Old-Shool vs Modern Crawlers transparency question

Discuss anything about the original Dungeon Master on any of the original platforms (Amiga, Atari, etc.).
This forum may contain spoilers.

Moderator: Ameena

Forum rules
Please read the Forum rules and policies before posting.
User avatar
Hrothgaar
Novice
Posts: 24
Joined: Sat Nov 05, 2011 12:01 pm

Old-Shool vs Modern Crawlers transparency question

Post by Hrothgaar »

Hi all!

If I perceive it correctly, one main difference in comparison between the "Old-Shool" games and the more modern Dungeon Crawlers (Grimrock and the like) is the "Transperancy" of game mechanics and stats.

For example back in the day when playing DM, I had no idea on how much better (or worse) I would be protected while wearing armor x in comparison to y. The modern games pretty much reveal anything in this regards (AC, resistances, dodge penalities, etc.), DM only showed a tiny bit (a raise in the STR stat would be visible for example, or a few points more mana).

The question here is, which "transparency-level" do you personally consider to be more immersive and enjoyable in these kind of games?
Do you like experimenting and discovering things yourself or do you like to see the strength and weaknesses of items at a glance in a pop-up which reveals all info?
User avatar
Paul Stevens
CSBwin Guru
Posts: 4318
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2001 6:00 pm
Location: Madison, Wisconsin, USA

Re: Old-Shool vs Modern Crawlers transparency question

Post by Paul Stevens »

I never enjoyed playing games in which numbers were
important. Even in Dungeon Master, I totally ignore the
character stats, levels, load, etc. When I find I am going
too slowly, I drop some heavy items. When my sword seems
to have little effect, I try something else.

So I guess I am voting for "opaque".
slickrcbd
Adept
Posts: 279
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2007 7:49 am

Re: Old-Shool vs Modern Crawlers transparency question

Post by slickrcbd »

Not all games were like that. Most games might not reveal such stats in-game due to space limitations, especially with 140K 5.25" disks on the Apple II (or even 360K disks on MS-DOS. No idea what Commodore's floppies held), but they would include a "feelie" with a chart showing what each piece of equipment did.
On the other hand, Dungeon Master was hardly unique in NOT including such a chart. Bard's Tale, Wizardry, and Might and Magic I and II filed to do so as well.
Might and Magic DID describe basic equipment, but did not explain the benefits and drawbacks of the various special properties a piece of equipment might possess, similar (though long predating) to Diablo.
On the other hand, in M&MII you could pay a store to have an item identified and it would reveal most stats. I can't recall if that was in M&MI.
Bard's Tale on the other hand left you to figure it out yourself. I never did figure out what some items like the Dork Ring did until it was FINALLY covered in an F.A.Q. 10 years after I first played it circa 1990 give or take a year. The WWW did not even exist then.

Anyways to answer your question, I was always annoyed when things were hidden like that as I was never sure if say the Plate of Darc was any better than Mithril Mail and thus worth the extra weight.
I did not mind as much if there was a chart included with the game explaining things, like Final Fantasy Legend on the GameBoy did, although I was VERY annoyed at the errors in the charts for FFL I and II. Even FFLIII had errors, but not as bad.
User avatar
Hrothgaar
Novice
Posts: 24
Joined: Sat Nov 05, 2011 12:01 pm

Re: Old-Shool vs Modern Crawlers transparency question

Post by Hrothgaar »

Thank you, you two.
I myself am pretty torn on this issue as well, for me it comes down to a "hidden" system beeing much more immersive but also a bit frustrating at times (like in the case of your example of armor of Darc vs Lyte).
The transparent systems grimrock uses reduced the items (at least for myself) to just some numbers. Found a new sword? Ok, Whats its damage and to hit? If its higher I just use this one. Story done, no experimenting, no wondering, just plain numbers.

Maybe for my project I will consider both methods which can be enabled / disabled in the options, I need to think about this a bit more.
A shame this forum is a bit dead, more input on this matter would be nice - maybe I should carry this question to the LoG board as well :-)
User avatar
Sphenx
On Master
Posts: 566
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 11:23 am
Contact:

Re: Old-Shool vs Modern Crawlers transparency question

Post by Sphenx »

For me, the best is something between both hidden and transparent and I think DM handles that quite well.
This is more obvious for weapons of course: even if you don't know the internal stats, you are able to try and check what is more effective against creatures by knowing the amount of damage you do (which is combination of internal stats + character stats). And that's enough !
For the skill bonuses, you can also see effects on the character stats (green/red). Only the hidden stats are not displayed, but that's finally not a real issue.

For the case of armors, no defense stat/modifier is displayed but I guess the basic idea is conveyed by the graphics and the weight. Sounds quite logical the heaviest armor -- that you find in the later levels -- would have the best defense. That's about immersion.
Note that in DM2, these weapon/armor stats are displayed with a tiny chart, still no number, but that's a visual indication (works also for magically powered items).

On the other side ... too much numbers kill most item interest -- I think this is more the case for Diablo-like games where there are plenty randomly generated items, thus numbers are the only thing to distinguish them. In the end, you look the "damage per second" value to choose and change quickly if you find better.
That makes me think another force of DM is its clearness about the items set. You don't have plenty of weapons to deal with, however having enough different blow actions, then you have time to learn their value in combat without knowing internal values about them.

Maybe some other will find great to have transparency and numbers, more like board-games, but that's not I personally like the most in CRPG Crawler.
User avatar
terkio
Mon Master
Posts: 937
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2012 8:24 pm

Re: Old-Shool vs Modern Crawlers transparency question

Post by terkio »

Was it intentional.
DM doesn't display how hard ranged weapons hit.
Lyte and Dark armous are way too heavy for not much protection.
"You can be on the right track and still get hit by a train!" Alfred E. Neuman
User avatar
JETENGINE
Journeyman
Posts: 94
Joined: Wed Aug 23, 2017 2:17 am
Location: South of the 46th parallel.

Re: Old-Shool vs Modern Crawlers transparency question

Post by JETENGINE »

It also does not display spell damage, even at point-blank range. Nor does the game tell you exactly how much damage that you're wearing stopped.
Hanging by a thread.
User avatar
Saumun
High Lord
Posts: 2238
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2009 3:03 am
Location: The Ether

Re: Old-Shool vs Modern Crawlers transparency question

Post by Saumun »

I’ve no idea how effective different armour is against ranged attacks.
I know in close combat it depends a lot on whether a creature has a ‘sharp’ attack, as armour has both armour strength and sharp resistance, and the damage a ‘sharp’ attack deals is set against sharp resistance multiplied with armour strength.

For instance, Darc has the highest armour strength but only average sharp resistance compared with something like mithral mail.
Same goes for Lyte really.
Normal plate armour is particularly poor with armour strength not much higher than mail, and a worse sharp resistance.

PS... I also don’t bother with the heavy stuff.
“Grynix Ernum Quey Ki Skebow Rednim U Os Dey Wefna Enocarn Aquantana” - Anon
User avatar
JETENGINE
Journeyman
Posts: 94
Joined: Wed Aug 23, 2017 2:17 am
Location: South of the 46th parallel.

Re: Old-Shool vs Modern Crawlers transparency question

Post by JETENGINE »

Sometimes I try and do a "suicide run" and get through the game using starting armour only (I usually fail). I do this to save my load (and space) for weaponry and other miscellaneous items, like keys or food (I tend to use only one character).
Hanging by a thread.
User avatar
Hrothgaar
Novice
Posts: 24
Joined: Sat Nov 05, 2011 12:01 pm

Re: Old-Shool vs Modern Crawlers transparency question

Post by Hrothgaar »

It seems this forum is much more alive than the Grimrock one :-)
Thank you for your inputs so far :-p
User avatar
Saumun
High Lord
Posts: 2238
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2009 3:03 am
Location: The Ether

Re: Old-Shool vs Modern Crawlers transparency question

Post by Saumun »

Also... I was starting to veer a little away from the crux of the topic in my last post.

I personally favour the old school approach, though this topic does give me a nice idea for future projects.
“Grynix Ernum Quey Ki Skebow Rednim U Os Dey Wefna Enocarn Aquantana” - Anon
User avatar
Hrothgaar
Novice
Posts: 24
Joined: Sat Nov 05, 2011 12:01 pm

Re: Old-Shool vs Modern Crawlers transparency question

Post by Hrothgaar »

Saumun wrote: Mon Nov 20, 2017 5:49 pm I personally favour the old school approach, though this topic does give me a nice idea for future projects.
Thats nice to hear :-)
Have you done anything like a dungeon crawler before?
User avatar
Saumun
High Lord
Posts: 2238
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2009 3:03 am
Location: The Ether

Re: Old-Shool vs Modern Crawlers transparency question

Post by Saumun »

Only ones using DM clones.
I’ve put dungeons out in RTC and DSB. Nothing beyond that.
“Grynix Ernum Quey Ki Skebow Rednim U Os Dey Wefna Enocarn Aquantana” - Anon
slickrcbd
Adept
Posts: 279
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2007 7:49 am

Re: Old-Shool vs Modern Crawlers transparency question

Post by slickrcbd »

JETENGINE wrote: Mon Nov 20, 2017 3:28 pm Sometimes I try and do a "suicide run" and get through the game using starting armour only (I usually fail). I do this to save my load (and space) for weaponry and other miscellaneous items, like keys or food (I tend to use only one character).
I was wondering if armor had any effect at all once and tried something similar, but it was more of a "nudist run" than a "suicide run". I didn't use any armor at all.
It was doable, but it did seem like I was taking far more damage than normal.
Of course, I was something like 13 at the time, so I naturally took the champions with the prettiest female pictures for the "nudist run-through".
God, I can't believe that it was about a quarter century ago. I'm getting old. I got older than Dennis back in February.
User avatar
Paul Stevens
CSBwin Guru
Posts: 4318
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2001 6:00 pm
Location: Madison, Wisconsin, USA

Re: Old-Shool vs Modern Crawlers transparency question

Post by Paul Stevens »

quarter century ago
Anyone thinking a quarter century is 'long ago' is a youngster.
slickrcbd
Adept
Posts: 279
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2007 7:49 am

Re: Old-Shool vs Modern Crawlers transparency question

Post by slickrcbd »

You know, I think the next time I start Dungeon Master up again, I might try something inspired by the talk of a "starting armor only" run and try instead using only the ones It think have the nice looking icons but never use, like the tunic, or the elvan doublet and huke (well, I do use them when I have nothing better, but trade them for leather).
Maybe the fine robe and the ghi.
User avatar
Ameena
Wordweaver, Murafu Maker
Posts: 7515
Joined: Mon Mar 24, 2003 6:25 pm
Location: Here, where I am sitting!
Contact:

Re: Old-Shool vs Modern Crawlers transparency question

Post by Ameena »

I don't think I ever really wear much more than leather...I mean, I'll get magical boots (like the Elven Boots, for the Strength boost) and whatever helms I like the graphics of (not Darc, though - too heavy and too much of a pain in the arse to get hold of at the back of that area full of bloody Spell Vines :P), but generally stick to what I can carry. I refuse to move if either of my characters is in the yellow (my party consists of just two people) so will only carry what I need to...and some stuff that I don't, like a couple of chests full of food that ends up not getting touched as I'm still working through the Screamer Slices in people's inventories by the time I finish the game :D.
I did once test to see if armour made a difference by deliberately shutting myself in a door a little bit, both with and without a helmet. Without a helmet I think I was taking about 5-6 damage per hit, but with one it was more like 2-3 or something. So it made a difference but not a very big one, at least as far as doors were concerned ;).
______________________________________________
Ameena, self-declared Wordweaver, Beastmaker, Thoughtbringer, and great smegger of dungeon editing!
User avatar
JETENGINE
Journeyman
Posts: 94
Joined: Wed Aug 23, 2017 2:17 am
Location: South of the 46th parallel.

Re: Old-Shool vs Modern Crawlers transparency question

Post by JETENGINE »

A bit off topic here,but I don't think helmets made any real difference against the doors in Dungeon Master 2. I also noticed that the overhead doors did more damage than the doors that opened for the side if they tried to close on you.
Hanging by a thread.
slickrcbd
Adept
Posts: 279
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2007 7:49 am

Re: Old-Shool vs Modern Crawlers transparency question

Post by slickrcbd »

Ameena wrote: Tue Nov 21, 2017 4:39 pm I don't think I ever really wear much more than leather...I mean, I'll get magical boots (like the Elven Boots, for the Strength boost) and whatever helms I like the graphics of (not Darc, though - too heavy and too much of a pain in the arse to get hold of at the back of that area full of bloody Spell Vines :P), but generally stick to what I can carry. I refuse to move if either of my characters is in the yellow (my party consists of just two people) so will only carry what I need to...and some stuff that I don't, like a couple of chests full of food that ends up not getting touched as I'm still working through the Screamer Slices in people's inventories by the time I finish the game :D.
I've gone entire games where I avoid using plate armor or even the mail arketon. I will use the mirthril mail.
It depends on which champions I use. If I've got weaklings like Gando, Tiggy, Chani or Wu Tse, I won't use anything heavier than mithril mail. I might have them stick with leather. The mail arketon is particularly heavy, so I might not use it.
If I'm using Halk, Stamm, Sonja, Daroou, or Hissa, I'll probably use plate, possibly even darc armor.
I very rarely use the Darc armor however, even with a party with just the strong ones I just mentioned above.
User avatar
JETENGINE
Journeyman
Posts: 94
Joined: Wed Aug 23, 2017 2:17 am
Location: South of the 46th parallel.

Re: Old-Shool vs Modern Crawlers transparency question

Post by JETENGINE »

Paul Stevens wrote: Tue Nov 21, 2017 8:10 am
Anyone thinking a quarter century is 'long ago' is a youngster.
Paul, as of this post, I am not quite a double-decade and a half old. So a quarter century is beyond my time. :)
Hanging by a thread.
slickrcbd
Adept
Posts: 279
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2007 7:49 am

Re: Old-Shool vs Modern Crawlers transparency question

Post by slickrcbd »

Nice to see another generation can appreciate this old game from my childhood.
I still find it hard to believe that I've had the game over 25 years. Where did my youth go?

Seriously, I've had DM since 1990.
User avatar
Ameena
Wordweaver, Murafu Maker
Posts: 7515
Joined: Mon Mar 24, 2003 6:25 pm
Location: Here, where I am sitting!
Contact:

Re: Old-Shool vs Modern Crawlers transparency question

Post by Ameena »

It's DMs 30th anniversary this year, in fact. Can't recall when exactly it came out during the year but I believe it was shortly before Christmas?
______________________________________________
Ameena, self-declared Wordweaver, Beastmaker, Thoughtbringer, and great smegger of dungeon editing!
slickrcbd
Adept
Posts: 279
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2007 7:49 am

Re: Old-Shool vs Modern Crawlers transparency question

Post by slickrcbd »

It may be true, but my parents did not get a computer until late 1988, and the then-new Apple IIGS with 512mb of RAM would not have had enough RAM to run it either. It wasn't until the computer was upgraded to 1.25mb of RAM that I could actually play it at home. A friend got it in 1989 and that's how I found out about it.
User avatar
Paul Stevens
CSBwin Guru
Posts: 4318
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2001 6:00 pm
Location: Madison, Wisconsin, USA

Re: Old-Shool vs Modern Crawlers transparency question

Post by Paul Stevens »

then-new Apple IIGS with 512mb of RAM
Wow!
slickrcbd
Adept
Posts: 279
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2007 7:49 am

Re: Old-Shool vs Modern Crawlers transparency question

Post by slickrcbd »

I can't seem to edit the post, but it should be 512 KILOBYTES of RAM, not megabytes.
Heck, the thing can only handle 8mb of RAM, and the processor in theory can only handle a maximum of 16mb of RAM and ROM due to it only having a 24-bit address bus.
I EVENTUALLY, by 1994 had upgraded it to 4mb of RAM.
The ROM 1 Apple IIGS came with 256K built in to the motherboard and included a 256K memory expansion card that could be expanded to either 512K or 1mb (plus the 256K on the motherboard).
I did both upgrades in installments. First in 1989 I upgraded the system to 768K, then in 1990 I finally upgraded it to 1.25mb. In 1991 I got a PC Transporter card to run MS-DOS programs. In 1992 I got a new RAM card with 4mb of RAM. In 1993 I finally got a hard drive.
User avatar
JETENGINE
Journeyman
Posts: 94
Joined: Wed Aug 23, 2017 2:17 am
Location: South of the 46th parallel.

Re: Old-Shool vs Modern Crawlers transparency question

Post by JETENGINE »

I only ever knew a Win 95+ back in my da... erm, when I was younger. It HAD a little over one GB of hard disk space. It now has 6 GB, but it doesn't register all of it. I always liked the fact that I could go to DOS on command, without going to something like DOSBox. My family has had it almost as long as I have been around. Gosh, the memories... then again, I can't actually recall something from that far back, as I didn't have long-term memory support back then.

-> slickrcbd, I do believe that if you are going to edit, that it must be done within five minutes.
Hanging by a thread.
slickrcbd
Adept
Posts: 279
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2007 7:49 am

Re: Old-Shool vs Modern Crawlers transparency question

Post by slickrcbd »

"Go to DOS on command"? With Windows 95?
Do you mean going to start->Run and typing "command" (also available from Start->Accessories->Command) or do you mean going to Start->Shut down->"Restart in MS-DOS Mode"?
Because if the latter, I find using DOSBox to be faster and a bit more convenient.
I've got a Windows 98SE/XP dual-boot computer that I use as a file and print server for my parallel printer. I find DOSBox on the XP side faster than trying to use MS-DOS Mode on the 98SE side.
User avatar
JETENGINE
Journeyman
Posts: 94
Joined: Wed Aug 23, 2017 2:17 am
Location: South of the 46th parallel.

Re: Old-Shool vs Modern Crawlers transparency question

Post by JETENGINE »

There is a MS-DOS shortcut in the accessories folder (also a desktop shortcut) entitled "DOS Mode Games - EMS" that I use to quickly access DOS mode. Sure, I have to type in the actual command to change directory, but I don't have to head back to drive "Z:\" to re-mount in order to play another game.
I acknowledge the auto-mount feature of DOSBox, but it has limitations. Not being able to head to the root of drive "C:\" for instance. I figure that is to prevent catastrophic system-wide changes to the computer.

Back on topic, I wish that DM1 gave you a half-hearted guess as to the protective value of armour or the damage potential of a weapon without you risking your hide in combat.
Hanging by a thread.
slickrcbd
Adept
Posts: 279
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2007 7:49 am

Re: Old-Shool vs Modern Crawlers transparency question

Post by slickrcbd »

I know, just including a chart in the game packaging would have been handy. Doing so would have been a common practice at the time.
User avatar
terkio
Mon Master
Posts: 937
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2012 8:24 pm

Re: Old-Shool vs Modern Crawlers transparency question

Post by terkio »

I just figured a way to know about armor and weapons in a natural way.
A training arena.
Fighting against sparingpartners, champions could know about weapons and armors rather than by reading numbers.
"You can be on the right track and still get hit by a train!" Alfred E. Neuman
Post Reply