Background: This is the exclude indirect possessions from take all rule:
Rule for deciding whether all includes things enclosed by the person reaching
while taking or taking off or removing (this is the exclude indirect
possessions from take all rule): it does not.
I discovered some weird behavior that makes me think the rule shouldn’t apply to removing (TAKE ALL FROM BUCKET should work even if you’re holding the bucket). And I was wondering whether “taking off” should be in there either.
(End Background)
So the taking off action isn’t standardly defined to apply to multiple things. I thought I’d test various alternative rules for deciding whether all includes to see if any worked… and I can’t make “all” apply to worn things at all.
Here’s the most minimal case, where I’ve unlisted every single rule for deciding whether all includes and used a “[things]” token rather than “[things preferably held]” or one of those:
[code]Boudoir is a room.
The exclude indirect possessions from take all rule is not listed in the for deciding whether all includes rulebook.
The exclude people from drop all rule is not listed in the for deciding whether all includes rulebook.
The exclude fixed in place things from take all rule is not listed in the for deciding whether all includes rulebook.
The exclude scenery from take all rule is not listed in the for deciding whether all includes rulebook.
The exclude people from take all rule is not listed in the for deciding whether all includes rulebook.
The player holds a green shirt. The player wears a red shirt, a hat, and a coat.
Understand “shed [things]” as taking off.
Understand “examine [things]” as examining.[/code]
Result:
Are things worn by the player excluded from “all” at a level below the deciding whether all includes rule? If so, is there any way to make “shed all” work? The player’s body itself seems to be excluded from “all,” and that’s fine, but [EDIT: in the original post this sentence stopped here, and I have no idea how I planned to finish the sentence]
(In relation to my original question, this does make me thing that the exclude indirect possessions from take all rule probably shouldn’t invoke taking off, because the only purpose of doing so would be to help with implementation of adapting taking off to multiple objects, and there’s no way to make taking off apply to multiple objects anyway. Although the rule as written will at least generate “There are not at all available!” message instead of an even worse thing where you try to take off everything you’re carrying except what you’re wearing. Hmm.)