Xref: utzoo rec.games.hack:2089 comp.terminals:555
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!seismo!sundc!pitstop!sun!amdcad!ames!xanth!kent
From: kent@xanth.cs.odu.edu (Kent Paul Dolan)
Newsgroups: rec.games.hack,comp.terminals
Subject: Re: We Need More Monster Characters!
Message-ID: <3765@xanth.cs.odu.edu>
Date: 27 Jan 88 04:27:47 GMT
References: <4590@teddy.UUCP> <1729@faline.bellcore.com>
Reply-To: kent@xanth.UUCP (Kent Paul Dolan)
Organization: Old Dominion University, Norfolk Va.
Lines: 28

In article <1729@faline.bellcore.com> purtill@faline.UUCP (Mark Purtill) writes:
>In article <> elg@killer.UUCP (Eric Green) writes:
>>I still think it's a bad idea to expand Hack's character set... what ought to
>>be done, instead, is to get rid of one monster for every one added. There
>>comes a time when things simply get ridiculous...
>
>The trouble with this is that eventually *all* the monsters will be special
>in some way.  (Because `boring' monsters will be the one(s) to go).  How about
>this tho:  There would be in general more than one monster per letter.  At 
>the start of the game, the program would pick one monster from each letter
>to use in that game.  So for instance, in a game you would either find giant
>rats or rockmoles, but not both.
>
>Comments?
>
>^.-.^ purtill@math.mit.edu
>(("))


I'm kind of fond of the system used in some of the Rogue games, where
the same symbol stands for a scarier monster on a deeper level.  That
way, a few dozen letters can provide a selection of hundreds of
different monster types, without insulting really stupid terminals by
trying to make them act intelligent enough to highlight, or whatever.

Yes, I think that this would be a MAJOR change.

Kent, the man from xanth.