No really, I do!
While working with the data structures in Epigon, I realized that I have two completely different things which are both called “condition”.
The first “condition” is how much damage a physical object has taken. This is to represent wear and tear on anything that’s not a creature. A table with light scratches might be at 98% condition, while missing a leg would put it at maybe 5% Once this number is reduced to zero, the object decomposes into its component parts, as dictated by the data file on it.
The second “condition” is an ongoing effect. Being poisoned is a condition, as is eating a good meal and having more energy for a while. This second condition can have complex interactions with other conditions and abilities as well. For example, you can’t eat if you’re already full.
These two very different uses of the same word have been constant throughout the design process. Because they have no overlap in what they represent, it took me until yesterday to even notice that I had used “condition” twice.
Since the context of their use is so clear, I’m tempted to leave things the way they are, but the player of the game will have access to the information contained within the two uses. It would be unfair to the player to knowingly include such potential confusion, so one of them must change! The only question is which one, and to what?