Clothing parts
Kathleen M. Fischer
that I want to add shoes. Why is that a problem? Well, if I add
shoes, then do I need to add feet? Would you, as a player, get
upset to see:
> l
You see your well worn bunny slippers and a pair of togs here.
> wear slippers
You slip on slippers.
> wear togs
You must first remove the slippers.
> x feet
You don't see any here.
Kathleen
--
*******************************************************************
* Kathleen M. Fischer *
* kfis...@greenhouse.nospam.gov (nospam = l l n l) *
** "Don't stop to stomp ants while the elephants are stampeding" **
BrenBarn
>that I want to add shoes. Why is that a problem? Well, if I add
>shoes, then do I need to add feet?
Are you programming in Inform? (It's customary to precede post subjects
with [Inform] or [TADS] or something similar, depending on what authoring
system you're using.) My solution below is for Inform.
Well, if I were programming this, I would give each different pair of
shoes a "parse_name" routine that would allow it to be referred to as "feet",
but only if it was being worn. Thus, "X FEET" would be the same as "X
SLIPPERS", if you were wearing the slippers.
Hope that helps.
From,
Brendan B. B.
Bren...@aol.com
(Name in header has spam-blocker, use the address above instead.)
"Do not follow where the path may lead;
go, instead, where there is no path, and leave a trail."
--Author Unknown
Paul O'Brian
> My WIP includes clothing - which works beautiful - my problem is
> that I want to add shoes. Why is that a problem? Well, if I add
> shoes, then do I need to add feet? Would you, as a player, get
> upset to see:
> [some snipped here]
> > wear slippers
> You slip on slippers.
>
> > x feet
> You don't see any here.
I'd rather see:
> x feet
You don't need to refer to that.
But other than that, no, it wouldn't bother me.
--
Paul O'Brian obr...@colorado.edu http://ucsu.colorado.edu/~obrian
"Sometimes even music cannot substitute for tears."
-- Paul Simon
Kathleen M. Fischer
> Are you programming in Inform? (It's customary to precede post subjects
> with [Inform] or [TADS] or something similar, depending on what authoring
> system you're using.)
But my question was language independant. I wasn't asking for Inform
programming help, but rather what players would like to see :(
> Thus, "X FEET" would be the same as "X
> SLIPPERS", if you were wearing the slippers.
And that is an excellent language independant answer :)
Kathleen (and yes, I'm programming in Inform)
BrenBarn
>programming help, but rather what >players would like to see :(
>And that is an excellent language independant answer :)
however, it all came out okay in the end.
Jim Aikin
>
> My WIP includes clothing - which works beautiful - my problem is
> that I want to add shoes. Why is that a problem? Well, if I add
> shoes, then do I need to add feet?
...and if you add a feet object that's part of the player object, what
about 'foot'?
I know this is supposed to be a language-independent thread, but in
Inform you pretty much DO have to create a feet object in order to give
the response "That's not something you need to refer to in the course of
this game." (I can think of two other ways to do it, but they're really
klugey.) In which case, why not just go ahead and describe the feet?
I'd say, if a body part is required to be used by the player, it ought
to be included as a code object. For instance, if you've got bunny
slippers, then you need to code not only for 'put on slippers' but also
for 'put slippers on feet'. And there you are. If you code the slippers
to include 'feet' as a synonym, then the parser will think the player is
trying to put the slippers on the slippers. Not a good thing.
Plus, if taking the slippers off means they can no longer be referred to
as 'feet', as BrenBarn suggested, then you've got the absurd situation
that the player is examining the slippers and next types 'x feet', and
the game responds "You can't see any such thing" because the slippers
aren't being worn. No, that won't do.
--Jim Aikin
Andrew Plotkin
> "Kathleen M. Fischer" wrote:
>>
>> My WIP includes clothing - which works beautiful - my problem is
>> that I want to add shoes. Why is that a problem? Well, if I add
>> shoes, then do I need to add feet?
>
> ...and if you add a feet object that's part of the player object, what
> about 'foot'?
>
> I know this is supposed to be a language-independent thread, but in
> Inform you pretty much DO have to create a feet object in order to give
> the response "That's not something you need to refer to in the course of
> this game." (I can think of two other ways to do it, but they're really
> klugey.) In which case, why not just go ahead and describe the feet?
Because more is not necessarily better. An object that serves no game
purpose is an object that you should think about eliminating. (I don't say
that you *should* eliminate it.)
Every object in the game is potential bug -- both technical bugs
(programming errors) and gameplay bugs (leading the player to think about
them, when he should be thinking about something else.) If the only
purpose of feet is to respond to "put shoes on feet", I definitely would
leave them out.
On the other hand, if there were a good reason to put feet in the game,
I'd make 'foot' and 'feet' synonyms. Unless there was a *further* good
reason to have a left foot and a right foot object.
--Z
"And Aholibamah bare Jeush, and Jaalam, and Korah: these were the
borogoves..."
MFischer5
>On the other hand, if there were a good reason to put feet in the game,
>I'd make 'foot' and 'feet' synonyms. Unless there was a *further* good
>reason to have a left foot and a right foot object.
No. No good reason. The only reason the feet are there (and yes, right now, I
do have a left and right), are to give you something to put shoes on. I also
have a left/right leg and a left/right hand (don't ask).
Unfortunely, when you go to open the "left drawer" of the dresser, and you just
type "open left", it says:
Which do mean, the left foot, the left leg, the left hand, or the left drawer?
Eeeeewwwwwww! :(
Kathleen (besides, then I have to code "insert foot in mouth")
Andrew Plotkin
> Zarf speaks:
>>On the other hand, if there were a good reason to put feet in the game,
>>I'd make 'foot' and 'feet' synonyms. Unless there was a *further* good
>>reason to have a left foot and a right foot object.
>
> No. No good reason. The only reason the feet are there (and yes, right now, I
> do have a left and right), are to give you something to put shoes on. I also
> have a left/right leg and a left/right hand (don't ask).
>
> Unfortunely, when you go to open the "left drawer" of the dresser, and you just
> type "open left", it says:
>
> Which do mean, the left foot, the left leg, the left hand, or the left drawer?
Well, this *is* a case where ChooseObjects() will help.
David Glasser
> My WIP includes clothing - which works beautiful - my problem is
> that I want to add shoes. Why is that a problem? Well, if I add
> shoes, then do I need to add feet? Would you, as a player, get
> upset to see:
>
> > l
> You see your well worn bunny slippers and a pair of togs here.
>
> > wear slippers
> You slip on slippers.
>
> > wear togs
> You must first remove the slippers.
>
> > x feet
> You don't see any here.
One possibility is making 'foot', 'feet', 'left', 'right', 'hand', etc.
synonyms for the player; then, just make sure that such things as >PUT
TOGS ON ME work correctly.
--
David Glasser: gla...@iname.com | http://www.uscom.com/~glasser/
DGlasser@ifMUD:orange.res.cmu.edu 4001 | raif FAQ http://come.to/raiffaq
'No, GLK is spelled "G L K". What is this Java you speak of?'
--Joe.Mason on that portable thing on rec.arts.int-fiction
Christopher Nebel
<erky...@netcom.com> wrote:
>Every object in the game is potential bug -- both technical bugs
>(programming errors) and gameplay bugs (leading the player to think about
>them, when he should be thinking about something else.) If the only
>purpose of feet is to respond to "put shoes on feet", I definitely would
>leave them out.
>
>On the other hand, if there were a good reason to put feet in the game,
>I'd make 'foot' and 'feet' synonyms. Unless there was a *further* good
>reason to have a left foot and a right foot object.
I feel compelled to point out that Firebird distinguishes between your
right and left hands and feet, and you can have them lopped off in the
course of the game. Getting that all to work properly, especially when it
came to putting on the four mountain-climbing claws, was fairly hairy.
-Christopher Nebel
BrenBarn
>as 'feet', as BrenBarn suggested, then you've got the absurd situation
>that the player is examining the slippers and next types 'x feet', and
>the game responds "You can't see any such thing" because the slippers
>aren't being worn. No, that won't do.
feet. But it shouldn't be too difficult. One way would be to define a "bare
feet" object that automatically attaches itself to the player (probably as a
sub-object, since "you are wearing your feet" doesn't make much sense) if she's
not wearing shoes.
Kathleen M. Fischer
>
> >Plus, if taking the slippers off means they can no longer be referred to
> >as 'feet', as BrenBarn suggested, then you've got the absurd situation
> >that the player is examining the slippers and next types 'x feet', and
> >the game responds "You can't see any such thing" because the slippers
> >aren't being worn. No, that won't do.
> Hmm, you're right. Some kind of amendment is in order to handle bare
> feet. But it shouldn't be too difficult. One way would be to define a "bare
> feet" object that automatically attaches itself to the player (probably as a
> sub-object, since "you are wearing your feet" doesn't make much sense) if she's
> not wearing shoes.
That puts me back where I started - for once I add feet, then I need
foot. And if I have foot, then I need a left and a right.
> x left
Which do you mean, the left foot, the left leg, the left hand or the
left drawer?
:(
So, for the moment I have decided to remove body parts, and as
tempting as the idea was, I'm not going to have 'feet' refer to
slippers. That seemed like one of those little additions that could
come back to haunt me a thousand fiddly ways. However, like
any good programmer, I haven't thrown my feet away, simply shelved
them on the off chance Beta testers feel incomplete (spirtually or
otherwise).
Kathleen
BrenBarn
>That puts me back where I started - for once I add feet, then I need
>foot. And if I have foot, then I need a left and a right.
you're worried that people might try "X left foot", you could add in "left" and
"right". If that leads to what you feared:
> > x left
> Which do you mean, the left foot, the left leg, the left hand or the
> left drawer?
feet that would allow them to be referred to as "feet", "foot", "left foot",
and "right foot", but would only allow them to be reffered to as "left" or
"right" if no other objects in scope had those words in their "name" property.
I don't know the context in which you're trying to do this, but if it's
feasible, you might be able to do the same things with legs and hands.