Revisiting Berlin…

About six months ago, I wrote a post critiquing the original Berlin Interpretation of roguelike games, That piece generated some thoughtful discussion, which led me to reflect further on how I might improve and refine the interpretation to account for all the developments and advances in the genre since 2008.

A Modest Proposal…

At its core, this post proposes a modernized definition. The goal is to preserve the genre’s roots while providing a framework that accommodates the creativity and diversity seen in today’s designs.

If you want a soundbite to take away, then it would be that a roguelike is a:

- “procedurally generated high-stakes tactical adventure simulator (or some qualified combination thereof)”

For a game to considered be a roguelike, it doesn’t have to check all of those boxes — just most of them.

So here, for your edification, delight and/or scorn is…

“The Hiive Interpretation”

I. Introduction

The roguelike genre has a rich history, evolving from humble beginnings into a diverse and innovative space. As games continue to push the boundaries of design, revisiting the foundational ideas behind roguelikes can provide clarity and inspiration for future projects.

Context and Purpose

The Berlin Interpretation, established in 2008, was a milestone for codifying key roguelike principles such as procedural generation, permadeath, and non-modality (although other definitions of the genre were attempted long before 2008).

Modern roguelike games seem to have evolved and reinterpreted these principles to create distinct emergent styles:

• Tactical Depth: Games like Dungeon Crawl Stone Soup (DCSS)   and Brogue   use procedural generation to craft unpredictable, high-stakes scenarios where every decision matters.
• Adventure Simulation: Titles like Caves of Qud   and Cogmind   prioritize systemic reactivity, letting players shape stories through interactions with a living world.

These styles aren’t mutually exclusive — for example, Cogmind   blends tactical play with procedural storytelling and large scale world simulation.

Tactical vs. Simulationist Philosophies

Modern roguelikes often prioritize one of two design pillars, though many blend elements of both:

• Tactical Philosophy: Emphasizes fast-paced decision-making, mechanical clarity, and immediate feedback. Games like DCSS   and Jupiter Hell   exemplify this approach, focusing on moment-to-moment positioning and risk-reward optimization. Procedural generation here creates unpredictable challenges (e.g., vault layouts, enemy spawns).
• Simulationist Philosophy: Prioritizes systemic reactivity, environmental storytelling, and player imagination. Titles like Caves of Qud   and Ancient Domains of Mystery (ADOM)   use procedural generation to craft narrative possibilities (e.g., faction conflicts, procedurally generated lore). These games trade tactical immediacy for emergent storytelling.

Hybrids like Dwarf Fortress (Adventure Mode)   blend these philosophies but often lean toward one pole.

Frequently, but not always, these efforts are open source and free with many contributors, but many commercial roguelikes exist, written by small teams or solo developers. The nature of roguelike development is — in many ways — simpler than many other game genres, lowering the barrier for entry for nascent game programmers.

Other modern games like Hades  , Binding of Isaac  , and Dead Cells   exhibit the influence of roguelikes, while titles such as Slay the Spire   and Balatro   demonstrate new mechanics (in this case, deck building) that blur the lines between genres. These shifts in the gaming landscape call for a more nuanced understanding of what defines a roguelike today.

Note that some consider roguelite to be a derogatory term. I need to make it clear that is not how its use is intended here. In this article, roguelite refers to a game that borrows some design principles from roguelike games (commonly the procedural generation or permadeath aspects), and melds them with another game genre. Because of this, roguelites are often referred to by a genre portmanteau, such as “action roguelite” or “deck-builder roguelite”.

(Of course, they’re sometimes also referred to as roguelikes — but that’s another issue, and one that only serves to unhelpfully muddy the definitions further. Personally, I refer to games such as Brogue   as “traditional roguelikes” and Caves of Qud   as “modern roguelikes”, whereas a I would call a game like Heroes of Hammerwatch   a “roguelite” or “action roguelite”. Part of the purpose of writing this definition is to clear up some of the confusion regarding genre classification of these types of game.)

With that in mind, this article builds on my earlier critique of the Berlin Interpretation, offering a revised framework that reflects modern approaches while maintaining the genre’s core identity.

A Personal Lens

While this piece represents my own perspective on the topic, I see it as more than just a theoretical exercise.

It’s an opportunity to clarify my own understanding of the genre and the kind of game I want to create. I welcome debate and discussion, knowing full well that agreement isn’t guaranteed — it’s through these conversations that the genre continues to evolve.

Besides, pretty much every roguelie¹ aficionado has an opinion on this, so here’s mine…

Objective

Roguelikes are, to me, about thriving in relentless, unpredictable environments that challenge players to adapt and overcome. They reward tactical decision-making, resource management, and improvisation, creating high-stakes gameplay where every choice matters. While roguelites emphasize action and meta-progression, roguelikes remain intimate, methodical and tactical experiences defined by their emergent stories and systemic complexity.

In my opinion, roguelikes are defined by how they apply foundational principles, not rigid adherence to tradition.

My goal is to create a framework that embraces systemic complexity and player agency — leveraging procedural generation for tactical depth, meaningful stakes (but not necessarily permadeath), and non-modality for immersion (where appropriate) — while welcoming innovations like dynamic storytelling, limited meta-progression and the capabilities of modern computers.

Ultimately, my intent is to create my game according to these principles.

Legacy and Evolution

The roguelike genre has its roots in early classics like Rogue  , NetHack  , ADOM   and Tales of Maj’Eyal (ToME)  . These games laid the groundwork for procedural exploration, tense encounters, and meaningful consequences, which remain essential to the genre’s appeal.

In my view, there’s plenty of room for the genre to evolve without losing its identity. Modern tools like AI-driven procedural generation and dynamic narrative systems offer exciting opportunities to build on these foundations. The challenge lies in balancing tactical depth and improvisation with innovations that add to, rather than detract from, what makes roguelikes distinctive.

II. Core Tenets (Non-Negotiable)

Roguelikes are built around a set of fundamental principles that define the genre. While individual games may experiment and innovate, these core tenets provide the foundation for what makes a roguelike unique.

Though the roguelike genre has broadened substantially, traditional roguelikes have historically remained bound by a few distinctive features. Let’s start with what, traditionally have — for the most part — been considered to be the minimum set of core qualities for a traditional roguelike:

• Procedural Generation

  The vast majority levels and layouts should be randomly generated via procedural generation. Certain fixed features are permissible (e.g., towns and shops), but these should be minimized.

• Strict Turn-Based Pacing

  Every action — movement, attacking, using an item — advances time by a discrete step. This ensures that players can deliberate over each decision without facing the pressure of a ticking clock.

• Singular Character Focus

  Many traditional roguelikes place the player in control of exactly one primary character. This intense focus on a single survivor or hero heightens tension because defeat spells the end of the entire run.

• Grid-Based Navigation

  Movement typically unfolds on a square or (occasionally) a hex grid, simplifying the geometry of combat and exploration. This design grants clarity to tactical maneuvers, making precise positioning a critical element of success.

• Consequences for Failure

  Roguelikes traditionally prioritize high-stakes consequences, primarily permadeath, but modern designs explore a spectrum of stakes. What unites them is meaningful risk — whether through traditional permadeath, resource loss, narrative setbacks, or some other means of inflicting loss.

• Minimal to No Meta-Progression

  In traditional roguelikes, each run stands on its own. Death means losing all progress and items. While some titles may include optional unlocks or class additions, the emphasis remains on learning the game’s systems rather than accruing permanent upgrades across multiple attempts.

• ASCII or Simple Tile Aesthetic

  Many classic roguelikes rely on ASCII or basic tile sets, though visuals vary widely in modern counterparts. Regardless of style, readability and conveying vital information are always prioritized over pretty graphics.

These qualities are very similar (although still less restrictive) that those in the Berlin Interpretation. However, as I’ve made clear in my introduction, I feel that these are still too restrictive. With that in mind, the remainder of this section will present a new proposed set of criteria that relax the principles the define a traditional roguelike, and provide a less restrictive set of guidance for the definition of modern roguelikes. To be classified as a traditional roguelike, a game would typically use the most restrictive features of the principles below, whereas a modern roguelike would likely take the less restrictive options. Either way, my argument is that, as long as the game has met all the criteria, it should be classified as a roguelike of some kind.

The principles, and the criteria for each, are as follows:

A. Procedural Generation

Procedural generation lies at the heart of roguelikes, ensuring that every run is unpredictable and distinct. This randomness fuels emergent gameplay, where systems interact in surprising ways to create unique challenges.

Every playthrough must generate levels, encounters, loot, or narrative elements algorithmically. Some static components (e.g., Caves of Qud’s   overworld map, ADOM’s   static quest hubs) are allowed if used sparingly. Similarly, pre-designed boss arenas or story-critical locations (e.g., Jupiter Hell’s   final level) are also acceptable.

• (i) Emergent Worlds

  Each new playthrough begins in an uncharted world, with layouts, creatures, and loot shuffled to keep players on their toes. This unpredictability forces players to adapt, as they can’t rely on memorized maps or patterns. Even after repeated attempts, there’s always the chance of discovering an unexpected encounter or hidden feature that prompts a new mode of tactical play.

• (ii) Balanced Unpredictability

  While randomness is essential, it’s most compelling when paired with thoughtful design. Games like Caves of Qud   achieve this by anchoring their worlds with consistent faction ecosystems, ensuring that even unpredictable events feel grounded in logic. Similarly, DCSS   balances procedural generation with carefully tuned systems, creating a sense of coherence without sacrificing variety.

  By blending chaos with structure, roguelikes ensure that every playthrough is dynamic yet strategic, rewarding players who adapt to changing circumstances.

B. Tactical Foundations: Time and Space

Roguelikes rely on deliberate pacing and clear spatial systems. Turn-based or pauseable real-time mechanics let players plan each action carefully, and grid-based or alternative layouts keep positioning meaningful.

• (i) Time Mechanics

  Tactical pacing is a defining feature of roguelikes, emphasizing deliberate, methodical decision-making over quick reflexes. Whether players are managing movement, attacks, or abilities, the focus is on careful planning, where each action can carry significant consequences.

  Turn-Based or Pauseable Real-Time

  Roguelikes prioritize tactical thinking by offering turn-based gameplay or real-time systems with the option to pause. These mechanics allow players to assess their situation and make informed decisions before committing to their next action.

  Turn-based roguelikes, such as NetHack  , or Zorbus  , give players the space to carefully weigh their moves, while games FTL: Faster Than Light   use a pauseable real-time system to achieve a similar level of tactical control. Both approaches reward foresight and encourage players to think critically about positioning, timing, and resource use.

  Exclusion of Reflex-Driven Gameplay

  In contrast to action roguelites like Hades  , Returnal  , or the Risk of Rain series (2013 Edition  , Sequel  , Remaster of 2013 Edition  ), roguelikes avoid reflex-driven gameplay. These games emphasize thoughtful choices and improvisation over quick reactions. While action roguelites offer fast-paced excitement, roguelikes create engagement through intentional pacing, where each move can be considered carefully. There are no real-time limited decisions in a roguelike, other than those you set for yourself.

• (ii) Spatial Systems

  Roguelikes may employ a variety of spatial systems, provided they enable tactical decision-making through measurable risk-reward mechanics (e.g., line-of-sight, flanking, environmental interactions). Traditional 2D (or higher dimensional) grids — usually square or hex based — are the gold standard, offering clear positional clarity. However, other systems are permissible if it retains tactical depth, such as Heat Signature’s   paused planning or HyperRogue’s   non-Euclidean geometry.

  Systems that lack tactical positioning or rely on reflex-driven mechanics would likely disqualify a game from the roguelike genre. For example, chaotic freeform movement like Diablo’s   click-to-move combat does not emphasize meaningful positional strategy. Similarly, fast-paced, reflex-heavy systems such as Hades’   dash-spam mechanics prioritize quick reactions over deliberate planning, undermining the genre’s core emphasis on tactical depth.

  Spatial Clarity

  Roguelikes thrive on providing players with clear spatial mechanics that allow for meaningful positional decisions. Whether the design uses grids, hexes, or discrete zones, the key is ensuring that each movement feels deliberate. For instance, Into the Breach   uses a tile-based system to highlight every action’s consequences, giving players complete visibility into potential outcomes.

  Terminus: Zombie Survivors   offers an alternative approach by combining a graph-based overworld map with grid-based nodes for each specific building or structure. On the overworld, players choose their next destination node from a web of interconnected locations. Once inside a node, movement and combat initiation occur on a grid, governed by action points that determine how many moves or actions can be taken before ending the turn. After the player uses these points, zombies move in response, reinforcing the importance of thoughtful positioning and resourceful tactics.

  By blending a broad, node-based travel map with localized grid-based environments, the game ensures that every decision — from where to go next to how to maneuver through a cramped building — carries significant tactical weight.

• (iii) Tactical Prioritization Over Strategic Planning

  Roguelikes tend to focus on immediate, tactical decisions rather than long-term strategic planning. While some games incorporate higher-level systems, the heart of the roguelike experience lies in responding to challenges as they arise. This immediacy creates a sense of urgency and tension that defines the genre, ensuring that gameplay remains engaging and impactful.

  Tactical depth in roguelikes emphasizes moment-to-moment positioning, resource allocation, and improvisation within individual encounters (e.g., a single room), whereas strategy games tend to focus on macro-level planning (e.g., base-building and multi-mission campaigns).

  Pacing and Feedback

  Speed is a hallmark of tactical roguelikes, ensuring players face a steady stream of meaningful decisions with immediate consequences. This design philosophy traces back to Rogue   itself, whose manual emphasized “fast, tense gameplay” as a core innovation.

  Modern implementations include:

  • Streamlined Interfaces: Features like auto-explore and quick-action hotkeys minimize downtime between decisions.
  • Adaptive Animations: Games like Jupiter Hell   use snappy animations that don’t slow turn resolution, preserving momentum.
  • Concise Scope: Smaller levels (Into the Breach  ) or action-point systems (Terminus: Zombie Survivors  ) minimize decision fatigue.

  By contrast, simulationist roguelikes (Caves of Qud  , Dwarf Fortress   often embrace slower pacing to accommodate environmental storytelling and systemic depth.

  Immediate Stakes

  Unlike strategy games that emphasize overarching plans and resource management over extended timelines, roguelikes prioritize the here and now. Each decision — whether it’s choosing when to heal, where to move, or how to engage an enemy — has immediate consequences that shape the outcome of a run.

  For example, in Jupiter Hell  , players must carefully balance their positioning and ability usage in every combat scenario, as a single misstep can result in swift death. This focus on short-term stakes keeps the player’s attention on the tactical layer, where split-second choices and improvisation determine survival.

  Balancing Meta-Layers

  While some games integrate strategic elements, these systems are usually secondary to the immediate challenges of each run. Games like Darkest Dungeon II   explore evolving relationships and larger-scale planning, but the roguelike core remains tied to tactical decision-making within individual encounters.

  In my view, roguelikes benefit most when these meta-layers enhance, rather than overshadow, the immediacy of moment-to-moment gameplay. For example, FTL   incorporates strategic decisions about which sectors to explore, but the game’s focus remains on navigating encounters and managing resources in pausable real-time. This balance ensures that players stay immersed in the high-stakes tension that defines the genre.

C. Character-Focused Gameplay

Roguelikes often place a strong emphasis on individual characters or small parties, where every decision feels personal. This focus heightens the stakes, as the survival of the player’s character (or small, tightly-knit party) determines the outcome of the run.

• (i) Individual or Small Party Emphasis

  Focusing on a single character or small party naturally heightens the stakes. Unlike larger-scale strategy games like XCOM: UFO Defense  , roguelikes often revolve around a single hero whose survival is paramount. Every injury or setback feels personal, amplifying the tension of every turn or encounter.

  As new abilities, equipment, and challenges arise, this narrow focus encourages players to think carefully about how best to develop and protect their characters. The result is a dynamic experience where even minor decisions can have long-term consequences.

  The gallery below contrasts XCOM’s   squad-management interface and mechanics with the intimate, singular focus of roguelike design.

Geoscape

Tactical Battle View

Base Layout

Image Gallery: XCOM: UFO Defense

D. Meaningful Consequences

One of the defining features of roguelikes is the importance of consequences. Whether through the threat of permadeath, major penalties, or other setbacks, these games challenge players to approach every decision with caution and purpose. The stakes are always high, ensuring that every run feels significant.

• (i) Permadeath or Major Penalties

  Permadeath is perhaps the most iconic mechanic in roguelikes, representing the ultimate form of consequence. A single mistake can end a run, forcing players to start over from scratch. This high-risk dynamic adds a unique layer of tension to every decision, as players must balance their desire to explore or push forward with the need to survive.

  In shorter roguelikes, this all-or-nothing approach can create a satisfying rhythm of trial and error. Starting fresh becomes part of the game’s appeal, encouraging players to adapt and refine their strategies with each attempt. For example, in NetHack   or Brogue  , losing a high-level character can be devastating, but the lessons learned along the way prepare players for future runs.

  However, in longer campaigns or more expansive roguelikes, permadeath can become overly punishing. Imagine losing dozens of hours of progress in a sprawling, story-driven roguelike such as Caves of Qud   — a frustration that could turn away even dedicated players. To address this, many modern games implement alternatives such as:

  • Partial resets, where players retain some progress or resources between runs.
  • Intermittent checkpoints, offering a chance to recover from defeat without completely starting over.
  • Recoverable conditions, such as penalties that can be offset through in-game actions.

  These systems allow for a more forgiving experience while preserving the tension and challenge that make roguelikes unique, and are often implemented in addition to permadeath-based play for the more hardcore players.

• (ii) Permissible Meta-Progression

  While roguelikes traditionally emphasize self-contained runs, some meta-progression can add depth and replayability without undermining the genre’s core principles. Persistent elements such as unlockable character classes, subtle upgrades, or narrative expansions reward long-term engagement while leaving the core challenge intact.

  For instance, games like FTL   allow players to unlock new ships or layouts after achieving specific milestones, providing variety without diminishing the tension of individual runs. Similarly, lore-based progression, as seen in ADOM  , enhances the world’s richness while keeping each playthrough unpredictable.

  In my view, the best meta-progression systems enhance the roguelike experience by encouraging exploration and experimentation, rather than just making the game easier. They offer players something to work toward over time, but they never overshadow the immediacy and high stakes of each individual run.

• (ii) Resource Management and Exploration

  Roguelikes challenge players to make the most of limited resources while navigating unpredictable environments. The scarcity of supplies creates a constant tension, forcing players to weigh risks and rewards as they explore. Every decision — from using a health potion to venturing into an unknown area — can have significant consequences, making resource management and exploration central to the roguelike experience.

  Resource Scarcity and Allocation

  Effective resource management lies at the heart of roguelike gameplay. Players are often faced with difficult choices, such as whether to use a health potion now or save it for a potentially more dangerous encounter later. This scarcity heightens the stakes, turning even routine encounters into moments of strategic planning.

  In games like FTL  , players must carefully allocate limited resources, knowing that overspending on one resource could leave them vulnerable later. Similarly, in Brogue   and others, food management adds another layer of tension, as prolonged exploration risks starvation. This constant pressure encourages players to think ahead, prioritize their needs, and adapt their strategies on the fly.

  Secrets and Risk-Reward Discovery

  Exploration in roguelikes is often about more than simply grabbing an amulet and then finding the exit — it’s about uncovering hidden opportunities and navigating the dangers that come with them. Many games hide rare loot, secret passageways, or powerful artifacts in hard-to-reach or hazardous areas, tempting players to take risks for potential rewards.

  For instance, in DCSS  , players can encounter treasure vaults and heavily guarded chambers containing valuable equipment or consumables. Accessing these rewards usually requires defeating powerful enemies or navigating environmental hazards, forcing players to weigh the potential gain against the risks to their survival. These mechanics reward players who carefully assess their surroundings and take calculated risks.

E. Emergent Complexity

Roguelikes stand out for their ability to create systems that interact in surprising and meaningful ways. Instead of relying on pre-scripted scenarios, these games thrive on emergent gameplay, where a combination of mechanics and player choices results in unique, often unexpected outcomes. This complexity keeps players engaged by encouraging experimentation and rewarding creative problem-solving.

• (i) Interlocking Systems

  The best roguelikes create a web of interconnected systems that constantly interact. Environmental hazards, enemy behaviors, and player abilities are designed to influence one another, often in ways that feel organic rather than scripted. For instance, a fireball spell might ignite flammable terrain, setting off a chain reaction that alters the course of an encounter.

  This interactivity drives engagement by encouraging players to think beyond immediate problems and consider the broader implications of their actions. Games like Dwarf Fortress   (in Adventure Mode) exemplify this, offering systems so deeply interconnected that even small changes ripple outward in unpredictable ways.

• (ii) Living, Reactive Worlds

  A reactive game world amplifies the sense of agency and immersion. In my opinion, the most engaging roguelikes feature environments that respond dynamically to player decisions, creating opportunities for both success and failure. Factions might shift their alliances, creatures could adapt to repeated strategies, or the world itself might evolve based on the player’s impact.

  For example, Cataclysm: Dark Days Ahead (CDDA)   offers the option of keeping the same persistent world across multiple runs. When a character dies, everything that occurred in that playthrough — destroyed buildings, altered vehicles, dropped items — remains for the next survivor to discover or reclaim. It’s possible to encounter your previous corpse or salvage your former equipment, lending a tangible feeling that the world remembers and reflects the consequences of each run. This continuity shifts the perspective from a lone survivor’s story to an ongoing, emergent narrative in a single, evolving environment.

  By weaving reactivity into their systems, roguelikes encourage players to consider the broader impact of every choice, strengthening both the challenge and the sense of immersion.

• (iii) Adaptive Tactics

  Procedural generation ensures that no two runs are the same, requiring players to continuously adapt their tactics to new challenges. Each map layout, enemy spawn, or resource placement demands fresh strategies, preventing players from relying solely on memorization. This adaptability keeps gameplay dynamic and ensures that players are always engaged, responding to the unique challenges of each run.

III. Movement, Positioning, and Interface

Tactical movement and positioning lie at the core of roguelike gameplay. The ability to assess the battlefield and make purposeful choices about where to move — or when to hold position — can mean the difference between survival and defeat. A clear and intuitive interface is essential to support these decisions, ensuring players have the information they need to play the game effectively.

• Aesthetic Freedom

  While roguelikes have traditionally embraced ASCII or tile-based visuals, the genre has grown to accommodate a wide variety of art styles. Whether a game uses pixel art, 3D models, a hybrid aesthetic, or even ASCII, the visual design should prioritize readability above all else.

  For example, a game might use color coding or subtle animations to differentiate terrain types or enemy behaviors. The focus should remain on ensuring that players can parse the environment at a glance, allowing for quick and informed decision-making without sacrificing immersion.

  Aesthetic Roles in Tactical vs. Simulationist Design

  Visuals serve distinct purposes depending on a game’s design priorities:

  • Tactical Clarity: Games like Jupiter Hell   and Brogue   use clean, readable visuals (e.g., color-coded enemies, terrain contrast) to optimize decision-making speed. Animations, when present, are minimal to avoid disrupting flow.
  • Simulationist Abstraction: Titles like Caves of Qud   and NetHack   leverage minimalist aesthetics (ASCII or simple tiles) to prompt player imagination, akin to reading a book. Abstract graphics allow developers to focus on systemic depth without being constrained by art pipelines. Both approaches prioritize function over form, but their goals differ: tactical clarity enables precision, while abstraction fosters immersion.

• Modal Flow

  Many classic roguelikes integrate exploration and combat seamlessly, with both occurring in the same continuous space. This approach often enhances immersion, as players transition fluidly between tactical planning and action.

  However, modal systems, like those used in Terminus: Zombie Survivors  , can also work effectively if they maintain the game’s emphasis on thoughtful decision-making.

  Terminus: Zombie Survivors   demonstrates this by balancing its modal combat with a dynamic overworld exploration system, ensuring that the flow of the game remains consistent and engaging. While the combat is distinct from the movement phase, the design preserves the tension and stakes of every decision, a hallmark of the roguelike experience.

IV. Deprecated/Removed BI Elements

As the roguelike genre evolves, certain elements from the original Berlin Interpretation (BI) are arguably no longer essential. While these features played a significant role in defining early roguelikes, modern interpretations have shown that their absence doesn’t detract from the genre’s core identity. Instead, the focus has shifted toward principles that better reflect the diversity of contemporary designs.

• Enforced Permadeath

  Traditionally, permadeath was a cornerstone of roguelikes, ensuring that every run carried significant risk. However, in longer or more complex games, this all-or-nothing mechanic can alienate players by erasing hours of progress after a single mistake.

  Modern roguelikes often adapt permadeath to better suit their design. For example, Caves of Qud   offers two optional non-permadeath difficulty mode with checkpoints, allowing players to recover from setbacks without starting over completely. This approach preserves the tension of permadeath while offering a less punishing experience for those who prefer that.

  By softening the consequences without eliminating them, these games maintain the stakes that define roguelikes while accommodating a broader range of players. That’s not to say that permadeath can’t be there as an option for the hardcore player — it can, and it should, for those who enjoy the extra challenge.

• Grid-Based Mandate

  Grid-based movement has long been a hallmark of roguelikes, providing clarity and structure to tactical decisions. However, it is no longer an absolute requirement.

  The key lies in maintaining spatial tactical clarity. Whether using a grid, hexes, or free-form movement, the design should provide players with enough information to make meaningful choices about positioning and movement. The format is less important than the system’s ability to support deliberate, tactical spatial play.

• ASCII Requirement

  ASCII graphics hold a special place in roguelike history, serving as both a visual style and a practical necessity for early games. While still beloved by some players, modern roguelikes have embraced a variety of aesthetics. Pixel art, 3D models, and even hybrid approaches can all work effectively, provided they prioritize readability and clarity.

  For instance, Jupiter Hell   uses high-quality 3D visuals to represent its environments and characters while retaining the tactical clarity of its ASCII predecessors.

  Other games, including Brogue   and Cogmind   provide the option of choosing ASCII or graphical tiles in-game.

  By moving beyond ASCII without sacrificing usability, these games demonstrate that visual innovation can enhance a roguelike’s appeal without compromising the gameplay.

• Strict Non-Modality

  Classic roguelikes often integrated exploration and combat seamlessly within a single interface. While this approach remains effective, modern roguelikes have shown that modal systems can work just as well. Games like FTL   segment different phases of gameplay — such as exploration and ship combat — but maintain a cohesive and strategic experience.

  The key is to preserve the player’s focus on tactical decision-making. If a modal system enhances clarity or adds depth to specific mechanics, it can be a worthwhile departure from the traditional roguelike formula.

• Dungeon-Centric Settings

  While many roguelikes take place in sprawling dungeons, the genre’s defining principles — emergent gameplay, resource management, and high-stakes exploration — can be applied to a wide range of settings. Space stations, post-apocalyptic landscapes, and even abstract environments can serve as compelling backdrops for roguelike gameplay.

  For example, Approaching Infinity   trades traditional dungeon crawling for starship exploration and planetary away missions, whereas HyperRogue   warps the player out of normal space entirely and into a non-Euclidean hyperspace nightmare.

  The core identity of a good roguelike transcends its setting. As long as the game fosters tension and unpredictability, in line with the tenets of the genre, the actual environment can be as varied as the designer’s imagination allows.

V. Roguelikes - Traditional, Modern and Hybrid

To my thinking, games that qualify as “true” roguelikes come is three flavors.

First is the Traditional Roguelike. These adhere strictly to the genre’s roots; turn-based pacing, permadeath, ASCII/tile aesthetics, etc.

Secondly, the Modern Roguelike; capable of being almost indistinguishable at first glance from the Traditional Roguelike, with features that vary slightly from the traditional roguelike tenets, but that still adhere to the more relaxed tenets presented in section II of this document.

Thirdly, are the hybrid roguelikes; these are games that adhere to most of the tenets, but completely violate, or even omit, one or more of them. Hybrids remain rooted in roguelike design (procedural generation, emergent complexity) while expanding into adjacent genres.

Lastly, there is a fourth category, the roguelite; these are games that borrow from maybe one or two of the tenets, but completely replace others with totally different systems.

In this section, we will cover the roguelike categories. Roguelites will be covered in the next section.

This classification scheme is not perfect. There are cases where deciding how to categorize a particular game is tricky, as it could seem to be placed in multiple categories. For this reason, it is best to view these categorizations as a continuum rather than a set of rigid classification buckets.

Examining specific games helps illustrate the diversity within the roguelike and roguelite genres, showcasing how different design choices align with — or diverge from — the core principles discussed. Below, I’ve selected a few examples that highlight these distinctions.

VI. Roguelites

The terms “roguelike” and “roguelite” are often used interchangeably, but they represent distinct branches of the genre. While they share foundational elements like procedural generation and high replayability, their core design philosophies differ significantly. Understanding these distinctions helps clarify what sets traditional roguelikes apart from their more action-oriented counterparts.

Roguelikes emphasize methodical pacing, systemic depth, and high-stakes gameplay. These games challenge players to navigate procedurally generated environments while making deliberate, tactical decisions. Each run is largely self-contained, with minimal reliance on persistent upgrades or meta-progression.

Roguelites, by contrast, often incorporate elements of reflex-driven gameplay and/or extensive meta-progression. They appeal to a broader audience by incorporating aspects of more popular genres and are often more approachable than traditional roguelikes for the casual player. Traditional roguelikes are (arguably correctly) viewed by non-aficionados as having a very steep learning curve and having ugly, primitive graphics, although this is changing with the advent of some of the more modern efforts.

Roguelikes and roguelites are not in competition — they are complementary approaches to the same foundational ideas. Roguelites introduce the genre’s concepts to players who may be unfamiliar with its traditional structure, while roguelikes maintain the tactical depth and emergent complexity that define the genre’s roots. Together, they expand the roguelike family, offering something for every type of player.

Roguelites can be broadly broken into categories, based on their primary non-roguelike characteristics. This is not something I want to go into too much detail here, as my primary focus is on roguelikes, but I would suggest that a reasonable categorization scheme for roguelites could be based on which of the core roguelike tenets they do not adhere to.

The primary defining tenets that we can consider are “Strict Turn-Based Pacing”, “Singular Character Focus” and “Minimal to No Meta-Progression”. The other tenets, “Grid-Based Navigation” and “ASCII or Simple Tile Aesthetic” are frequently discarded along with a corresponding primary tenet. The descriptor roguelite tends to be more frequently applied to games in which the turn-based mechanic is supplanted with real-time action, but this is by no means universal.

VII. Addressing Community Concerns

The roguelike community is diverse, encompassing players, developers, and enthusiasts with varied perspectives on what defines the genre. As the genre evolves, certain concerns and debates have emerged, often centered around preserving tradition while embracing innovation. This section addresses some of the most common points of contention.

• Legacy Respect

  Roguelikes trace their roots to foundational titles like Rogue  , NetHack  , Moria   and Angband  . For many in the community, these early games represent the heart of the genre, establishing key principles such as procedural generation, high-stakes gameplay, and emergent complexity.

  While innovation is essential for keeping the genre alive, it’s important to respect these traditions. This doesn’t mean rigid adherence to past conventions but rather maintaining the core elements that made roguelikes distinctive. For example, modern games like Caves of Qud   and Jupiter Hell   have successfully built on traditional frameworks while introducing fresh ideas. By preserving the genre’s defining principles, developers can ensure its legacy remains intact.

• Gatekeeping Guardrails

  Defining what constitutes a roguelike has always been a challenge, leading to heated debates within the community. Clear distinctions (even if they’re not fully agreed with) help clarify these boundaries.

  For instance, while games like Hades   and Dead Cells   share certain elements with roguelikes, they lack the tactical pacing and emergent complexity that define the core experience. These distinctions aren’t meant to gatekeep but to preserve the genre’s identity and guide players and developers in understanding what sets roguelikes apart. At the same time, the roguelike family has expanded to include hybrids and roguelites, offering room for innovation without diluting its core.

• Cultural Conflation

  As “roguelike” has become an industry buzzword, its meaning has often been stretched to encompass games that share only superficial similarities with the genre. Marketing labels frequently misrepresent roguelikes, leading to confusion among players and developers alike. The term is often misapplied to games with superficial similarities, diluting its meaning. While this fosters creativity, this dilution harms the genre’s identity. Clear labels help players find experiences aligned with their preferences, whether they seek tactical depth, systemic storytelling, or accessible runs.

  Examples of such misrepresentation include:

  • Vampire Survivors   is frequently mislabeled as a roguelike despite its arcade-style action and minimal consequence for failure.

  • Returnal   markets itself as a roguelike but emphasizes real-time combat and cinematic storytelling over tactical decision-making. It is more accurately classified as an action roguelite.

  • Cult of the Lamb  , although often labeled otherwise, is not a roguelike because it features real-time action, incorporates persistent progression and base-building mechanics, focuses on managing a cult rather than a single character, and lacks traditional roguelike elements like turn-based, grid-based movement and permanent consequences.

  These examples highlight the need for more precision in terminology. Distinguishing roguelikes (tactical, systemic, high-stakes) from roguelites (often action-oriented and heavy in meta-progression) preserves the genre’s identity and guides players to experiences aligned with their preferences.

  This mislabeling risks diminishing the value of the term, making it harder for genuine roguelikes to stand out. Encouraging thoughtful and accurate labeling — such as distinguishing between roguelikes (and/or traditional roguelikes), roguelites, and hybrids — helps preserve the genre’s integrity. By doing so, the community can ensure that roguelikes retain their distinct identity while allowing room for diverse interpretations and innovations.

Vampire Survivors

Returnal

Cult of the Lamb

Image Gallery: These are NOT roguelikes

VIII. Creative Freedom and Evolution

The roguelike genre has always been a space for experimentation and innovation. Its core principles — procedural generation, emergent complexity, and high-stakes decision-making — serve as a foundation that developers can build upon, exploring new ideas and pushing the boundaries of what the genre can achieve.

• Technology and Player Preferences

  Advances in technology have opened up new opportunities for roguelike design. Procedural generation has grown more sophisticated, allowing for dynamic narratives, evolving environments, and systems-driven gameplay that reacts to player choices. For example, AI-driven content creation could enable NPCs with unique goals and behaviors, adding depth to procedural worlds.

  In order to attract more players to the genre, more approachable and visually engaging experiences go a long way. Games like Jupiter Hell   demonstrate that roguelikes can embrace modern visuals while retaining their tactical depth. Similarly, hybrids like KeeperRL   show how blending genres can attract new audiences while preserving roguelike principles.

• Adaptive Definition

  The roguelike genre’s ability to adapt has been key to its longevity. Modern interpretations embrace the genre’s spirit — tactical pacing, emergent gameplay, and meaningful consequences — while allowing for variation.

  This flexibility ensures that roguelikes remain relevant in an ever-changing gaming landscape. Developers are free to experiment with new mechanics, aesthetics, or narrative techniques, provided they enhance the genre’s core appeal. For example, games like Rift Wizard  , Rift Wizard 2   and Slay the Spire   reimagine traditional roguelike elements in innovative ways, expanding the genre’s possibilities without losing its essence.

IX. A Practical Checklist for Roguelike Classification

The roguelike genre is fluid, blending traditions with modern innovations. Below is a practical checklist to help categorize games into traditional roguelikes, modern roguelikes, hybrid roguelikes, and roguelites based on the core principles discussed in this article.

This framework prioritizes design philosophy over rigid technicalities, acknowledging that genre boundaries are often blurred. While no categorization is perfect — especially in a genre as experimental as this — the checklist serves as a starting point for understanding how mechanics and priorities shape a game’s identity.

Key Caveats:

• Spectrum, Not Silos: Many games straddle categories (e.g., Noita   combines roguelite action with roguelike systemic depth).
• Evolving Definitions: Design trends and player expectations shift over time — today’s hybrid could be tomorrow’s standard.
• Subjectivity: Genre labels are interpretive; focus on why a game fits a category, not just whether it does.

Categorization Checklist

I would recommend using this checklist as a conversation tool, rather than a taxonomy. The best roguelike-adjacent games defy categorization, borrowing ideas freely while respecting the genre’s core tension: risk versus reward, chaos versus control.

In using this checklist, you may find that a candidate checks off boxes in more than one category; this is expected, as genre boundaries are inherently porous. Focus on which category best aligns with the game’s design priorities (e.g., tactical depth vs. action pacing) and adherence to core tenets like procedural generation, systemic complexity, and meaningful consequences.

X. Conclusion

This framework is not meant to be a rigid set of rules but rather a tool for discussion and reflection. Just as the roguelike genre itself evolves, the hiive interpretation should adapt to accommodate new ideas, technologies, and player preferences. Its purpose is to preserve the genre’s core identity while encouraging innovation and diversity within its boundaries.

• Living Document

  By design, the hiive interpretation is intended to grow and change. Developers, players, and enthusiasts are invited to critique, refine, and expand upon its guidelines. This collaborative approach ensures that the framework remains relevant, reflecting the evolving landscape of roguelikes while maintaining respect for their roots.

  For example, as hybrids and roguelites continue to emerge, this interpretation can help clarify how these variations relate to traditional roguelikes, providing useful distinctions without discouraging creative exploration. The goal is not to divide but to celebrate the genre’s diversity and richness.

• Call to Action

  If this framework inspires new ideas — or sparks debate — then it has succeeded in its purpose. The roguelike genre thrives on iteration, both in its gameplay and in how it’s understood. Developers are encouraged to experiment, players to engage, and communities to discuss and refine what makes roguelikes so compelling.

• Final Pitch

  Roguelikes remain a unique and vibrant part of the gaming world, defined by their tactical depth, emergent storytelling, and unpredictable challenges. Roguelites, while distinct, offer complementary experiences that expand the genre’s reach.

  The hiive interpretation seeks to preserve the essential spirit of roguelikes while leaving room for growth, experimentation, and reinterpretation.

  By keeping these principles in mind, the roguelike community can continue to innovate and collaborate, ensuring that the genre remains as compelling and dynamic as ever.

  I had originally intended to include a large section containing case studies, applying the principles and tenets herein to existing games to demonstrate the classification process. However, as it stands, this article is quite long enough as it is, so I will save those for some follow-up posts over the next few weeks.

XI. Glossary of Terms

• Berlin Interpretation: A set of criteria established around 2008 to define what constitutes a roguelike game. This framework traditionally includes elements such as procedural generation, turn-based gameplay, permadeath, and a single-character focus. It serves as a benchmark for comparing both classic and modern roguelike titles.
• Procedural Generation: The algorithmic creation of game content — such as levels, maps, encounters, or loot — rather than relying solely on hand-designed assets. This approach ensures that each playthrough is unpredictable and unique.
• Emergent Gameplay / Emergent Worlds: A design approach where complex behaviors and narratives arise from the interaction of simpler game systems. Rather than scripting every event, the game’s systems combine in unexpected ways, allowing for stories or challenges that were not explicitly pre-designed.
• Non-Modality: In the context of roguelikes, non-modality refers to maintaining a consistent mode of gameplay throughout the experience. Instead of switching between radically different gameplay states (for example, a distinct “exploration” mode versus a “combat” mode), the game employs a uniform set of mechanics that apply at all times.
• Meta-Progression: Persistent progress that carries over between individual game runs. Unlike traditional roguelikes — where every new attempt usually starts from scratch — meta-progression allows players to unlock new abilities, characters, or resources over time, which can alter the overall game experience without undermining the core challenge.
• Tactical Depth: The complexity and richness of decisions made in the heat of gameplay. In roguelikes, tactical depth refers to how much thought a player must put into each move — balancing risk, positioning, and resource management on a moment-to-moment basis.
• Turn-Based Pacing: A game mechanic where every action (movement, attack, item use) consumes a discrete unit of time (a “turn”). This allows players to deliberate each move without the pressure of real-time constraints.
• Grid-Based Navigation: A spatial system in which movement is constrained to predefined positions (cells on a grid, often square or hexagonal). This system simplifies positioning and tactical calculations, making spatial relationships clear and deliberate.
• Non-Euclidean Geometry (in Gaming): A design concept where the game world does not follow the traditional rules of Euclidean geometry. Games employing this concept may feature maps or environments where parallel lines do not behave as expected, leading to unusual spatial relationships and navigation challenges.

XI. Acknowledgements

The final form of this article owes much to the harsh but fair criticism of Zeno Rogue  , who clearly demonstrated that they were far more knowledgeable than I on matters of roguelike history and minutiae.

We did not agree on everything, but despite that, later drafts of this article came out infinitely better for their brutal ministrations. Sadly, my ego did not fare as well. Their input and critique was greatly appreciated, nonetheless.

If you have a few minutes to spare, why not take Zeno Rogue’s   impressively in-depth Roguelike Quiz  ?