I say we should get rid of all references to scoring in the standard rules and repackage them as a built - in extension. Those authors wishing to use traditional scoring would be able to do so easily and would have the added advantage of having all scoring - related documentation in one place – allowing for more intuitive customization.
I’ve seen a bunch of questions here and on raif in the vein of “How do I change where / when / how scoring is reported or calculated?” This is partly because the score is reported in four different ways and places, and governed by rules seemingly scattered at random: the status line (by changing the “right hand status line” variable or by changing the “constructing the status line” activity), at the end of a turn when the score has changed (the “notify score changes rule” in the “turn sequence rulebook”), when a player requests the score using the “score” command (the “announce the score rule” in the “carry out requesting the score rulebook”), and when the game ends (the “print final score rule” in the “printing the player’s obituary” activity).
Paul, while I agree that having some sort of progress metric is desirable, I’m not sure that “the game developer should be expected to provide that information by default.” Even if that were true, however, the built - in method does not do this; it merely fills in a bunch of zeros and default text which the author has to figure out how to navigate.
“Severedhand” makes a good point in this thread about additive vs. subtractive programming. Unlike some other IF languages – such as Tads3 – the standard rules (or library) of Inform are intentionally bare - bones. For example, they make no assumptions about bulk or weight, but two extensions for that are available. Although I realize that scoring is part of the text adventure legacy, I think authors would be better served if the current implementation were moved to an extension.