Ornamental Objects: Allowed Verbs?

[tajmone]

A few open design questions on ornamental objects (formerly, scenery) which I'd like to bring to your attention...

So far, the old scenery class has been modified in the Foundation library as follows:

1. The scenery class became an attribute (Lib EN v0.3.0) to overcome some technical issues that prevented overriding CHECKs as expected.
2. The scenery attribute was renamed to ornamental (Lib EN v0.4.0 — see Spanish Scenery Attribute #57), which better describes the attribute's implications, and is easier to translate in other languages.
3. Every action on ornamental objects is prevented via VERB CHECKs, with the exception of examine, based on the rationale that these objects are used to convey mood and atmosphere to the game, so they should be examinable.

The rationale of point (3) could also be extended to other sensory verbs, like listen and smell, since sounds and odours can also contribute to the game's mood; and possibly, we might also want to allow the read verb, e.g. for a sign or some other inscription which might be practical to implement as an ornamental object.

The whole idea of blocking every action via a dedicated CHECK for ornamental is to inform the player that the object has a mere scenic purpose, and prevent him/her from wasting precious time by attempting different actions on that object (i.e. avoid a "find the verb" situation). For that reason, the ornamental CHECK is always placed first, e.g. to prevent a verb reporting that the player is not carrying the object mentioned in the parameter, which might lead him/her to think that after picking up the object the verb might work.

We already discussed about the fact that examining the ornamental object is a legitimate exception. Now the question is: what other verbs should be allowed on ornamental objects?

Bearing in mind that:

1. These exception verbs would still show the default "scenery response", unless the author overrides the default verb (or provides an xDesc in case of the examine verb). So their actual use would still be optional, and unless the author enables them it would be just as if these actions were blocked.
2. The rational for these exception should align with the author's intention of using ornamental objects as means to set the game mood.
3. In some cases, ornamental objects are implemented just because they are mentioned in room or objects descriptions, to avoid the game replying "I don't know the word XXX" when exploring the details — again, one might argue that the reason they were mentioned in descriptions is because they set the game mood, genre, etc.

IMO, sensory verbs that do not imply physical manipulation/handling of the object should be allowed:

• listen to (obj) — Sounds have a major role in setting the mood, e.g. an author might mention in the description "distant dogs howling", and the player might attempt 'listen to dogs/howling', where a further description would strengthen the mood (unlike the default response "The dogs are not important..."). Of course, the verb listen might also apply to nearby objects, e.g. a ticking bomb.
• smell (obj) — Odours also play a role in the game setting, and like sound they are abstract entities; if the obj is an actual smell (i.e. not an object, like 'smell paper') then it makes even more sense to implement it as an ornamental since it can't be manipulated (the same applies to sounds).
• read (obj) — Often game clues are provided via road- or wall-signs, inscriptions, etc. Currently, there's no way to implement them as "scenery", since Is ornamental blocks also the 'read' verb; yet it would be practical to do so, since the only intended action for this type of object is reading it (and, of course, examining it).

I haven't included sensory verbs like 'taste' and 'touch' because they'd imply manipulation of the object — either these verbs require the object to be held by the Hero, or that it has attributes like Is takeable/edible/drinkable, etc., which complicate matters in manners that would no longer allow to qualify these objects as "mere ornaments".

So @thoni56 and @Rich15, I would like to know what you think of these proposed exceptions, and if you can think of other verbs that should also be allowed, in the same spirit.

P.S. — Ornamental objects are currently documented in the English library documentation (alan_en/docs/foundation.html), so you might want to update the doc locally and read the Ornamental Objects section. In the coming week I was planning to create a new "Foundation Design" document targeting library porters and maintainers, where similar design choices are discussed in more detail.