http://qs321.pair.com?node_id=83930


in reply to Re: Daft text adventure project
in thread Daft text adventure project

On copyright points: There was a degree of sarcasm inherent in my earlier allusion to the Open Gaming Licence. For reference, this is not going to be a MUD/MOO in the normal sense, nor is it going to be distributed. (Although, of course, if it were made suitably modular, rewriting certain elements could produce an engine that was OGL-friendly, so that I could distribute. But all that is far in the future. For the time being, this project may be considered a utility for personal use only. I can't be investing in GURPS. I'm out of bookshelf space, and as I write for the RPGA, I am somewhat tied to D&D. 3e is much, much more modular and coder-friendly than earlier versions - that's what inspired my dream of automating the system. (Although combat will be a kludge, since I'm _not_ providing floorplans of every room.)

Again, I understand the principles of OO that you describe, in the same way that I understand, say, heavier-than-air flight. I understand that it's possible, and could explain it to someone else, but I couldn't do it personally. Not yet. To continue the analogy, the present implentation is a hot air balloon (QBasic was diving off a church tower with feathers glued to my arms), and the OO version will be my aeroplane (or helicopter).

Perl may make references easy, but I have to confess I'm floored, even by merlyn's lovely books.

And obviously, if the PCs and the monsters were both subtypes of the same class, they could presumably possess the same movement routine, called in different ways. I think.

Tiefling

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re:gregor42 Daft text adventure project
by gregor42 (Parson) on May 29, 2001 at 18:13 UTC
    And obviously, if the PCs and the monsters were both subtypes of the same class, they could presumably possess the same movement routine, called in different ways. I think

    Actually the way it would work would be that they would both inherit from a common class (prototype critter?) and therefore would be called the same way, via say the hypothetical "move" method. But, you would override the move method to make it function differently depending on the type of NPC or to add an interface for the PC's. But you would still call it by the same method name. i.e. move



    Wait! This isn't a Parachute, this is a Backpack!

[reply]
      ...called the same way...

      Doh. I didn't express myself clearly, because I wasn't thinking clearly. I meant more or less what you just said. What I was thinking was that monsters (and generic NPCs, but not most other NPCs) would have a 'move me' feature which gave them a certain chance of making a random move, while the PCs would have their moves specified by input, and the special NPCs by hard-coded behaviours, although all these would end up being the arguments of a single move action. (The effect of which would be to put the moving object into the exit, and keep it there until the travel time had elapsed.)

      By the way, I currently have an idea of timestamping actions, so that multiple players can sit at a single terminal (and indeed, I don't have the resources or skill to do it any other way) and take their characters actions when the time comes around. This requires trust, but I anticipate that anyone making unauthorised moves for a fellow player will immediately have his ale taken away, or something. At least, it's for use at my own home, where such a result is inevitable. :-)

      More thanks,

      Tiefling
[reply]

In Section Seekers of Perl Wisdom