Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.nethack (
More info?)
David Damerell wrote:
> Quoting Klaus Kassner <Klaus.Kassner@physik.uni-magdeburg.de>:
>
>>David Damerell wrote:
>>
>>>A prudent player won't have teleportitis, of course, because they don't
>>>have any dependable source of TC, lacking reflection and only having a
>>>ring.
>>
>>Of course the whole issue is moot, if you assume that your prudent
>>player has played perfectly up to that point.
>
>
> It's not perfect play to avoid eating teleportitis corpses when you don't
> want teleportitis. This is basic stuff.
But this is not the point we were discussing. You are turning things
upside down. So let's be more clear now - you wrote: "But you haven't
explained how a prudent player without reflection would get into such a
situation; so you still have not justified the assertion that reflection
is not merely convenient." - without specifying what you mean by "such a
situation". From the context, I could not guess that you meant "getting
teleportitis" by this, because the context was that *I*, not you, had
suggested before that a prudent player would not get teleportitis in the
first place, if he *planned* to go without reflection. That case being
dealt with, I had no reason to suspect that "such a situation" meant
"having teleportitis". On the contrary, from the context I had every
reason to suppose "such a situation" meant a "life-threatening situation
after having teleportitis and no reflection". We don't have to roll up
a case again we had already agreed upon, do we?
So I was arguing under the assumption that your prudent player did not
have reflection but had teleportitis and TC, but that he did not lack
reflection because he had planned doing so (otherwise he would not have
teleportitis).
You asked for an example how "such a situation" could arise, and I gave
you one, based on your imprecise wording.
Had you asked how a prudent player can get into the situation of having
teleportitis but no reflection, I would first have given you the same
answer: I think every experienced player can imagine how that could
happen. However, in order not to go through too many iterations of the
procedure, here are a few possibilities.
Suppose your prudent player has just killed a silver dragon who left
scales. He has no magic protection yet, but a ring of TC. No scrolls
of teleportation nor wands. He wears the scales, maybe enchants them to
scale mail. He has seen a leprechaun hall before. Now would your
prudent player who is, say at level 12 or so, forego the possibility of
getting controlled teleportation which can be a life saver? I think it
would be more prudent to go and eat the leprechauns than to run the risk
of being surrounded with no means of escape at the next magic trap.
O.k. he now has TC, teleportitis, and reflection.
A few levels later, he runs into a lich who destroys his armor. Bingo.
Alternative scenario: He wants to enchant some of his armor, but his
scale mail is already at +4. What does a prudent player do? I can tell
you what I do: I go to an emptied level with a closet; just before
entering, I don my blindfold to make sure that no monster detectable by
telepathy is around, I enter and lock the door, I start the undressing
procedure. If I have an amulet of reflection, I am paranoid enough to
put it on. But we assumed our prudent player has reflection by scale
mail only. The moment he has undressed, a few giants are created, one
of which kicks in the door of the closet, another one zaps a wand of
lightning, and the ring of TC is gone. No permanent loss of reflection,
but a temporary one is quite sufficient.
Third possibility: a spell caster who got reflection by a shield, counts
on getting it by the amulet later, but takes off the shield to cast a
spell while no dangerous monster seems around. Just in that moment one
with a wand of lightning turns around the corner... You may say he was
not prudent, but you might be wrong. For prudence means choosing the
least risky route from several available ones. Sometimes none may be
without any risk.
And so on...
Being an experienced player means you have seen enough situations to
have thought about strategical issues in detail. Having imagination and
being experienced means you can come up with situations where even a
prudent player will be without reflection and with uncontrolled
teleportitis. It should not have been necessary for me to tell you
that. It is quite obvious that it can be a prudent move to *acquire*
teleportitis in certain circumstances, because it can be a blessing.
With circumstances changing, it may turn into a curse.
>>My scenario was under the
>>assumption that the player had gained teleportitis and TC.
> Which is a ridiculous assumption for a prudent player without reflection.
It is not as I have shown above.
>>place. You have to start with some assumption, and of course the only
>>assumption that makes sense when discussing how losing TC can destroy
>>your game is that you also have teleportitis to begin with.
> Which is a ridiculous assumption, so what you're saying is "the lack of
> reflection can destroy your game only under ridiculous circumstances".
Your argument is ridiculous.
>>>Therefore this is not a scenario in which a prudent player can destroy
>>>their game.
>>Sure it is. You just have to put your prudent player into the initial
>>situation and then let him show how he would get out.
> It's not an initial situation a prudent player will get into, because the
> getting of teleportitis is under their control.
But the loss of reflection is not (completely).
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram