To do or not to do
Morgan Wajda-Levie
Julian Arnold wrote in message ...
>Do you prefer:
> >drop raincoat
> You take off the raincoat.
> You drop the raincoat.
>
>or:
> >drop raincoat
> (First taking off the raincoat.)
> You drop the raincoat.
>
>or:
> >drop raincoat
> You'll have to take it off first.
>OTOH, circumstances may be such that it is undesirable for the game to
>automatically perform the intermediate action (ie, "remove raincoat"),
>as this means that the expected single action (and thus single turn)
>becomes two actions / two turns. This would be bad if, eg, there was a
>turn limit,
With the turn limit, the author could always make it so that dropping the
raincoat uses two actions if the player is wearing it. Not sure exactly how
this would be done, but I'm sure it could be.
>Of course, a further possibility would be to make the performing of
>intermediate actions dependent on specific circumstances or
>author-overridable. The problem now is that this could give away
>information. For example, the player has observed that trying to drop
>worn clothing first removes that clothing. However, when he tries to
>drop the raincoat (worn) he suddenly gets the message "You'll have to
>take it off first" ('cause it explodes, remember). "Hey-ho," thinks the
>player, noticing the difference, "there must be a problem with removing
>this raincoat. I bet it explodes. Well, yer not catching me out so
>easily, Mr. Author!"
If the coat just explodes for no known reason, then it's a bad puzzle. And
if the author feels reall guilty about killing the player with a cheap trick
like that, they can always throw in an undo.
>So what are people's opinions on games automatically performing implied
>actions?
Actually, I choose the fourth one:
>Drop raincoat
You take off the raincoat and drop it.
This is a bit more of a pain for the author to implement than any of the
above, but it makes the text flow much more smoothly. As for the other
ones, the are placed in order of quality, with the best on top.
michael gentry
Julian Arnold wrote:
>
> Do you prefer:
> >drop raincoat
> You take off the raincoat.
> You drop the raincoat.
>
> or:
> >drop raincoat
> (First taking off the raincoat.)
> You drop the raincoat.
This is definitely preferable.
> OTOH, circumstances may be such that it is undesirable for the game to
> automatically perform the intermediate action (ie, "remove raincoat"),
> as this means that the expected single action (and thus single turn)
> becomes two actions / two turns. This would be bad if, eg, there was a
> turn limit, or the specific intermediate action was just inherently bad
> (say the coat was known to explode if taken off, as can be the case).
> The player would then have done a bad thing and could, justifiably,
> complain that the game made him do it.
I could be wrong, but I believe that implicit actions (for example, the
implicit TAKE whenever you try to wear something) don't advance the turn
counter. Since an implicit action is just a (temporarily) re-routed
action (e.g.:
before
[; Wear:
if (self notin player)
{ print "(first taking ", (the) self, ")^";
keep_silent=1;
<Take self>;
^^^^^^^^^^^
keep_silent=0;
}
],
), advancing the turn counter would cause problems every time you used
the <<action noun>> command. And since I've yet to run into any such
problem, I surmise that it's not one.
Which means there's no reason why you can't go with option #2 above.
--M.
Jeff Hatch
Morgan Wajda-Levie wrote:
>
> Julian Arnold wrote in message ...
> > >drop raincoat
> > You take off the raincoat.
> > You drop the raincoat.
> >
> >or:
> Actually, I choose the fourth one:
>
> >Drop raincoat
> You take off the raincoat and drop it.
>
> This is a bit more of a pain for the author to implement than any of the
> above, but it makes the text flow much more smoothly. As for the other
> ones, the are placed in order of quality, with the best on top.
I agree with Morgan. But from a technical perspective, it's probably
best to use the first method with current IF libraries. In the first
example, the message "You take off the raincoat" is presumably produced
because the "Drop Raincoat" command invokes the "Remove Raincoat"
command, and if removing the raincoat will trigger some unusual effect,
that effect will be correctly triggered and displayed. In the second
example, the "Drop raincoat" action apparently is also in charge of
printing the removal message, so it won't be able to handle a special
event that happens when the raincoat is removed.
One way to implement the better way efficiently would be to allow
actions to return different values or set a system flag if anything
unusual happened. This way the "Drop Raincoat" action could ask the
"Remove Raincoat" action to run silently. Then if the result of "Remove
Raincoat" was "normal," the message "You take off the raincoat and drop
it." Otherwise, the full message from the "Remove Raincoat" action
would be printed.
-Rúmil
Julian Arnold
Do you prefer:
>drop raincoat
You take off the raincoat.
You drop the raincoat.
or:
>drop raincoat
(First taking off the raincoat.)
You drop the raincoat.
or:
>drop raincoat
You'll have to take it off first.
Personally, as a player, it often peeves me when a game does the third,
as I'm fully aware I need to, for instance, remove clothing before I can
discard it, and I'd like such basic intelligence built in.
OTOH, circumstances may be such that it is undesirable for the game to
automatically perform the intermediate action (ie, "remove raincoat"),
as this means that the expected single action (and thus single turn)
becomes two actions / two turns. This would be bad if, eg, there was a
turn limit, or the specific intermediate action was just inherently bad
(say the coat was known to explode if taken off, as can be the case).
The player would then have done a bad thing and could, justifiably,
complain that the game made him do it.
Of course, a further possibility would be to make the performing of
intermediate actions dependent on specific circumstances or
author-overridable. The problem now is that this could give away
information. For example, the player has observed that trying to drop
worn clothing first removes that clothing. However, when he tries to
drop the raincoat (worn) he suddenly gets the message "You'll have to
take it off first" ('cause it explodes, remember). "Hey-ho," thinks the
player, noticing the difference, "there must be a problem with removing
this raincoat. I bet it explodes. Well, yer not catching me out so
easily, Mr. Author!"
So what are people's opinions on games automatically performing implied
actions?
Jools
--
"For small erections may be finished by their first architects; grand
ones, true ones, ever leave the copestone to posterity. God keep me from
ever completing anything." -- Herman Melville, "Moby Dick"
Matt Kimball
Julian Arnold <jo...@arnod.demon.co.uk> wrote:
: Do you prefer:
: >drop raincoat
: You take off the raincoat.
: You drop the raincoat.
: or:
: >drop raincoat
: (First taking off the raincoat.)
: You drop the raincoat.
: or:
: >drop raincoat
: You'll have to take it off first.
As a player, I would most prefer something like "You take off and drop
the raincoat." For me, this is more natural than any of the choices
you list. All three of the above responses remind me that I am
interacting with a computer program. Of the three you list above, I
slightly prefer the first to the second, and I am annoyed by the
third.
I think that automatically performing simple actions, except when
those actions are dangerous to the player, is a good idea.
: Of course, a further possibility would be to make the performing of
: intermediate actions dependent on specific circumstances or
: author-overridable. The problem now is that this could give away
: information.
I don't think this is a problem in practice. If there is a dangerous
situation, I don't mind any warning the author is willing to give me,
including warnings I get from the parser. YMMV.
--
Matt Kimball
mkim...@xmission.com
ct
In article <ant25015...@arnod.demon.co.uk>, Julian Arnold
<jo...@arnod.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> (say the raincoat was known to explode if taken off, as can be the case).
Y'know, I've often had this same problem with Macs bombing out on me,
mebbe there's a connection?
regards, ct "as useful as a thousand spoons, when all you need is a knife"
Julian Arnold
In article <351890...@ey.com>, michael gentry
<URL:mailto:michael...@ey.com> wrote:
> Julian Arnold wrote:
> >
> > Do you prefer:
> > >drop raincoat
> > You take off the raincoat.
> > You drop the raincoat.
> >
> > or:
> > >drop raincoat
> > (First taking off the raincoat.)
> > You drop the raincoat.
>
I'm inclind to agree, though I think Matt Kimball's suggestion of "You
take off and remove the raincoat" may be better. The good thing about
the second example above is that the parentheses imply that the
intermediate, implied action is intermediate and implied. OTOH, the
first example has the advantage (maybe slight though) that it uses the
existing library message for "take ..."
> I could be wrong, but I believe that implicit actions (for example, the
> implicit TAKE whenever you try to wear something) don't advance the turn
> counter.
You've gone all Informy on me. I'm not convinced interediate actions
should be "free," hence my use of the term "intermediate" in preference
to "implicit." Similarly, often you will come across this situation:
>get all
flux capacitator: taken.
orange peel: taken.
gyroscopic gizmoid: taken.
beer mat: taken.
one-way dry-weave topsheet: taken.
This only takes a single turn though, although in actual fact five
actions were made. As a player I'm aware of this, and use it to my
advantage (or at least I often assume so, as I assume it's better to
take as few turns as possible). Should this be five-for-one or not?
> Which means there's no reason why you can't go with option #2 above.
Well I could go with any of the three options. I just wanna know which
one's best. Really, the precise phrasing is a minor concern. There are
really two questions here. Should intermediate actions be performed at
all? If so, should they take a turn like normal, player-specified
Julian Arnold
In article <ant25020...@stu012.sjc.ox.ac.uk>, ct
<URL:mailto:c...@computing.ox.ac.uk> wrote:
> In article <ant25015...@arnod.demon.co.uk>, Julian Arnold
> <jo...@arnod.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> > (say the raincoat was known to explode if taken off, as can be the case).
>
> Y'know, I've often had this same problem with Macs bombing out on me,
> mebbe there's a connection?
Stop that immediately!
> regards, ct "as useful as a thousand spoons, when all you need is a knife"
Hugo 2.5 is out, y'know.
Julian Arnold
In article <351895...@hatch.net>, Jeff Hatch
<URL:mailto:je...@hatch.net> wrote:
> Morgan Wajda-Levie wrote:
> >
> > Julian Arnold wrote in message ...
> > > >drop raincoat
> > > You take off the raincoat.
> > > You drop the raincoat.
> > >
> > >or:
>
> > Actually, I choose the fourth one:
> >
> > >Drop raincoat
> > You take off the raincoat and drop it.
> >
> > This is a bit more of a pain for the author to implement than any of the
> > above, but it makes the text flow much more smoothly. As for the other
> > ones, the are placed in order of quality, with the best on top.
I haven't seen Morgan's post yet, but yes, I agree.
> I agree with Morgan. But from a technical perspective, it's probably
> best to use the first method with current IF libraries. In the first
> example, the message "You take off the raincoat" is presumably produced
> because the "Drop Raincoat" command invokes the "Remove Raincoat"
> command, and if removing the raincoat will trigger some unusual effect,
> that effect will be correctly triggered and displayed. In the second
> example, the "Drop raincoat" action apparently is also in charge of
> printing the removal message, so it won't be able to handle a special
> event that happens when the raincoat is removed.
Well, in fact I could use either phrasing and still have any special
rules triggered. The only extra work on my part is that for the second
I'd need to write a new string or two. (Oops, assuming you're talking
about the examples in the order I originally gave them. If Morgan, bless
him, has re-ordered them I might be telling fibs.)
> One way to implement the better way efficiently would be to allow
> actions to return different values or set a system flag if anything
> unusual happened. This way the "Drop Raincoat" action could ask the
> "Remove Raincoat" action to run silently. Then if the result of "Remove
> Raincoat" was "normal," the message "You take off the raincoat and drop
> it." Otherwise, the full message from the "Remove Raincoat" action
> would be printed.
Yes, this basically what I thought I'd need to do.
Julian Arnold
In article <6f9ojs$pce$1...@news.xmission.com>, Matt Kimball
<URL:mailto:mkim...@xmission.com> wrote:
> Julian Arnold <jo...@arnod.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> : Do you prefer:
> : >drop raincoat
> : You take off the raincoat.
> : You drop the raincoat.
>
> : or:
> : (First taking off the raincoat.)
>
> : or:
> : >drop raincoat
> : You'll have to take it off first.
>
> As a player, I would most prefer something like "You take off and drop
> the raincoat."
Yes, this would be a preferable arrangement to the first two phrasings,
though probably somewhat trickier to achieve. I haven't really looked
into it. OTOH, my first phrasing, and possibly my second, is a bit
clearer that not only have you performed two actions, but you've taken
two turns.
ct
In article <ant25122...@arnod.demon.co.uk>,
>> regards, ct "as useful as a thousand spoons, when all you need is a knife"
>
>Hugo 2.5 is out, y'know.
And I've been looking at sound and tune players in preparation for the
dreaded moment I download the code... (Anyway, its only a beta thingy ;-)
regards, ct "raining on your wedding day"
Andrew Plotkin
Julian Arnold (jo...@arnod.demon.co.uk) wrote:
> > I could be wrong, but I believe that implicit actions (for example, the
> > implicit TAKE whenever you try to wear something) don't advance the turn
> > counter.
They don't, in either TADS or Inform.
> You've gone all Informy on me. I'm not convinced interediate actions
> should be "free," hence my use of the term "intermediate" in preference
> to "implicit." Similarly, often you will come across this situation:
> >get all
> flux capacitator: taken.
> orange peel: taken.
> gyroscopic gizmoid: taken.
> beer mat: taken.
> one-way dry-weave topsheet: taken.
> This only takes a single turn though, although in actual fact five
> actions were made. As a player I'm aware of this, and use it to my
> advantage (or at least I often assume so, as I assume it's better to
> take as few turns as possible). Should this be five-for-one or not?
I think the results would be unpleasant in quite a lot of games, if this
ticked off five full turns. You would see five rounds of whatever timed
event sequence was going on. Or, in some cases, four rounds followed by
"*** You have died ***". :-)
If move-counting is absolutely critical to the game, I'd rather do it by
interrupting the "get" rather than extra counting.
> get all
flux capacitator: taken.
An alarm starts screaming. You hear footsteps.
[Because you set off the alarm, you didn't have time to take the other
items.]
I did this in _So Far_, for example.
--Z
--
"And Aholibamah bare Jeush, and Jaalam, and Korah: these were the
borogoves..."
Andrew Plotkin
michael gentry (michael...@ey.com) wrote:
> I could be wrong, but I believe that implicit actions (for example, the
> implicit TAKE whenever you try to wear something) don't advance the turn
> counter. Since an implicit action is just a (temporarily) re-routed
> action (e.g.:
> before
> [; Wear:
> if (self notin player)
> { print "(first taking ", (the) self, ")^";
> keep_silent=1;
> <Take self>;
> ^^^^^^^^^^^
> keep_silent=0;
> }
> ],
> ), advancing the turn counter would cause problems every time you used
> the <<action noun>> command. And since I've yet to run into any such
> problem, I surmise that it's not one.
As I said, implicit "take" does not implement the turn counter, but the
code you quote is not in fact how the Inform library does it.
Just a technical note.
John Francis
In article <ant25015...@arnod.demon.co.uk>,
Julian Arnold <jo...@arnod.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>Do you prefer:
> >drop raincoat
> You take off the raincoat.
> You drop the raincoat.
>
>or:
> >drop raincoat
> (First taking off the raincoat.)
> You drop the raincoat.
>
>or:
> >drop raincoat
> You'll have to take it off first.
>
>as I'm fully aware I need to, for instance, remove clothing before I can
>discard it, and I'd like such basic intelligence built in.
>
>OTOH, circumstances may be such that it is undesirable for the game to
>automatically perform the intermediate action (ie, "remove raincoat"),
>as this means that the expected single action (and thus single turn)
>becomes two actions / two turns. This would be bad if, eg, there was a
>turn limit, or the specific intermediate action was just inherently bad
>(say the coat was known to explode if taken off, as can be the case).
>The player would then have done a bad thing and could, justifiably,
>complain that the game made him do it.
I like having the game automatically take obvious intermediate steps.
I'm old enough to remember the first time I came across a game that
would automatically pick up an item, if necessary. And to remember
the first time I saw "(first putting the wrench in the rucksack)".
So you can consider this an enthusiastic vote for the second choice.
If this causes a problem in a turn limit puzzle, then I think it
would be a sign of a poorly designed puzzle. The fact that all
actions take exactly the same amount of time, one "turn", is an
artifact of the implementation. Turn limit puzzles should limit
the number of weighings, or combinations, or suchlike. Or they
should give you a limited number of movements. A puzzle that can
be rendered insoluble because of inventory shuffling is a bad
puzzle (unless turning up with *exactly* the three needed items,
no more & no less, is part of the puzzle. But even then the
inventory re-aarrangement should occur outside the timed section).
As for the exploding coat; does the character (not the player)
know the coat will explode? If not, then there is no problem.
The game goers to remove the coat, and it explodes. Tough.
And if the player knows the coat will explode if removed, but
still types "drop coat", they are asking for it. I don't see
how this could be regarded as "the game made me do it".
--
John Francis jfra...@sgi.com Silicon Graphics, Inc.
(650)933-8295 2011 N. Shoreline Blvd. MS 43U-991
(650)933-4692 (Fax) Mountain View, CA 94043-1389
Unsolicited electronic mail will be subject to a $100 handling fee.
michael...@ey.com
> Well I could go with any of the three options. I just wanna know which
> one's best. Really, the precise phrasing is a minor concern. There are
> really two questions here. Should intermediate actions be performed at
> all? If so, should they take a turn like normal, player-specified
> actions?
1) Yes, they should. Implicit actions (or "intermediate" -- essentially, any
action which the game does for you without you specifically asking it to)
allow you to make the parser MUCH more user-friendly. Say you've got a key in
your pocket. And you come to a locked door.
>UNLOCK DOOR WITH KEY
You have to be holding the key first.
>GET KEY
Taken.
>UNLOCK DOOR WITH KEY
Now you're getting the hang of it.
First of all, I KNOW I have to be holding the key first. And second of all,
I've just turned off your game, because its going to be incredibly irritating
to have to remember to GET KEY everytime I want to use it -- not to mention
GET COAT every time I want to wear it, GET BANANA every time I want to eat it,
etc. etc. If it goes without saying in real life, it should probably go
without saying in your game.
>UNLOCK DOOR WITH KEY
(first taking the key)
You unlock the door.
>THANKS
Anything to make your life easier, chum.
2) I guess this is up to you as a designer. If you want a turn to be taken,
there should probably be a reason for it, like a carefully timed puzzle that
you don't want players to be able to "cheat" through by relying on implicit
actions. If the number of turns gone by isn't all that significant, then don't
let it bother you. It really doesn't take more than a few seconds to dig a key
out of your pocket anyway.
As for the problem of implicit actions giving away hints (the "exploding
overcoat" problem) -- well, I guess that depends on you as well. Would you
rather a) redesign your puzzles so that they are impervious to such loopholes,
b) remove all the implicit actions from your game (this would involve
extensive hacking of the library files), or c) just leave it like it is and
let the player figure it out?
I'm not sure which would take more effort -- (a) or (b). But I've never
encountered a game where c) presented a real problem, or decreased my
enjoyment of the game.
--M.
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
Julian Arnold
In article <erkyrathE...@netcom.com>, Andrew Plotkin
<URL:mailto:erky...@netcom.com> wrote:
> Julian Arnold (jo...@arnod.demon.co.uk) wrote:
> > [...should "get all" take one turn per item taken...]
> I think the results would be unpleasant in quite a lot of games, if this
> ticked off five full turns. You would see five rounds of whatever timed
> event sequence was going on. Or, in some cases, four rounds followed by
> "*** You have died ***". :-)
>
> If move-counting is absolutely critical to the game, I'd rather do it by
> interrupting the "get" rather than extra counting.
>
> > get all
> flux capacitator: taken.
> An alarm starts screaming. You hear footsteps.
> [Because you set off the alarm, you didn't have time to take the other
> items.]
>
> I did this in _So Far_, for example.
Good point, and this is what I'd do. In the standard Hugo library, for
example, this would be achievable by simply putting in a check for
event_flag in the appropriate place. In fact, all intermediate/implicit
actions should be overridden if something important took place.
However, the question still stands. Allowing for the fact that the game
wouldn't run away with you, blindly getting every item while Rome fell
about your ears, would people dislike it if "<verb> all" took one turn
per item rather than just one turn for the verb and so many "free"
turns?
Jon Petersen
Julian Arnold wrote:
> However, the question still stands. Allowing for the fact that the game
> wouldn't run away with you, blindly getting every item while Rome fell
> about your ears, would people dislike it if "<verb> all" took one turn
> per item rather than just one turn for the verb and so many "free"
> turns?
That's fine, but it should be easy for the programmer to change
the default setting for each verb. "Take all" makes sense as it
is. From where I'm sitting I can grab two cups, a map of the
Linder estate, the White Album, and Issue 5 of The Probe
all at once. OTOH, it makes more sense to have "Wear all"
take multiple turns. Having "<verb>" all take a bunch of turns
would be much less annoying than having to type out each
step. As tendonitis begins to loom more ominously on the
horizon, little things like this start meaning more.
Jon
Jeff Hatch
Julian Arnold wrote:
> However, the question still stands. Allowing for the fact that the game
> wouldn't run away with you, blindly getting every item while Rome fell
> about your ears, would people dislike it if "<verb> all" took one turn
> per item rather than just one turn for the verb and so many "free"
> turns?
"Turns" are a rather silly idea, anyway. Different moves should take
different amounts of time. This would require a bit of extra
programming, but most of the extra work would be improvements to the
library, not changes to specific games' code.
-Rúmil
James Auberon
Julian Arnold wrote:
>
> Do you prefer:
> >drop raincoat
> You take off the raincoat.
> You drop the raincoat.
>
> or:
> >drop raincoat
> (First taking off the raincoat.)
> You drop the raincoat.
>
> or:
> >drop raincoat
> You'll have to take it off first.
>
> Personally, as a player, it often peeves me when a game does the third,
> as I'm fully aware I need to, for instance, remove clothing before I can
> discard it, and I'd like such basic intelligence built in.
>
> OTOH, circumstances may be such that it is undesirable for the game to
> automatically perform the intermediate action (ie, "remove raincoat"),
> as this means that the expected single action (and thus single turn)
> becomes two actions / two turns. This would be bad if, eg, there was a
> turn limit, or the specific intermediate action was just inherently bad
> (say the coat was known to explode if taken off, as can be the case).
> The player would then have done a bad thing and could, justifiably,
> complain that the game made him do it.
>
> intermediate actions dependent on specific circumstances or
> author-overridable. The problem now is that this could give away
> worn clothing first removes that clothing. However, when he tries to
> drop the raincoat (worn) he suddenly gets the message "You'll have to
> take it off first" ('cause it explodes, remember). "Hey-ho," thinks the
> player, noticing the difference, "there must be a problem with removing
> this raincoat. I bet it explodes. Well, yer not catching me out so
> easily, Mr. Author!"
>
> So what are people's opinions on games automatically performing implied
> actions?
>
I prefer option one - I think the exploding jacket thing is somewhat
extreme - in either case, IF is designed to be interactive, not litted
with communication obstacles. I too dislike comments such as "You'll
have to remove it first", players aren't stupid - besides, they can
always UNDO, or reload or something - the existence of a comment like
the one above is unnecesary - the majority of the time a player will
know that s/he is wearing an item, and will thus learn to go through the
mundane task of removing, then dropping the thing. All such routinized
instructions a corrosive to the INTERACTION and adventure. This is
FICTION, after all.
JD.
Arcum Dagsson
> Jools
> --
> "For small erections may be finished by their first architects; grand
> ones, true ones, ever leave the copestone to posterity. God keep me from
> ever completing anything." -- Herman Melville, "Moby Dick"
Well, I personally think that if the game is well-written, it shouldn't
have the jacket blow up unexpectedly. A better scenario might be as
follows:
> inventory
You have: a jacket(worn)
> x jacket
It is a light black jacket, but yet still manages to keep out the evening
chill. The front pocket has a suspicious-looking bulge in it.
>open front pocket
In the front pocket you see some plastic explosives, connected to wires
that vanish somewhere deeper in the jacket.
>drop jacket
(first removing the jacket)
While removing the jacket, you notice a thin wire attached to a jacket
button. Continue removing the jacket?
>y
As you unbutton the jacket, the plastic explosives explode, taking you,
and most of the rest of the neighborhood with it.
****YOU ARE DEAD****
Or something along that line...
--
--Arcum Dagsson
Edan Harel
Julian Arnold <jo...@arnod.demon.co.uk> writes:
>Do you prefer:
> >drop raincoat
> You take off the raincoat.
> You drop the raincoat.
>or:
> >drop raincoat
> (First taking off the raincoat.)
> You drop the raincoat.
>or:
> >drop raincoat
> You'll have to take it off first.
Unless there's a reason the person wouldn't want to take off the coat (ie,
as someone said, there's a bomb), I would choose the second meathod. While
it momentarily takes me out of the game, it also serves as a little alert,
saying "You were wearing the coat, you numbskull, you gotta take it off
first". Otherwise, in the quickness of playing the game, I might not
realize I had to take it off. At least, if it's part of the puzzle.
OTOH, if there is absolutly *no* puzzle regarding clothing, I might prefer
the first, and maybe even a "You put on the jacket" if I pick it up. And
if I decide to wear something else, it could remove the previous clothing.
ie:
>i
You are wearing a suit.
>take dress
You remove the suit and drop it. You take the dress and wear it.
>take mop
Getting in the mood for some spring cleaning, you take a mop.
>examine mop
It's a mop: a bundle of cotton at the end of the stick.
>take cotton
You take the cotton off the stick.
>wear cotton
You put the cotton on your hair, now duisguised.
It really all depends on *how* clothing is a part of the game. Is there
a puzzle to do *with* the clothing itself? Then give a warning of some
kind (maybe a Yes/No question). If you change your clothes a lot, the
first or second might be best. If the clothing make no difference in the
game, the first one might flow the best.
Edan
--
Edan Harel edh...@remus.rutgers.edu McCormick 6201
Research Assistant Math and Comp Sci Major Computer Consultant
USACS Member Math Club Secretary
Julian Arnold
In article <6f9ql8$2...@nnrp4.farm.idt.net>, Morgan Wajda-Levie
<URL:mailto:mp...@locke.ccil.org> wrote:
> If the coat just explodes for no known reason, then it's a bad puzzle. And
> if the author feels reall guilty about killing the player with a cheap trick
> like that, they can always throw in an undo.
Yes, it is a very bad puzzle, but it's just a spur of the moment example
(thought I'd better mention that before everyone thinks I'm a complete
blithering idiot). The problem with saying "you can always 'undo'" is
that I don't want to make "undo" a standard way of tricking the
"parser." The whole idea of automatic intermediate actions is to make
things easier for the player, not to set up a situation where he's
continually fighting the game.
> >Drop raincoat
> You take off the raincoat and drop it.
>
> This is a bit more of a pain for the author to implement than any of the
> above, but it makes the text flow much more smoothly. As for the other
> ones, the are placed in order of quality, with the best on top.
Yes, perhaps the ideal situation (though having thought about it, I do
quite like the parenthetical example).
Julian Arnold
In article <3519B6...@ucla.edu>, Jon Petersen
<URL:mailto:en...@ucla.edu> wrote:
> That's fine, but it should be easy for the programmer to change
> the default setting for each verb. "Take all" makes sense as it
> is. From where I'm sitting I can grab two cups, a map of the
> Linder estate, the White Album, and Issue 5 of The Probe
> all at once. OTOH, it makes more sense to have "Wear all"
> take multiple turns. Having "<verb>" all take a bunch of turns
> would be much less annoying than having to type out each
> step. As tendonitis begins to loom more ominously on the
> horizon, little things like this start meaning more.
But if my room were implemented in IF, it would also be possible to grab
the Riverside Chaucer, a pair of shoes, the TV remote, a Lou Reed CD,
LTOI II, and a modem with "take all." These items are scattered all
around the room, so realistically I'd have to get up and go get each one
in turn. In IF though I could grab them all in a single turn.
Julian Arnold
In article <6fbjpp$6d...@fido.asd.sgi.com>, John Francis
<URL:mailto:jfra...@dungeon.engr.sgi.com> wrote:
> I like having the game automatically take obvious intermediate steps.
Hurrah! This is what I want to hear!
> I'm old enough to remember the first time I came across a game that
> would automatically pick up an item, if necessary. And to remember
> the first time I saw "(first putting the wrench in the rucksack)".
I think Graham originated the sack-object in _Curses_, so that makes you
what? at least 5, maybe 6. :)
> If this causes a problem in a turn limit puzzle, then I think it
> would be a sign of a poorly designed puzzle.
Yes and no. See my reply to Jeff Hatch's post, below.
Edan Harel
Jeff Hatch <je...@hatch.net> writes:
>"Turns" are a rather silly idea, anyway. Different moves should take
>different amounts of time. This would require a bit of extra
>programming, but most of the extra work would be improvements to the
>library, not changes to specific games' code.
I agree. Taking an orange, playing the violin, eating a meal, going on
a boat from one place to another, etc., shouldn't take the same amount
of "time". OTOH, having different units of time could be a nightmare
if there are any NPC's in the game (to they suffer the same restrictions?
And what happens if the main character encounters an NPC while that NPC is
doing some long-turn task?)
Edan Harel
Julian Arnold <jo...@arnod.demon.co.uk> writes:
>However, the question still stands. Allowing for the fact that the game
>wouldn't run away with you, blindly getting every item while Rome fell
>about your ears, would people dislike it if "<verb> all" took one turn
>per item rather than just one turn for the verb and so many "free"
>turns?
Depends, I suppose. Is this a puzzle? If so, it's fine, though I
wouldn't want to take 25 turns to pick up a stack of 25 files or something
else that could be done quickly. Otherwise, it really doesn't matter, though
if it's five turns for five things, and it wasn't a timing puzzle in itself,
I wouldn't want to waste my time picking up things and find that other
objects that are affected by time change drastically. For example:
>Take all
copy of _Hamlet_: Taken
copy of _Romeo and Juliet_:Taken
William Shakespeare appears from the south.
Shakespeare says "Hello"
copy of _Midsummer Night's Dream_:Taken
"Hello?"
copy of _Othello_: Taken
"You're just going to ignore me, right?"
copy of _Macbeth_: Taken
"Very well then, bye."
copy of _King Lear_: Taken
Shakespeare leaves.
copy of _Julius Caesar_: Taken
copy of _King Richard_: Taken
And then have to start searching the game for Shakespeare, or worse yet,
find that he's left the game entirely. And I wouldn't like it if the game
stopped me from taking the books (or asked me) so that I could talk to
the playwright, and then when I'm done, I'll have forgotten about the
books I haven't taken. My choice would be, if it's not a direct puzzle,
make it one turn.
Edan Harel
Edan Harel
jfra...@dungeon.engr.sgi.com (John Francis) writes:
>As for the exploding coat; does the character (not the player)
>know the coat will explode? If not, then there is no problem.
>The game goers to remove the coat, and it explodes. Tough.
>And if the player knows the coat will explode if removed, but
>still types "drop coat", they are asking for it. I don't see
>how this could be regarded as "the game made me do it".
He may have forgotten that he was still *wearing* the coat. Certainly
I forget my exact inventory sometimes and click the "I" key.
Jon Petersen
Julian Arnold wrote:
> But if my room were implemented in IF, it would also be possible to grab
> the Riverside Chaucer, a pair of shoes, the TV remote, a Lou Reed CD,
> LTOI II, and a modem with "take all." These items are scattered all
> around the room, so realistically I'd have to get up and go get each one
> in turn. In IF though I could grab them all in a single turn.
Creepy. I'm writing an essay with the Riverside Chaucer right now...
The thing is, I bet all those objects are in different parts of the
room. Chaucer on the shelf, shoes on the floor, remote and CD on the
table, etc.. In IF that would be "take all from shelf",
"take all", "take all from table", and so on. That's fair! IMHO,
though, when you "take all" or "drop all" you're grabbing everything
from a specific locale or dumping it all in one place. In my
example, I'd be doing a "take all from table". Things are different
in situations like the "So Far" example or if you're setting down
several Faberge eggs, but that's why you should be able to trap
actions and change the default settings for verbs.
Jon
Julian Arnold
In article <6fbmfc$ooo$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
<URL:mailto:michael...@ey.com> wrote:
> >UNLOCK DOOR WITH KEY
> You have to be holding the key first.
> >GET KEY
> Taken.
> >UNLOCK DOOR WITH KEY
> Now you're getting the hang of it.
> >UNLOCK DOOR WITH KEY
> (first taking the key)
> You unlock the door.
> >THANKS
> Anything to make your life easier, chum.
That illustrates the problem nicely. Thanks.
OK, here's what I've decided. Intermediate actions will be automatically
taken, although no more than one such action (ie, no:
>wear coat
(first going north.)
(next opening the closet.)
(next getting the coat.)
(next removing the dry-cleaner's dust cover.)
You put on the coat.
*Possibly* though this will be turn offable by the programmer (the first
bit, not the no multiple intermediates rule).
The precise phrasing will be:
>wear coat
(First taking the coat.)
You put on the coat.
This is the default. Setting a flag (at compile-time) will change this
to:
>wear coat
You take the coat.
You put on the coat.
"You take and put on the coat" is nice, but to troublesome.
In any case, the intermediate action is not "free," and should a
noteworthy event occur between the intermediate action and the specified
one, the sequence will be interrupted and the player notified.
"<verb> all" will not take one turn per item. Someone mentioned the
possibility that "get all" would take 25 turns to get 25 files. I agree
this would not be acceptable. The alternative would be to somehow
specify an associated_with property, and refer to that in conjunction
with normal scope rules. This is probably not worth the trouble.
I am considering weighting actions for timed games ("examine button"
takes longer than, say, "press button"). Probably not though.
Thanks for everyone's input.
Julian Arnold
In article <351B3D...@ucla.edu>, Jon Petersen
<URL:mailto:en...@ucla.edu> wrote:
> Julian Arnold wrote:
> > But if my room were implemented in IF, it would also be possible to grab
> > the Riverside Chaucer, a pair of shoes, the TV remote, a Lou Reed CD,
> > LTOI II, and a modem with "take all." These items are scattered all
> > around the room, so realistically I'd have to get up and go get each one
> > in turn. In IF though I could grab them all in a single turn.
>
> Creepy. I'm writing an essay with the Riverside Chaucer right now...
>
> The thing is, I bet all those objects are in different parts of the
> room. Chaucer on the shelf, shoes on the floor, remote and CD on the
> table, etc.. In IF that would be "take all from shelf",
> "take all", "take all from table", and so on. That's fair!
Well yes, but these things could all be scattered on the floor, and
still not retrievable in a single go.
> though, when you "take all" or "drop all" you're grabbing everything
> from a specific locale or dumping it all in one place. In my
> example, I'd be doing a "take all from table". Things are different
> in situations like the "So Far" example or if you're setting down
> several Faberge eggs, but that's why you should be able to trap
> actions and change the default settings for verbs.
Yeah, I agree with this, and I suppose it is unnecessary (and sometimes
nonsensical too) to make "<verb> all" take multiple turns.
Chris [Steve] Piuma
In article <6fecc9$apd$1...@remus.rutgers.edu>, edh...@remus.rutgers.edu
(Edan Harel) wrote:
> I agree. Taking an orange, playing the violin, eating a meal, going on
> a boat from one place to another, etc., shouldn't take the same amount
> of "time". OTOH, having different units of time could be a nightmare
> if there are any NPC's in the game (to they suffer the same restrictions?
> And what happens if the main character encounters an NPC while that NPC is
> doing some long-turn task?)
I think that the following command:
> NORTH
should take an infinite amount of turns. After all, doesn't it really break
down to:
> GO HALFWAY NORTH
You are now halfway to the kitchen.
> GO HALFWAY NORTH
You are now three-fourths of the way to the kitchen.
> GO HALFWAY NORTH
You are now seven-eighths of the way to the kitchen.
> AGAIN
You are now...
&c. Each of these should count as a separate turn.
--
Chris [Steve] Piuma, etc. Nothing is at: http://www.brainlink.com/~cafard
[Editor of _flim_, Keeper of the R.E.M. Lyric Annotations FAQ, MST3K #43136]
I think this would make A Change in the Weather much more realistic.
Jason Peter Brown
Julian Arnold <jo...@arnod.demon.co.uk> wrote in article
<ant25015...@arnod.demon.co.uk>...
> Do you prefer:
> >drop raincoat
> You take off the raincoat.
> You drop the raincoat.
>
> or:
> >drop raincoat
> (First taking off the raincoat.)
> You drop the raincoat.
>
> or:
> >drop raincoat
> You'll have to take it off first.
Well, I prefer the second choice...the two separate sentences starting with
"you" are repetitive and more importantly, they disrupt the flow of the
narrative. Of course, the third choice is absolutely dispicable... Of
course, the best choice is what everyone else seems to agree upon, and that
is "You take off the raincoat and drop it." It maintain the narrative flow,
and it also doesn't make you feel like you are dealing with a computer.
> Personally, as a player, it often peeves me when a game does the third,
> as I'm fully aware I need to, for instance, remove clothing before I can
> discard it, and I'd like such basic intelligence built in.
Personally, I MUCH prefer it when a game makes assumptions (particularly on
simple things like taking off clothes, or opening drawers, or unlocking
things..) Which is evident in my "smart" desk code for HUGO...I have
extended that code to understand things like ">open the desk with the metal
key", the result being that the drawer is unlocked with the metal key, and
then opened. Right now, it looks something like this:
(Assuming you mean the drawer...)
Unlocked.
Opened.
The drawer contains...
This is pretty ugly, so I am working on it looking like this:
(Assuming you mean the drawer...:)
You unlock this drawer with the metal key, and open it, revealing...
I don't think that this will get in the way of the player, and none of the
games that I work on rely heavily on a turn structure...Although, it would
be difficult to call the MAIN() routing after you unlock the drawer, and
before returning to the MAIN() routine normally...I don't know if this is
good coding practice though, so I don't bother.
> OTOH, circumstances may be such that it is undesirable for the game to
> automatically perform the intermediate action (ie, "remove raincoat"),
> as this means that the expected single action (and thus single turn)
> becomes two actions / two turns. This would be bad if, eg, there was a
> turn limit, or the specific intermediate action was just inherently bad
> (say the coat was known to explode if taken off, as can be the case).
> The player would then have done a bad thing and could, justifiably,
> complain that the game made him do it.
This is why we have a "save" feature :) You can never save to often!
Jason Peter Brown
Kenneth Fair
In article <ant27153...@arnod.demon.co.uk>, Julian Arnold
<jo...@arnod.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <351B3D...@ucla.edu>, Jon Petersen
><URL:mailto:en...@ucla.edu> wrote:
>> though, when you "take all" or "drop all" you're grabbing everything
>> from a specific locale or dumping it all in one place. In my
>> example, I'd be doing a "take all from table". Things are different
>> in situations like the "So Far" example or if you're setting down
>> several Faberge eggs, but that's why you should be able to trap
>> actions and change the default settings for verbs.
>
>Yeah, I agree with this, and I suppose it is unnecessary (and sometimes
>nonsensical too) to make "<verb> all" take multiple turns.
The problem, I think, is the assumption that a "turn" is a fixed-length unit
of time. If one views the turn as a fluid measure of time, of variable
length, that includes time spent lolling around, checking oneself in the
mirror, daydreaming, and otherwise wasting time, then the illusion is
not quite so damaged.
--
KEN FAIR - U. Chicago Law | <http://student-www.uchicago.edu/users/kjfair>
Of Counsel, U. of Ediacara | Power Mac! | CABAL(tm) | I'm w/in McQ - R U?
To me, boxing is like a ballet, except there's no music, no
choreography, and the dancers hit each other.
Edan
caf...@brainlink.com (Chris [Steve] Piuma) writes:
>I think that the following command:
>> NORTH
>should take an infinite amount of turns. After all, doesn't it really break
>down to:
>> GO HALFWAY NORTH
<snip going donw the hall half a turn each...>
>&c. Each of these should count as a separate turn.
Now you're just being silly. Anyone knows that going halfway down the hall
is going to take more time (turns) than going halfway down half the hall :-)
The Glassers
<michael...@ey.com> wrote:
> >UNLOCK DOOR WITH KEY
> You have to be holding the key first.
> >GET KEY
> Taken.
> >UNLOCK DOOR WITH KEY
> Now you're getting the hang of it.
>
> First of all, I KNOW I have to be holding the key first. And second of all,
> I've just turned off your game, because its going to be incredibly irritating
> to have to remember to GET KEY everytime I want to use it -- not to mention
> GET COAT every time I want to wear it, GET BANANA every time I want to eat it,
> etc. etc. If it goes without saying in real life, it should probably go
> without saying in your game.
Ah, yes. I recall that the most annoying thing about Curses was
that you had to be holding the rods to do anything. So you'd get into
situations like:
>STRIKE ROD
You aren't holding it.
>GET ROD
You take the rod.
The evil cultists come back and kill you.
* * * You have died * * *
--David Glasser
gla...@NOSPAMuscom.com
Check out my new I-F website at http://onramp.uscom.com/~glasser
Or, for a waste of time,
http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/6028/
Julian Arnold
In article <1d6piqc.pq...@usol-phl-pa-022.uscom.com>, The Glassers
<URL:mailto:gla...@NOSPAMuscom.com> wrote:
> <michael...@ey.com> wrote:
>
> > >UNLOCK DOOR WITH KEY
> > You have to be holding the key first.
> > >GET KEY
> > Taken.
> > >UNLOCK DOOR WITH KEY
> > Now you're getting the hang of it.
> >
> > First of all, I KNOW I have to be holding the key first. And second of all,
> > I've just turned off your game, because its going to be incredibly irritating
> > to have to remember to GET KEY everytime I want to use it -- not to mention
> > GET COAT every time I want to wear it, GET BANANA every time I want to eat it,
> > etc. etc. If it goes without saying in real life, it should probably go
> > without saying in your game.
>
> Ah, yes. I recall that the most annoying thing about Curses was
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> that you had to be holding the rods to do anything. So you'd get into
> situations like:
>
> >STRIKE ROD
>
> You aren't holding it.
>
> >GET ROD
>
> You take the rod.
>
> The evil cultists come back and kill you.
>
> * * * You have died * * *
Well, even without automatic implicit actions, this shouldn't happen, as
>strike rod
You aren't holding it.
shouldn't take a turn. The game rules should be such that the PC knows
implicitly that he can't strike a thing he hasn't got, despite what the
stupid player may think. In this case, the "you aren't holding it" (or
whatever) message is essentially a warning from the "parser," and not an
actual response to a taken action. To my way of thinking, anyway.
Nhnwsgroup
>that you had to be holding the <deleted> to do anything.
If there was never any puzzle requiring you to have a low carrying capacity and
Admiral Nelson (not meant offensively) was always planning to give you the
<deleted> to allow you to carry everything, couldn't he just have given you
godlike carrying capacity? I've never seen carrying capacity as just what you
can hold and put in your pockets anyway; my ideal adventurers usually already
have a pack.
---
Liam Burke (email to wllbrkee (at) aol.com)
"I don't know how/you were diverted/you were perverted too;
I don't know how/you were inverted/no one alerted you...."
Mads Haahr
Apologies for quoting one article in replying to another, but I
couldn't track down Edan's original, not even on DejaNews.
caf...@brainlink.com (Chris [Steve] Piuma) writes:
>In article <6fecc9$apd$1...@remus.rutgers.edu>, edh...@remus.rutgers.edu
>(Edan Harel) wrote:
>
>> I agree. Taking an orange, playing the violin, eating a meal, going on
>> a boat from one place to another, etc., shouldn't take the same amount
>> of "time". OTOH, having different units of time could be a nightmare
>> if there are any NPC's in the game (to they suffer the same restrictions?
>> And what happens if the main character encounters an NPC while that NPC is
>> doing some long-turn task?)
I recall an Infocom game called Moonmist where there was time
involved. It was a classic whodunnit story with a fair-sized crowd of
suspects wandering around a small castle. In order to get some of the
clues, you had to be in certain places at certain times. For example,
somebody would tell you, "There is a meeting in the dining room at
4pm." If you weren't there, tough luck.
It's been at least six years since I played this game, so I don't
remember the details (eg how long different actions took) but there
certainly was some sort of time concept involved. At the time I
thought it worked pretty well. Does anybody else remember more?
Cheers,
--
Mads Haahr <Mads....@cs.tcd.ie>
Department of Computer Science
Trinity College Dublin
--
--
Mads Haahr <Mads....@cs.tcd.ie>
Department of Computer Science
Trinity College Dublin
Edan Harel
haa...@cs.tcd.ie (Mads Haahr) writes:
>Apologies for quoting one article in replying to another, but I
>couldn't track down Edan's original, not even on DejaNews.
You pretty much got all I wrote.
I wrote:
>>> I agree. Taking an orange, playing the violin, eating a meal, going on
>>> a boat from one place to another, etc., shouldn't take the same amount
>>> of "time". OTOH, having different units of time could be a nightmare
>>> if there are any NPC's in the game (to they suffer the same restrictions?
>>> And what happens if the main character encounters an NPC while that NPC is
>>> doing some long-turn task?)
>I recall an Infocom game called Moonmist where there was time
>involved. It was a classic whodunnit story with a fair-sized crowd of
>suspects wandering around a small castle. In order to get some of the
>clues, you had to be in certain places at certain times. For example,
>somebody would tell you, "There is a meeting in the dining room at
>4pm." If you weren't there, tough luck.
>It's been at least six years since I played this game, so I don't
>remember the details (eg how long different actions took) but there
>certainly was some sort of time concept involved. At the time I
>thought it worked pretty well. Does anybody else remember more?
Well, actually, it had the normal (Infocom) way time was dealt, but
it had NPC's "doing" things for a series of turns. For example, from,
lets say, 6 to 6:20, each would be "eating their dinner". If they were
in the sitting room, one might be playing the piano, one might be reading,
one might be doing something else. The next turn, two might be playing
the piano, and the guy rading would continue to read. So, in that
respect, it does it in such a way to allow characters to have a "activity"
attribute, so they're usually doing something.
The down side to this is if they're doing something that requires
concentration or something, and you distract them, but they continue
doing what they were doing.
ie:
Jack is playing the piano
>throw vase at jack
Jack catches the vase with his right hand and holds on to it.
Jack is playing the piano
and so on...
And even so, Moonmists timed activities only affect NPC. *Your* unit
of time is still the same. So you could take an object, eat a meal,
take a shower, push a button, climb some stairs, etc, all in the same
amount of time.
Edan Harel
--
Edan Harel edh...@remus.rutgers.edu McCormick 6201
Research Assistant edh...@eden.rutgers.edu Math and Comp Sci Major