for lack of permadeath. Lack of permadeath is only significant after you die, not before.

The change would be that you always get credit for accomplishing a thing without death when you accomplish it without death, rather than only getting credit if you promise to stop playing the character in the future.

"All in your head." But the head's where the sense of accomplishment is felt. If people want to play roguelike, they want to play roguelike. If losing a high-leveled character causes that much distress, you might be better off in a different mode. I'm not saying that to knock anyone; I prefer adventure mode, myself.

I mean, I aim for as few deaths as possible on adventure, myself. If I score 0 deaths on adventure mode, I'll feel just as satisfied as if I had done it on roguelike. That's probably my next goal, actually--my current wins have 1-2 deaths, so I think it's doable. But I like having that buffer of lives, and I like feeling I can take risks now and then (like opening the Room of Death just to get XP). Point is, adventure mode already exists and I encourage people who don't want to lose a precious character after a single death to use it. It's still pretty fun and you still have to be reasonably careful.

Overall, I really don't think an idea like this would serve the game as well as simply adding achievements to non-roguelike modes. And adding achievements is a far less complicated method than this requested option. Far less likely to introduce new bugs and far less time and effort needed.

[Atarlost]

The penalty for death is completely irrelevant until you die. Unless there's a hell, but that's not exactly something a game can implement unless Mephistopholes built your computer.