Dungeon Master Forum

I'd like the ability to create new spells, but I'm not sure how this could be implemented. One thing I have been thinking about for ages is to have invisible monsters that attack you, but you can't see them unless you cast the correct spell.

How would this be implemented though? Is there some way a codebase could be developed for user-definable spells so that the core engine code does not have to be re-written each time a new spell must be created?

If we CAN do something like this, spells MUST reflect the true meanings of the runes as found in the DM Manual, otherwise it becomes ridiculous.

On another note, Oh Ew Ra does not work in RTC 0.02. I can cast it, but it does not let me see through anything.

Only about half the spells have been implemented in RTC so far. The ones still to do are mostly obscure and/or require adding major pieces of code to implement them. The only common spells not implemented is the window spell and flux-cage/fuse, others include spell/fire-shields, calm, invisibility etc.

I don't think user defined spells are at all possible with any engine. It's certainly possible to change the spell runes needed to cast a particular spell though, but that's not quite the same...

I think this is all going to my head... I'm asking all kinds of impossible things, I do realise that!

But I still think it's useful to have this suggestion forum as it's like a brain storm. People can suggest anything, however ridiculous it may be. At least then we can be told whether or not it's possible/practical/worthwhile by you (George).

I'm sure I can come up with some more weird and wonderful stuff!!!

I had new spells in my "clone" when I was starting it a while back (no time to finish, unfortunately)

Everything was defined by a scripting language. When the game loaded, it read in definitions for spells from a text file, using an in-built language. A spell definition would have looked a bit like this in the setup file:

DEFINE SPELL RECOILFIREBALL
RUNES 4,5,8,2
PLAY BIGBANG.WAV
SHOOT GRAPHIC 4
MOVEPARTY -1,0

The runes required for the spell (not including power) were defined in the RUNES line, and the actual effect of the fireball hitting something was defined within a seperate definition of graphic 4. Moveparty -1,0 would make the party recoil by one space when they cast the spell (damage if they hit a wall).
The language, of course, was sufficiently advanced to allow all sorts of user defined effects and spells, including spells which caused things to happen on squares on other dungeon levels.
The language was also used to define every pressure pad, switch, etc, so that virtually everything could be redefined.

Easy, really

The language that you developed seems a lot like the CON file scripting language used in Duke Nukem 3D. Am I right in thinking this is what it's based on, or did you create it yourself?

Either way, it's a cool way to create user defined events. It would allow my "show invisible monstesr" spell to work, assuming that there was a bit that controlled monster visibility, and that this can be turned on and off at will.

I think that the RTC engine combined with this kind of scripting would be a killer combination. How about it George?

Hmm, I wasn't aware of the Duke Nukem reference - although that is one of my favourite games. I developed the scripting language simply because it seemed the only way to make everything user configurable. You could focus any square with a command such as:

FOCUS 10,12,14

(Level 10, row 12, column 14) and then make things happen to that square or even move the party there or generate a monster, etc. Because the code was flexible, I could have added new commands in future versions had I had time to complete the game (I am a partner in klubkat.com, a music webzine, so that takes up all my time) - but I would certainly like to see this sort of flexibility in a DM clone.

Simon

How open is your source code Theadder? I, at least, am very interested in looking at what you did accomplish on your clone if at all possible, as might other people. If you are not thinking about going forward with the project is there any way you would release the source code?

As a general note on the scripting/duke nukom reference, the method he used seems pretty standard of scripting languages for games, it looks similar to Wheel of Time (and thus Unreal) scripting as well as a couple of older games. It is basically as you said, it is basically the only way to make everything configurable. =) <p> <a href="http://www.icq.com/icqtour/webcomm.html"><img alt border="0"src="http://online.mirabilis.com/scripts/onl ... e.gif"></a> AMAPROTU
<p><a href="http://msg.mirabilis.com/scripts/contac ... 7004"><img altborder="0" height="23" src="http://www.jps.net/amaprotu/wot/icqme.gif" width="88"></a><ahref="mailto:2667004@pager.mirabilis.com,amaprotu@jps.net"><img alt border="0" height="23"src="http://www.jps.net/amaprotu/wot/email.gif" width="87"></a><ahref="http://web.mirabilis.com/scripts/srch.d ... 7004"><img alt border="0"height="23" src="http://www.jps.net/amaprotu/wot/zoom.gif" width="87"></a></p></p>

The clone I was experimenting with was originally written in Pascal for DOS, which proved too slow at bit blitting, and then rewritten in Visual Basic with similar problems - it was really a personal project to see what i could do before all the fuss appeared about a clone on the internet!!! I was going to recode it in C when I got the time. I've been a programmer since the 80's, and am now a partner in a music website, so I know a number of languages and like to play around with them all from time to time

Although the sourcecode would be rather pointless to a low level C++ project, I could look out the documentation I made on the scripting language if anyone was interested in how it was laid out - perhaps it could be used as a basis for a more advanced scripting code in this clone?

Simon

Whether or not spells are made customizable, I think it would be a good idea to include at least some of the new spells found in DMII. Perhaps some of these could be enabled only if specified in the init file. What about magic maps?

It would be nice if perhaps the monsters and/or objects used a bit array to store certain attributes. For example, monsters could have bits that determine whether or not they are visible, whether or not they are only affected by magic, which offensive spells are most effective against them, etc.

Then perhaps with some kind of open spell scripting language we could create some cool spells to exploit these attributes. How about an overlay graphic that makes magic monsters glow when you cast a certain spell? Lots of possibilities here!

DM2 spells would be nice, but forget about Minions - more trouble than they are worth. Although the fetch/carry minion was quite clever....

The "confusion" spell, probably the same one that the Staff of Claws has, is included in some spell lists but not all. I don't remember ever getting it to work, but I suspect it does work in at least one version, or else it wouldn't have been written down.

One possibility for spells is that all the effects are built into the game, and the ones that are not used in standard DM would initially be disabled. For example the text for the spells file could look like this

[fireball]
enabled=true
runes=4,4
class=wizard
skill=????
power=1
text=

Text could be used to display a message when the spell is cast (not used in DM), power would be a multiplyer of the effect done in standard DM. Skill would have to relate to how hard it is, maybe based on how much xp the person has in that class.

This way if you wanted to make a spell that used two effects you could do this (super fireball):

[fireball]
enabled=true
runes=4,4,4
class=wizard
skill= ???
power=2
text=

[knockbackparty]
enabled=true
runes=4,4,4
class=wizard
skill=???
power=1
text=

I don't know, its just an idea. In the text area it would be nice if something could be used to represent the caster ( %C or something).

All the effects that would ever be available would have to be prgramed already, and multiple instances in the spell file would have to be allowed. Another possiblity would be one that looked like this:

[superfireball]
runes=4,4,4
effect1=fireball
power1=2
effect2=knockbackparty
power2=1
class=wizard
skill=???

The more I think about this and write it out the harder it seems, spells that require flasks might require another flag, but perhaps a 'required=' field would allow for more diverse spells, maybe you need to hold a rock or something to create the superfireball.

This is essentially just a form of a scripting language, and is just my thoughts. It probably has many holes in it besides the ones I already said. <p> <a href="http://www.icq.com/icqtour/webcomm.html"><img alt border="0"src="http://online.mirabilis.com/scripts/onl ... e.gif"></a> AMAPROTU
<p><a href="http://msg.mirabilis.com/scripts/contac ... 7004"><img altborder="0" height="23" src="http://www.jps.net/amaprotu/wot/icqme.gif" width="88"></a><ahref="mailto:2667004@pager.mirabilis.com,amaprotu@jps.net"><img alt border="0" height="23"src="http://www.jps.net/amaprotu/wot/email.gif" width="87"></a><ahref="http://web.mirabilis.com/scripts/srch.d ... 7004"><img alt border="0"height="23" src="http://www.jps.net/amaprotu/wot/zoom.gif" width="87"></a></p></p>

Magic was certainly one of the great aspects of DM and CSB. Finding new spells writen on scrolls was always a new experience. But items also were an important source of magic in the game. Getting free fireballs from the Furry sword could be an important advantage in battle.. until you found out the magic was not to last forever and you had a burnt sword in hand. So if new spells are added, what about spells that could enchant items? Maybe the first step would be to have a way to reload items such as the Furry, keeping a few fireballs handy for the time when you really need it..

Anyway, if new spells are added, one way or another, I think it would be great to keep them secret.. until the proper scroll is found, revealing long lost secrets..

It was FURY.. not furry

Sorry I know what you meant Darkwin.. but it was just to funny seeing it called the 'Furry' sword..

at any rate.. I do think new spells should be made.. there are areas that just were not covered in DM CSB and DM2.. but I think that any new spells should be defined at the source here and not user defined. I think there should be a concensus and the creator (George) should make the deciding vote on it.

I mean it has to make sence and the way the spell is cast depends on the meaning of the runes.. it should make sence in the DM universe or it's pointless. It should also not throw off the balance of the game.

One thing though is that anything that could be done in the DM universe to begin with should ultimately be allowable to the user. Think about it.. Chaos created the dungeon.. he created the monsters, the weapons and armour that were enchanted, the ful bombs, the teleporters, even the food, but we could never do any of that.

I mean to create a single wall would probably take such a level of mana that no one below a mon master could do it.. and even then it would take every ounce of magic they had (maybe more) for just one. Think about it though.. when you were a Mon master everything.. what was there that was a challenge in the dungeon? It would be pointless to play the game at that point. nothing could do a heck of a lot to you.

At that point the game would be out of balance anyway.. so allowing more powerfull spells at such a high level wouldn't be a big deal.

I think perhaps the spells should exist but the power to cast them should be set to prevent some from being cast (you would never have enough mana to hit the last symbol) and others to be only possible at high mana cost but at least they are there.

I'm following you around drake lol.

New spells would be for the purpose of use in new dungeons, not in the existing DM / CSB maps.
However I do believe that hard coded spells, that can be enabled or disable in the scripting of the dugeon is probably the easiest method. Perhaps what runes are required to cast the spell could be in the script, but not much more should be. To that effect what spell effects should there be?

Map, when cast shows full screen map of where the adventurers have gone. I really like some idea of a map, however implemented.
ya ir ros

Big fireball/short range
ful ir ra

Heal leader (only way I can think of to heal someone besides your self)
vi ir

Heal group
vi ir neta

Remove wall
des kath ra

Freeze (keep monster from running away)
vi ven

lol I don't even think most of those are possible, just thought I aughta start hehe.

if we add to the magic of the world.. it should remain in it for all time.. that's why everything new made should not overbalance anything. IF it is a spell we are adding to the DM universe it should not be turned on or off at will.. it should either be a part of the game or not.

IT wouldn't make sence otherwise in reffrence to the DM world. If you have it one area and not in annother.
I'm more or less suggesting that anything that could be done in DM should be made available. Ful Bombs, enchantment, invis. barriers, etc.

I dissagree with you Drake.

To my understanding the purpose of RTC is two fold:

1) Create a true DM clone.

2) Allow for the (relativly) easy creation of new dungeons and adventures within a fexible DM type engine.

To the first no new spells should be added for then you would not have a true DM clone. However balanced or not the new spells or effects are, the game will not be the original game, which I believe is the intent.

For the second it would definatly be nice if when creating new dungeons there were more spells, possiblities for determining when spells became available and other options to make the new dungeon unique in more than its just a different maze.

To that effect we already know its possible to use new graphics, better graphics, new sounds, new monsters, new items (I think right?). I believe there was also mention of the possibility of wall objects with animations (I can't remember what George said about this off the top of my head), and different heros too right?

All these are features that are available to people that want to make new mazes but they are not *in* RTC as it comes as a DM clone. Along these lines it would make sense to have new spells that although not available in the DM clone, could be available to people that want to design their own mazes. It then becomes the responsibility of the dungeon creator to make sure his dungeon is balanced. If spells can be dissabled it could lead to some really interesting dungeons, for instance a really challenging dungeon could be made by simply dissabling the fireball spell, or perhaps you make a warrior dungeon where no spells work at all.

- Amaprotu

ps v.005 is really SWEET George, I love it! I havn't played with sound since I had by Atari.

I honestly think that if you create an abilty/rule of a world (like the world of DM) that it should exist always. It's like the laws of physics.. you don't just change them on a whim... if they are.. then they are, or else it's a different universe.

I can agree that an option for Purists should be allowed so that one could turn on or off 'NEW SPELLS' but not to turn 1 or 2 off ..all of them, and certainly don't mess with the orriginals.

I can also agree that a no magic area of a dungeon is a nice tactic to screw with the players but it should include *all* magic while in that area.

My suggestion for new spells is to simply allow fixes to the DM world to give the ability to cast spells that should have existed in DM since they could be done by Chaos himself. Ie. Ful Bombs, teleporters, barriers, etc. However game balance should be set as a whole and not just for a single map.

I for one, thought it sucked that they removed spells in DM2.. things that you could do in DM and CSB just.. poof.. gone! And why?? Who knows, I suppose they thought no one needed them but that's not the point. I was dissapointed when I found these were gone even though some I never really used except to amuse myself. I'm not the only one who felt this way either..

If you go around changing things within the world dynamics you change the feeling of that world.. it becomes something new.. and not always better.. It simply would not be the DM universe anymore.

Different areas of the DM world might have different amounts of magic, might be governed by different elements, etc. So in keeping with one of your ideas, maybe certain spells that aren't included in one dungeoun simply require a higher mana cost to invoke that is beyond normal wizards and priests, maybe the essence being invoked for a spell holds no sway (more likely). Also, why can't spell research be ongoing like in the D&D universe, where in one area a wizard or priest has found a spell that isn't currently in use by others yet.

There are many reasons why spells can be on or off in the 'real world', so I wouldn't feel to jarred by not having certain ones available in a dungeon.

At the end of the day new spells are going to be a good addition to the DM game, and waiting for them to be hard coded into RTC will be annoying to new dungeon creaters trying to push the limits of the dungeon, when everything else sounds like it might be so very customisable. What's the point of trying to design an exotic amazonian forest style 'dungeon' lay out with new cretaures and items if you can't introduce new spells that no one would be familiar with too?

As I stated before I think the 'ideal' method would be to have all the possible effects hard coded in and have a spells.dat script file that would have entries such as

[fireball]
effect1=fireballeffect
effect2=none
xfactor1=1
xfactor2=0
runes=1,2,3
class=wizard
skill=5000


This method has the advantages of:
1)allowing the combination of effects into new spells
2)allowing more powerful "super" versions (or weaker)
3)setting xfactor to 0 would give the visual effect with no physical effect
4)allow to customize the runes required

Disadvantages
1)for those that think that spells added should be all or none like Drake, this obviosly is not the way to go.
2)I think it would be difficult to implement (key factor)
3)does not account for mana usage, but I think this is currently implemented on a rune by rune basis right?
4)doesn't account for sound

Effects I think should be included are:
all current DM, CSB spells
move party back
move party forward (maybe just a negative in the script instead of its own effect)
empty flask
party heal
party harm (powerful spells may have disadvantages, it might also be possible to have this done using a negative factor in the script instead of a seperate effect).

This is just my idea of a perfect DM and I realize its George's DM so it gets to be his Perfect DM =). I just like tossing my ideas out there.

- Amaprotu

What is all this talk by certain people suddenly about a DM universe. I thought the idea of RTC was to create a games making kit for creating DM style games (IE: First person turn 90 degrees at a time style). That's what I'm looking forward to, anyway.

I have no interest in replaying DM - I already did that. The first thing I want to do with RTC when it's finished is use all the anime characters I have created over the years and make a game with cartoony anime graphics full of anime creatures and with spells I design for my game. It won't have anything to do with DM, apart from the way the characters move. I thought this was the point - why would you tie people down to a "universe" so that they can't create their own universe when it is so simple to do. By letting people add their own spells but supplying a default "Dm" setup, people can either stick with the dm universe or make their own.
To expect George to force people to base their games in the dm universe just because it's the universe you like is, to say the least, very conceited. Just my two'pennyworth

Now now, let us not get nasty here.

RTC.. Return to chaos.. sound like something? Perhaps a little like a sequal to DM??

It was a DM clone (I'm not to sure what it will become) and was intended (at the start of this) from my first understanding to allow for more changes than DMUTE was able to impliment. Such as changing the graphics and sounds etc.

At any rate if you read my posts.. I mean actually really read them. You'll notice that I said that if it is to be a 'DMclone' then it should stay true to the orriginal. Otherwise it's something else. I do not expect George to do anything other than what George *wants* to do with it. He doesn't HAVE to do any of this and so it's his choice to decide how far he wants it to go.

I like a whole lot of different games(worlds) and would be fully happy to create my own little world for others to play in. I don't think it conceit to decide however to limit it to a certain boundry as specific set of rules in prefrence to one instead. To make something that works for everything in every way.. is a LOT of work and since it's one persons creation that he is willing to share with the rest of us without any payment..

I don't expect him to do anything he doesn't want to with his creation. To expect otherwise would be selfish.

I've made only suggestions and backed up my reasoning.. nothing more. Just the same as everyone else.

He He, I knew you'd take that to heart the moment I pressed the "add reply" button, Drake It wasn't a dig at you - just at this sudden reference to the DM universe.

My point is simply that I designed a DM clone (and when I talk about a DM clone to my friends, I am referring to the game style of stepping one square at a time, not to it being in any other way like DM - I refer to EOB, for example, as a DM clone) a while ago in Visual Basic. It was slow because of what it was written in, and it was only an experiment, but I made it totally customisable through a simple scripting language and the whole project only took a few days to finish.
I know I've been programming since 1978 on various platforms and george is new to all this, and I think what he is doing is fantastic (I've said so elsewhere) - I couldn't put something of this calibre together as I'm not a games programmer, but I simply point out that adding a simple scripting language could be done in less than a day so why not give people at least the chance to change things in this way?

Personally, I'll be happy whatever George decides to do - it would just be a shame if my new game required a "smart bomb" spell or something and there wasn't even a simply way of creating one.

No offence intended - I'm not good at expressing myself in text

Well either way it's put George has stated in annother post and in private email that he wants things to be in the spirit of DM. My statements were really in support of that. Not just because I agree with that but because I know that it's going to be a lot harder to meet everyones desires.

Scripting may be easy enough to create.. but to make it work well is different. There are a lot of different variables to think about when you decide to give that much freedom and try to keep your code stable.

Beyond that comes gameplay. You want balance in your games. DM more than most other games of it's kind had a good balance. you could say if it ain't broke don't fix it. However there are things that could be fixed in DM to improve on it so you can't really say that. Annother argument is that this game is more about tribute to a great game than some of us may first see. It's a world we have visited many times no matter how often we've played it through. I've seen this project as a way to restore that little fantasy world and to breath new life into it. It started with DM in mind why toss that aside?

Either way, if someone wants to create a new world and feel .. why not start from scratch? that is the only way to create something both stable and new.. Otherwise you will always have limits within this engine.. it can't be done without them.

Anyway, don't worry about me getting upset.. I'm just as bad with explainations.. no harm done.

Spells are now fully editable in V0.35