1) is abysmal, don't be tempted to use it. 2) is common in Inform (as it's
so easy for the author to do without much effort -- the name property of a
location object). Graham Nelson's games seem to use this approach a lot. In
some circumstances I find it quite welcome (e.g., the bannister-thing in
Curses's attic), while in other others I find it frustrating (e.g., the baked
potato at the beginning of Jigsaw).
In the former instance, a bannister is a static, innocuous feature. It is
unlikely to be used for anything other than keeping one from falling down the
stairs. Of course, in text adventures it is often the seemingly most
innocent objects which are most useful, so the player is inclined to examine,
push, pull, etc. every object he comes across which doesn't have an immediate
obvious use. Now, a bannister, being a static object can't be moved. So,
the player must stay in the same place while fiddling with it. In this case
it is conducive to the flow of the game to just give the message "You don't
need to refer to that." -- the player is free to move on.
In the latter instance though, the baked potato is, in theory, a portable
object. So why not allow the player to pick it up and carry it away, even if
it is a red herring? Sure, he may try all those verbs on it to no avail, but
at least the game wouldn't be held up by this. The inventory is limitless,
so no problems there.
> 3) Don't implement any objects at all. So you go into a grocery store
> and it's totally empty - there isn't anything there. Likewise the
> church, the fire station, etc. This I also don't like - it seems phoney
> and empty, again wrecking any illusions.
This seems just a lazy way out. Maybe it's OK if you're writing purely
puzzle-oriented IF, where any extraneous detail would be nothing but...
extraneous, but I don't think anyone is writing such IF any more.
> 3) Make things inaccessible. That's the approach my game has taken -
> there are lots of buildings in the street, each with its own locked
> door. Since they're just there for ambiance you can't go inside them.
> Part of the puzzle, then, is figuring out what doors are important and
> what aren't.
This might work, but in the case you've outlined I would probably agree with
your friend (depending on just how many inaccesible doors there were) -- I'd
be discouraged from playing. I don't think I'd be too endeared to a puzzle
which involved working out something so mundane and arbitrary. It serves no
real purpose, and is no fun. If the player tries a wrong door it just means
he sits there for a bit longer -- there's no effect besides slowing the flow
of the game.
You might try treating the noun "door" on its own as a reference to one of
the inaccessible doors, while an accessible door would be "grocer's door" or
"florist's door". Thus,
>OPEN DOOR
You try a couple of doors, but they're locked.
>OPEN FLORIST'S DOOR
Opening the door your olfactory apparatus is assailed by the arresting
aroma of an array of attractive arrangements.
Would this work? I'm not sure.
-- Jools Arnold jools@arnod.demon.co.uk