Saturday, 11 July 2009

Permadeath

There have been a number of intriguing articles written over the last few weeks about one of the key concepts, and most criticised features, of roguelikes: permanent death, often shortened to permadeath. This is the notion that should the game avatar die, the player should start from the beginning of the game. Permadeath is the reason why it can take years to beat certain roguelikes - in my case, I have never won a game of Angband or any variant of it in over ten years of playing - and why so many people initially turn away from the genre. But in a world of quick saves and regenerating health, permadeath is the one compelling design feature that you need to appreciate to understand the genre.

The challenge of playing Far Cry 2 with one life made by Ben Abraham of Sometimes Life Requires Consequence has been picked up and commented on by lead designer Clint Hocking, who goes on to explore the conflict between what Ben is attempting and the narrative losses that Clint designed into the game. (As an aside: the immediacy of playing the game and being responded to by the designer of that game plays to the strengths of the blogging medium, the dialog between auteur and audience. This was a triumph - I'm making a note here etc. - for the rise of the game critic/blogger.)

In Infinite Caves, Infinite Stories, Anthony Burch explores what makes Spelunky so compelling - a freeware mix of platformer and roguelike, one of the nascent roguelike-likes if you will - and identifies a mix of three elements: 'randomized [...] levels, emergent gameplay and permanent death'. Think of these as three legs of the roguelike game design triangle - each of which cannot stand unsupported without the others.

Randomized levels, built from procedural techniques or randomly chosen pre-assembled components, is what you immediately think of when talking about roguelikes. But randomized levels feature in the RTS genre without permadeath - but on reflection, the RTS genre does intra-level permadeath: it is possible to lose and restart on a single map while keeping progress between maps. It turns out many genres have permanent death and restart as a core component of the game - arcade fighters, horizontal and vertical scrolling shooters, strategy games - in fact, permanent death is only seen as a negative in narrative based games, especially those like RPGs that feature accumulation of resource over time, and it is roguelikes that are unique out of these types of games in continuing what started as an arcade tradition.

What almost all other genres featuring permanent death have in common is that there is a resource accumulated from game to game: player skill. Improved twitch resources required to dodge an ever increasing swarm of bullets or rote memorisation of the patterns of enemy waves, increased understanding or yomi of the opponent's mind - all of these attributes can be improved and reused in repeated play.

But with roguelikes, it's not obvious what skills are being developed. Certainly not reflexes, and with a single player game, no understanding of an opponent is required. Puzzle solving is closer to the process, but puzzle solving in an environment where the board is reset differently every time, and the pieces are sometimes unfairly tipped against you.

I'd argue that there are two important but distinct phases of skill development that in roguelikes: discovery of emergent game play and the trade off between exploitation of resources against evasion of risk.

Emergent Game Play

Emergent game play in most roguelikes rests on a foundation of the combinatorial explosion caused by designing verbs and objects to maximise the number of verbs which can interact with each object (and implicitly, through throwing, falling, collisions and other game 'physics', maximising the number of ways objects which can interact with each other). From Spelunky, it is possible to rescue a maiden by picking her up and carrying her to the exit, but also, by noticing carried objects can be thrown, a thrown maiden can be used to interact with targets in a number of different ways. Nethack and other roguelikes do this by expanding the number of verbs and ways those verbs can be used - which leads to that Nethack saying 'They thought of everything!'

The process of learning the emergent rules of a game with permadeath and randomized levels transforms the game play from a fixed author led narrative into a meta narrative about the experience of the player learning through repeated and hopefully interesting and unique failure. As the developer of Dwarf Fortress puts it 'failing is fun' - provided you don't have to repeat the same sequence of narrative events each time you do.

But why does this 'failing is fun' approach to learning not work in a game where the player's progress can be saved at any point?

The problem with save games is they capture the wrong sort of progress. The player may have made a critical error of judgement, and failed to acquire a necessary resource or game play skill, somewhere in playing the game prior to saving the game state - and neither the player nor the game designer has any way of knowing this. This is why so many games are designed with gated progression: discrete levels over which a player has to demonstrate supposed mastery of a particular skill. But if a skill is only significant for a subset of the total game, then why have that skill at all? Why not release a series of mini-games instead?

The only guaranteed point at which the player is open to all lessons is at a complete reset of the game state. This does not necessarily have to be a complete restart of the game: it is possible to save player progression provided that all players will end up in exactly the same game state at some point during play. This could be the start of a or new level in a puzzle game which resets all the pieces in play or a new map in an RTS which does not allow units to be kept from previous successes or failures.

Without randomized levels, it is possible for a player to progress simply through rote learning, without having improved the necessary skills. More importantly, repeating the same sequence of actions and narrative sequences is frustrating and ultimately unfulfilling. Think of each play through of a game as being set an exam with a pass or fail mark. If the levels are not randomized, it is possible to sit the same exam over and over, memorising the answers to fixed questions as a method of passing, but not an indication of underlying ability. The process of quick saving and reloading is akin to being able to guess every answer to each question and trying again if you get the wrong result.

Varying the rarity of objects, seen in genres such as MMOs and collectable card games as a callous way of manipulating players to endless grind, instead becomes a useful way of extending the player enjoyment of this learning process, ensuring that some learning situations occur less frequently than others and consequently remembered more vividly. The requirement to identify items through using them common to many roguelikes also helps extend learning, in that the player is not necessarily aware of what resources they hold at any time.

But - even despite my best efforts in Unangband - it is possible to discover all possible emergent properties in most games (not quite true in all cases: self-evolving systems like Galatic Arms Race will prevent this in the future, and the pimpest plays in Starcraft have continued to evolve over that game's lifespan) - and once learned, an emergent property is just another line in a FAQ.

Exploitation and Evasion

In an information complete game, where the player has complete knowledge of the rules, the processes of exploitation and evasion become primary. Take a typical game of Rogue. The player travels through a number of rooms spread across multiple dungeon levels, accumulating resources as they do so. But as the player descends in the dungeon, the level of threat from monsters increases, exponentially so, without a consequent increase in the rewards for defeating them, so that in the last few levels it is better for the player to evade encounters with monsters and conserve the resources he has accumulated earlier in the game, than attempt to stand his ground and fight.

This process can be modelled as follows, where the horizontal axis is the playing time, P indicates the overall accumulated power and R is the risk at any point:The exploitation phase of the game occurs when the player has more power than the risks they can encounter - the evasion phase of the game occurs when the opposite is true.

In reality, the both player power and risk change in step wise increments, and because resources can be lost as well as gained, it is not necessarily a consistently upwards progression. And most roguelikes have a combination of attacks by monsters which can only be avoided by the player having specific resources to resist these attacks. This complicates the picture, because at any point there is a multi-variable level of risk depending on the player's location, and known and unknown threats in the region the player is located.

The key player skill then becomes recognising when the player is in an exploitable situation and taking advantage of the opportunity to collect useful resources, versus an evasion situation, where the player should continue moving and avoid any imminent threats. This reaches a logical conclusion through the what is known in Angband as diving, where a player descends as quickly as possible through the dungeon, stopping only when exploits obviously present themselves - a technique very similar to speed running non-procedurally generated games. This works in Angband because the rewards deeper in the dungeon are progressively more valuable than earlier in the game and so it is always worthwhile going deeper even as the risks escalate. Similar behaviour occurs in Left4Dead, where quickly running through a level is almost always a more effective technique than going out of the way to find the limited additional resources hidden on the map.

On the face of it, exploiting is grinding like behaviour: techniques from Angband such as worm farming to quickly gain experience through killing a self-replicating monster strongly resemble grinding monsters for experience in MMORPGs. But what distinguishes exploiting from grinding is two-fold: limitation of exploitable resources and permadeath. Grinding in a game with permadeath still has an element of risk - that of dying through boredom or statistical happenstance. At any point in time, there should be a non-zero chance that the player will die, and lose all the effort accumulated through relatively safe resource accumulation. More importantly, any time spent grinding at an early phase of the game, is time wasted not playing at the maximum level of reward vs. risk later in the game.

This is a design balancing act: the player must be made aware that progression escalates reward as well as risk, as well as ensuring that the player is never able to accumulate all the necessary resources required to win the game through grinding. The balance in Angband is maintained by preventing the player from grinding unlimited resources for equipment, and ensuring that a player with maximum experience but no equipment will quickly die. (This is not quite true: the technique of stair scumming allows equipment grinding, but an honour system encourages the Angband community not to take advantage of this.) The use of explicit timers, such as food in Rogue, and the ghost in Spelunky, can also ensure that the player is pushed onwards instead of grinding any exploitable situation they find.

Permadeath adds another interesting facet of the exploitation vs. evasion and progression vs. grinding balance. Provided progression through the game brings greater rewards, and the player is able to evade threats at the current level of risk, there is no incentive not to progress to a higher risk area. The rewards are comparatively higher for same the time investment in the game, and the increased risk will either be successfully evaded or result in permadeath, which is the most time efficient way of highlighting the player has judged the level of risk incorrectly. So the design incentive appears to be to be to allow the player to progress through the game relatively easily, stopping off at points determined by the player to acquire the resources needed to survive at all in the next region of escalated risk. In Angband, this is summarised ironically as:

1. Visit general store
2. Buy Lantern
3. Kill Morgoth

because of the lack of fix requirements to complete the game.

Randomized levels require some form of grinding be present in order to guarantee the game is winnable. This is because the player may experience either a resource poor series of levels or a string of bad luck which depletes a high level of resource, through no fault of their own. The extent to which grinding allows the player to alleviate this bad luck is another design decision. It may be that some games are unwinnable is a viable choice here. At the same time, emergent game play through object interaction maximises the chance the player will have some resource available to counter any randomized situation that they find themselves in.

Primal Instincts

At any point in time, the player is faced with the decision of fight or run. This is answered by a careful weighing of the odds, what resources does the player currently have, what is known about those resources, and what threats are known and unknown. Information becomes a precious commodity in a game with randomized levels, and permadeath is used during the learning phase of the game to provide a final lesson in determining if the player understands all the variables of every situation they find themselves in. Once the player understands the game well enough to win it, permadeath is a final backstop to the ever tightening vice between progression and risk, one technique of ensuring that the player does not endlessly loop in a grind.

The question becomes, is this process of learning worthwhile? Is an intuitive understanding of multivariate analysis over a complex risk topology subsumed into a flight or fight instinct something worth playing? Whether this is true is beyond the scope of this article, but I would argue that this skill is something that makes us human.

19 comments:

Legend of Angband said...

Nice post Andrew. I read a couple roguelike blogs. However I have not seen anything about permanent death except for yours. I usually don't comment as I read your posts in my Google reader. Keep up the good work.

Dave said...

This is one of the best argued-posts I've ever seen for permadeath!

humpolec said...

Could you elaborate on the Chess vs Go analogy? I believe there's an element of "fight or flight" and complex risk analysis in both games...

CPL said...

I'm not convinced that emergent gameplay via noun-verb combinations is a good thing. To the extent that the nouns are predictably acquirable (e.g. corpses, shop items) and the noun-verb interactions are fixed, all that's 'emerging' is player knowledge, which can be (and in most cases is) short-circuited via an appropriate FAQ. Either that or (especially with permadeath) you end up asking the player to 'waste' characters on building up knowledge for the main character (i.e. the one they actually care about) to use.

Personally, the emergent gameplay that I find most rewarding is found in CCGs, where the player is given a small collection of random synergistic abilities, and then decides how to use them for the most benefit over the course of several turns.

Andrew Doull said...

humpolec: Chess vs Go - its just a matter of preference. I'll admit that I just hacked the ending on - and still haven't figured out a satisfactory conclusion. When I do, I'll be putting this up on GSW.

CPL: In a procedural game, the nouns are not predictably acquired. Or even understood (think identification). And ideally the number of interactions should ideally exceed the ability to document those interactions. I don't think roguelikes have necessarily got there yet, as I mentioned.

DarthCthulhu said...

I'm still not convinced that Permadeath is a desirable gameplay mechanic. One of the games you present as having it, Spelunky, in fact does not: you can (admittedly optionally) give money to the tunnel man in order to save your progress.

Then there is the fact that you can STILL HAVE Permadeath while also saving the progress. It's just up to the player to restart the game when they die. There is absolutely no reason to enforce that programmatically (you do, after all, have to save progress some way in most Roguelikes, it's just that there is usually only one rather than multiple save files). True, it is possible to save-scumm, but this is a rather irritating and overly-complicated thing. By contrast, it's usually extremely easy to restart a game from the beginning, regardless of how saves are handled.

Permadeath is like those god-awful save points that are popular in console games. Terrible game mechanics that are used to patch up flaws in the gameplay. If the game is not challenging or fun without save points or permadeath, then YOU ARE DOING SOMETHING WRONG.

Saving is an OOC means for the Player, and should NOT be subject to the design whims of the creator.

Andrew Doull said...

DarkCthulhu: Hey. Relax. I'm explaining why it might be a good think to restart from the beginning every game, and how to design a game to support this mechanic. I'm not suggesting every game would benefit from having the ability to save removed - most would turn out to be remarkably badly designed for this. I would argue that most games need save points because they rely on you not developing any skills while playing.

Someone has already designed a game which makes save scumming easy: http://www.zincland.com/7drl/savescummer/ - it's a rogulike as well.

Then there's the emulators which allow you to step through a game a single tick at a time...

Andrew Doull said...

PS: There's a difference, as well, between saving the current state of the game, and allowing you to move back to any partially completed game state. I'd argue a game should allow you to stop playing at any point - that's certainly not what I'm defending.

Plenty of games won't even let you do that...

zorful said...

Great post about roguelikes. But you miss a few points. First as DarthCthulhu mentioned, it's a matter of Choice primarily. If you give the player more choices (that's what emergent gameplay boils down to) why not give him also the choice of save vs permadeath?

Quicksave also has good uses. Not everybody uses it to just push through the particularly hard problem. When multiple solutions are available I usually want to watch all of them just because it's interesting. Without quicksave I'd be stuck in having to restart a game just to see this particular problem solved in a different way.


The biggest problem IMO with roguelikes permadeath is that it just makes you restart from scratch. It was an overall bad design decision making the game (I'm talking about Angband) with 99th continuous levels of gameplay and declaring most of the savestate functionality cheating.
It would be more appropriate to just remove saves at all. That way nobody cheats and permadeath just hits you in the face every time you play.

The whole problem comes from the notion that the whole game is one big dungeon. The lengthier the chunk of gameplay action is the more harder it takes to get to the end. And the more harder it is the less people will do it failing the exam so to speak. Many old console platformers suffer from the same exact design issue - player is supposed to play the whole game in one setting. That was ok back then but it certainly is not nowadays with plenty of more forgiving games available - people will simply move on to the next game on their list after they see the first death screen.

There's plenty of user-friendly solutions ready but nobody uses them. Cut the whole into manageable chunks - different dungeons and allow only auto-save in town and it becomes much less frustrating to die. Diablo got that bit damn right. Want to make game harder? Don't allow WORs. That way either you finish the current dungeon or have to start over the next time. But not from scratch. And that option should definitely be switchable at start.

Andrew Doull said...

zorful: Just because Permadeath can be a choice, doesn't make it about choice. (I also disagree that emergent game play is about choices - the combinatorial explosion I talk about is more about coming up with the best choice using the limited equipment you are carrying. If it was just about choice, you'd never use up anything). I'll argue this in more detail in another blog post.

'Quicksave / When multiple solutions are available' example you give - in this instance, isn't that just the same as playing through the whole game multiple times, but doing so different ways. I will agree some games give you less support to do this by not having dynamic elements, but that's a problem with the rest of the game, not an advantage of quick save.

'It would be more appropriate to just remove saves at all. That way nobody cheats and permadeath just hits you in the face every time you play.' I disagree. You need to be able to stop playing at any point to e.g. answer the door. Of course, lots of games with save points won't even let you do that.

Regards breaking the dungeon up into multiple chunks - many roguelikes do that, including Unangband. But again, doing that is orthoganol to permadeath. There are about 10 dungeons accessible to a starting player in Unangband - nothing prevents you attempting a different dungeon each time you play.

zorful said...

> zorful: Just because Permadeath can be a choice, doesn't make it about choice.

I meant that permadeath debate is about choice. Some people okay with it, some aren't. So why not give them a choice at start of the game?

> 'Quicksave / When multiple solutions are available' example you give - in this instance, isn't that just the same as playing through the whole game multiple times, but doing so different ways. I will agree some games give you less support to do this by not having dynamic elements, but that's a problem with the rest of the game, not an advantage of quick save.

Could you explain that a bit more please, I haven't quite got it.


> You need to be able to stop playing at any point to e.g. answer the door. Of course, lots of games with save points won't even let you do that.

That's what pause is for. And that's not even a problem in turn-based games like roguelikes.

> Regards breaking the dungeon up into multiple chunks - many roguelikes do that, including Unangband. But again, doing that is orthoganol to permadeath. There are about 10 dungeons accessible to a starting player in Unangband - nothing prevents you attempting a different dungeon each time you play.

Nope, it's not orthogonal. I suggested doing this to make permadeath less intimidating. Having X dungeons without changes to dying is orthogonal sure, but having X dungeons with (for example) dying resetting player to the start of current dungeon is a compromise between current permadeath and quicksave.

Andrew Doull said...

zorful: "I meant that permadeath debate is about choice. Some people okay with it, some aren't. So why not give them a choice at start of the game?"

No it isn't. Given that permadeath meaningfully changes the game, there are some games for which you should never offer the ability to quick save. e.g. If you could quick save a hand of poker and go back to any previous position, you radically change the game - to the point where it is not worth playing. Given that, it makes sense to design some games to include compulsory permadeath. Remember, I'm not advocating every game play this way.

With regards to using quick save to play through the same section of the game multiple different ways, I'm suggesting that unless the game itself is designed to be played from start to end multiple different ways, there's little benefit in using quick save this way. I'm not convinced on this one however - Far Cry 2 supports playing each mission significantly differently, even with the same starting parameters.

zorful said...

> No it isn't. Given that permadeath meaningfully changes the game, there are some games for which you should never offer the ability to quick save. e.g. If you could quick save a hand of poker and go back to any previous position, you radically change the game - to the point where it is not worth playing. Given that, it makes sense to design some games to include compulsory permadeath. Remember, I'm not advocating every game play this way.

There are many options besides quicksave that will make the game more manageable for less patient (or more busy with RL) player. Difficulty levels with varying saving options can be included in any game (I can't think of anything that will detriment from it).

Poker is not a good example because you don't need quicksave there - you can quit after any given round and it rarely prolongs more than half an hour. The game is already split into manageable chunks of player time by design.

For example, Hitman make less saves per level available the more harder you set the difficulty.

Basically my whole argument boils down to this: permadeath is not a feature in the case of something like Angband, it's a bad design decision. I offered some examples how this can be corrected in the case of any given YARL, that's all.

Andrew Doull said...

zorful:

>Basically my whole argument boils down to this: permadeath is not a feature in the case of something like Angband, it's a bad design decision.

Which is what I disagree with. I think we've both made our case as strongly as we're able to, so I think we'll just have to agree we have different opinions on the matter...

Christer Nyfält said...

This article bothered me when I first read it, but I couldn't figure it out right then. So, I'm jumping in a little late.

What I later realized what it treats the situation as a black and white choice between permadeath and saves. I feel that online games have found a happy compromise with death penalties, which both encourage boldness and encourage caution.

Shoku said...

If you're going to reset the game to a previous state so you can succeed where you failed why not just turn off failure altogether? Hitpoints don't mean anything if you can't die.

devoas said...

People arguing what permadeath takes from the game don't consider what it gives. Namely MUCH stronger game experience i.e.
You played for 10 hrs hoarded best stuff you ever seen in a game (that might still be shit compared to best items, since you never got really far :D) and you face a situation where you see that you are in for some serious action, man this gives you feelings NO game with saves can give you that feeling. And the feeling when/if you overcome troubles, well its pure awesomeness . People are inpatient, try to escape with games from hardships from reality. But reality is that you can't have thrill and excitement without any danger, and saves remove all of this goodness. I understand that in story games a lot is different and saves are appropriate there. But ir game uses procedurally generated content permadeth greatly enhances experience for the player, if he can overcome some frustration at start. Hard games are NOT bad games (like old console games, i.e. megaman and lots of others, they don't make games that hard anymore, and easy games give lousy experience, unless great story is told).

practicalrambler. said...

Really interesting read.

I guess what burns me about permadeath is that I wish it was a option. I always enjoyed exploring the dungeons in Iter Vehemens ad Necem - but permadeath sort of ruined it for me.

Having the start from the beginning is really, really, really boring to me. Let the casual gamer roam, and the hardcore voluntarily suffer. :)

dronz said...

What many people (generally those used to savescum scames) miss about permadeath is that the alternative (usually unlimited restoring of saved games) removes a very central aspect of play. Savescum games tend to be designed with the expectation (and almost no other choice) but to restore to a saved game position when defeated, meaning that defeat never happens unless the player stops playing, and (in most such games) that playing when having died is playing in a game situation that is as if you were never defeated. In most savescum games, death means nothing except a waste of time and a need to replay events from the last save point. In many cases too, death and defeat are about the same thing, and so the story can practically never have you actually be defeated (except generally the player does die repeatedly, but ignores and savescums). It's possible to have games that offer even more interesting permadeath than Rogue, where not only can you meet the ghost of your and other players' dead characters, but the game world state remains, and you take over some other character from that point. That is the kind of game that I like to play, and to make.