Newsgroups: rec.arts.int-fiction
Path: nntp.gmd.de!newsserver.jvnc.net!netnews.upenn.edu!dsinc!newsfeed.pitt.edu!hudson.lm.com!news.pop.psu.edu!psuvax1!news.ecn.bgu.edu!newspump.wustl.edu!news.starnet.net!wupost!howland.reston.ans.net!news.sprintlink.net!pipex!harlqn.co.uk!harlequin.co.uk!mcgyorgy.cam.harlequin.co.uk!user
From: meta@harlequin.co.uk (METAMATIC)
Subject: Re: Fine writing in IF
Message-ID: <meta-2601951029290001@mcgyorgy.cam.harlequin.co.uk>
Sender: usenet@harlequin.co.uk (Usenet Maintainer)
Organization: Harlequin Information Systems
References: <3fg9h0$613@lyra.csx.cam.ac.uk> <JAMIE.95Jan20113718@kauri.vuw.ac.nz>
Date: Thu, 26 Jan 1995 10:29:29 GMT
Lines: 16

One technique I used to use was to put the descriptions of the "active"
(manipulable) objects at the end of the rest of the room description.
There doesn't need to be a strict dividing line; it's just a way of
providing a useful cue as to which objects are more likely to be active.

Of course, this can lead to difficulty making the prose flow naturally. It
also makes it difficult to include puzzles of the "Oh, didn't you happen
to examine the back of the chair which was briefly mentioned? There's a
vital hidden object taped to it" variety. Then again, I generally hate
those puzzles anyway. Having to go around trying all possible examine
commands on all possible objects is one of the more tedious features of
badly-written IF. Randomly hidden objects are a rather poor substitute for
genuine puzzles.


mathew
