RyaCAM> I'm not sure why that would cause problems. I've been working on a game where clicking an item examines it and turns back all timers but performing actions with the item costs a move.

Now that I think - no, it shouldn't cause problems. Prolonged examination can be implemented as yet another action where necessary. Mainly, I don't like the perspective of encouraging a standard procedure of clicking every inventory option before making any move with a nonzero cost. But that's probably better accomplished by 1) timely removal of extra inventory options so there's never a full list on the screen and 2) writing a game that isn't boring and illogical in the first place.

RyaCAM>
c loc = 1
___g dining
C loc = 2
___g kitchen
C loc = 3
___g bath

Perfect!

Sam> Because, I don't know, examining a clock reveals to you that there's a note hidden inside. In these cases, you can have only those examination options count as a move, or you can be consistent and allow those too to be free moves. ... The other reason it's not so important is that move counts only ever matter relative to each other.

Move counts matter for timers, and timers are not meta. So there's an observable difference for the in-game character between an examination that uncovers meta-useful information. (And the "AGL as competitive sport" people are probably concerned with raw moves only, which do not rewind.)

E.g. while the werewolf is 2 rounds from ripping the hero apart, you can examine all of these:
the apple (it's red),
the cucumber (it's green),
the aubergine (it's purple),
the shoulder bag (there's a revolver inside! acquire revolver, 1 round passes)
the revolver (loaded with a silver bullet)
- and shoot the werewolf.
In this example, it's obvious that "* 1 shoot the werewolf" should not be conditioned on examined_revolver = 1. What would the game say otherwise, "You consider shooting and decide not to, because mundane bullets do not work on werewolves"? It's a werewolf, it's going to rip me apart! Anything goes - if I had a "make choo-choo noises at uninterested worms" option, I'd try that, too. But the fact that the revolver is loaded with a silver bullet is plot-important.

This might be justified with adding "you take it", but that's too close to ignoring the player's command - after all, what if there's also a handbasket that contains the vial of holy water necessary to exorcise the Ghost King? So the player is free to examine any number of vegetables any number of times but gets eaten for stumbling on something plot-important.

gremlinn> much renaming and simplification to not completely spoil what my code does

I bet that particular snippet of code contained the solution to some 15-point puzzle in SOAT. I would expect no less from someone who requires that players learn programming to solve a puzzle! (That being said, programming the solution for That One Puzzle in SMASH sounds like a good challenge.)

gremlinn>
c S:3={"~}
____f zobjects.action (*)

Wow. This is like opening a Lego set and finding a mini quantum computer and a mini fusion reactor pieces inside.

Is the (*) in code? If yes, what does it do?

========
Design question: are long death sequences (as in FQ2) generally permissible, or should they be avoided?
========

Thanks a lot!