I need some advice implementing running vs. walking. Basically, I have a
situation where the protagonist has a goal to reach (several rooms away)
before a certain timed event happens. She may or may not want to avoid this
event, that's up to the player. I want to make it a lot harder to avoid the
event than to have it happen - the only way I want the player to be able to
avoid it is if he makes the PC run all the way to her goal. Let's say the
goal is 5 rooms to the E, and that the event takes 4 turns-
E, E, E, E - event happens, too late.
RUN E, RUN E, RUN E, RUN E, RUN E - works.
Of course, a player might choose to mix running and walking, or to stop and
do something else on the way and thus introduce an additional element into
the timing, and so forth. Now, I know how to make an action take longer than
other actions - simply code it so that most actions will take 1 turn but
that action takes 2. But how do I make an action (running) take less time
than other actions? Do I have to recode everything to take 2 turns except
running? If so, is there an easy way to do so without having to redefine
Btw, I'm writing in TADS2, but I'm willing to upgrade to TADS 3 (which I'll
have to learn sooner or later) if it will offer a better solution.
This will probably require everything except running to take two
turns. The easy way would probably be to MODIFY the verb class(es) that
include the turn incrementing.
Actually, after posting the question about it a bit more, I thought about it
and figured that the best way to do it would be to set up my event as a
fuse, and modify turncoutn as follows:
replace turncount: function(parm)
global.quickturn = nil;
global.turnsofar = global.turnsofar + 1;
And set global.quickturn whenever I run. That way, the fuse would run twice
out twice as fast if you're not running, but the visible turn count won't be
affected (so it corrosponds to actual player actions).
I don't know much about TADS but I like to think that I know a little
something about IF.
Too much control can be a bad thing, the PC needs to have a little autonomy.
Typing BREATHE every other turn wouldn't be much fun and, in my opinion,
neither would this. It's just as reasonable to assume that the PC knows when
to run and when to walk as it is to assume that she knows when to inhale. I
certainly wouldn't have been pleased if I had died at the end of Planetfall
because I neglected to mention the speed at which I intended to run for my
> Too much control can be a bad thing, the PC needs to have a little
> Typing BREATHE every other turn wouldn't be much fun and, in my opinion,
> neither would this. It's just as reasonable to assume that the PC knows
> to run and when to walk as it is to assume that she knows when to inhale.
> certainly wouldn't have been pleased if I had died at the end of
> because I neglected to mention the speed at which I intended to run for
I have a similar objection; also, having to type RUN EAST in specific
points is tantamount to having to type GO EAST QUICKLY, which brings in
the whole evil adverb muddle.
William Burke, passeng...@email.com if you say so
"Many people include in their signatures contact information, and perhaps
a joke or quotation." -- Simon Fraser Go Slugs!
http://www.passengerpigeon.net (not com, not org)
I don't think it's too much of a sin if you demonstrate, or hint, at
the fact that the character can run. Perhaps you can put another,
simple, obvious, speed based puzzle early on. Otherwise, inexperienced
IF players will be more likely to 'solve' that puzzle than experienced
ones who are familiar with the standard vocabulary. This way you can
demonstrate that in cetain situations, you've added to the game verbs.
Why not make Run some kid of teleport spell that transports you two
rooms in whatever direction you want to go? I don't know the specifics
of TADS implementation, so you're on your own there.
Alternately set some sort of counter that ticks two every round unless
the user types run, in which case it ticks only one.
Why am I having flashbacks to Indiana Jones running from a giant
That's true in general - and I would never advocate RUN being a generic IF
command - but the whole point in my game is that neither running or not
running is the correct thing to do. I want it to be totally up to the player
how he chooses to handle this problem - whether the character wants to stay
and fight or whether the character wants to get the hell out of there. This
game isn't so much about trying to solve a particular problem, it's about
what, when faced with a dangerous situation, you do. Running is not a puzzle
solution, it's just one of several options available to the player, and
might cause more trouble for the character than not running (because, if you
leave area A early enough to avoid the crisis at area A, you might arrive at
area B just in time for a different crisis, which you might have missed had
you taken the time in area A). If I make the game decide for the player
whether the character runs or walks, I might as well not bother making the
Not really - running and walking are different actions - in running you have
less control over your actions (so that you're more likely to trip over
things), and it's also less sustainable over a perioud of time. Besides,
isn't DROP KEY tantamount to having to type PUT KEY ON GROUND? Or typing
TAKE KEY tanatmount to having to type PICK UP KEY AND PUT IT IN YOUR POCKET?
Part of the advantage of implementing RUN EAST is to not have to implement
QUICKLY or any other adverbs.\
> I don't think it's too much of a sin if you demonstrate, or hint, at
> the fact that the character can run. Perhaps you can put another,
> simple, obvious, speed based puzzle early on. Otherwise, inexperienced
> IF players will be more likely to 'solve' that puzzle than experienced
> ones who are familiar with the standard vocabulary. This way you can
> demonstrate that in cetain situations, you've added to the game verbs.
I think I'll just explicitly mention in the ABOUT/HELP text that the game
adds a RUN command.
> Why not make Run some kid of teleport spell that transports you two
> rooms in whatever direction you want to go? I don't know the specifics
> of TADS implementation, so you're on your own there.
Well, several reasons. That would be disorienting to the player. It will
also cause the following problem - imagine the map went
FIELD - HOUSE - OTHER FIELD
If you RUN EAST from the field, under your suggestion you'll end up in the
other field, leaving you outside and exposed. It's much more likely that
you'll want to run to the house and enter it, safely locking the door behind
> Alternately set some sort of counter that ticks two every round unless
> the user types run, in which case it ticks only one.
Yeah, that's more or less what I'll end up doing.
What about a "run to" command that lets you go straight to a location
in 50% of the time it would take you to get there, but leaves you
winded for an amount of time equal to 25% of the time it took to get
For example, you have a long bridge, and people are chasing you. You
run to the other side (4 rooms away) in 2 rounds, and require 1 round
to catch your breath, net result: you get there 1 round faster.
Pros: complex activity, which gets you there faster, and allows for
something to happen while you're resting.
>run to space station
You arrive at the stace station, winded from your run. You see Dr.
Destructo opening a panel on the rocket and reprogramming it to attack
>shoot dr. destructo
you are too tired to do anything, you need 2 rounds to recover.
Dr. Destructo has closed the panel and is escaping east into the
you are too tired to do anything, you need 1 round to recover.
The elevator doors have closed, and you see the elevator going down.
Cons: Complex to code as a general verb to be used anywhere, though it
can be coded to work only in certain situations.
Player may be tempted to type "wait" which could make more rounds go
by than are needed to recover.
Actually, his idea reminds me of the part in Leather Goddesses of Phobos where
walking does you little good, but riding the horse gets you where you need to
No, but it would be equivalent (in most cases, but again, not all) to PUT
KEY IN ACTOR'S LOCATION
> TAKE KEY tanatmount to having to type PICK UP KEY AND PUT IT IN YOUR
Again, not, since pockets, key chains, ruck sacks, etc., all involve another
layer of containment. Normally it's assumed that for the player to use a key
it must be held, but not inside or on another container. This doesn't
overrule automatically moving the key to a pocket, however, it's not the
TADS 2 default.
I just started TRYING to write to IF so I don't know the
answer to your question.
But I do have an uninformed opinion.
Could you simply have RUN EAST cause the player
to more 2 rooms in a single turn. That is if you
type RUN EAST you are taken to the room to
the east of the room to the east of your current position.
Possibly getting the room description of the room you pass
through before getting the description of the room you
Of course if a character wanted to run E E E N N
they'd have to slow down in the middle (RUN EAST,
EAST, RUN NORTH) but this could be dismissed
as having to slow down when making some turns.