I Have Two Conditions

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?

Comments 6

  1. Post

    I was thinking the durability route, but durability sounds more like an intrinsic toughness rather than a current level of functioning/completeness… I like the though about the second one being an Aura… it somewhat changes the visualization of it, but could very much be the thing!

  2. m

    Why not call that first one ‘wear and tear’ or just ‘wear’? Of course, then the table with light scratches would be at 2% wear instead of at 98% condition, and since I’m not a programmer I don’t know if that messes everything up, but it’s kind of fun and actually seems more straightforward to me, the idiot who will probably try (and fail) to play this game eventually…Generally I am in favor of calling things exactly what they are…

    1. Post

      “wear” is a good idea, but the word itself doesn’t have much punch to it, plus there’s things you can wear as in put on, but the damaging something implicitly also uses the verb wear…

      It’s nearly a for-sure thing that the second one will be called Auras. Partially because I’m considering some GUI elements that would reflect that in a shiny way.

      1. M

        I do like the Aura idea. And shininess!!!! But I still think you should consider wear…it’s not punchy but it’s flexible and unpretentious…and there are other synonyms for the act of putting something on…I don’t see that as a point of confusion. Anyone who thinks you can actually wear something like a table…well…uh….

        I just know I’d rather see ‘this item is 75% worn out’ than ‘this item is at 25% of optimal condition’ if this is info the player’s going to have access to. Of course I’m completely guessing re: the format in which the info will be presented but I HOPE there won’t be graphs and things….will there be graphs and things? That would be terribly off-putting and would wear dreadfully on my patience as a player. ;-)

Leave a Reply