"You can only do that to something animate"[solved]

Hey All–

I’d like the player to be able to destroy things. It’s reasonable that the player might choose the verb “hit” or “attack” for this.

Is there a simple way to get “attack” to recognize inanimate objects?

I tried this:
The can't attack a non-person rule is not listed in the check attacking rulebook

and that compiled but didn’t work.

I’ve complicated matters by also having “attack [something] with [something preferably held]”, because I need players to be able to destroy some objects with their bare hands (like a book) and others only with a weapon.

1 Like

Huh, in the standard rules ATTACK works on anything, and the only rule associated that is the block attacking rule, which fires regardless of whether you’re trying to hit a person or a thing. Maybe what’s going on is the newly-created action is being preferred for people, but the built-in one is firing for things? If so, does saying “the block attacking rule does nothing” open things up?

This isn’t a rule response, it’s a parser error (the “can only do that to something animate error”.) It appears when the action is specified with a [someone] token, and the player specifies a non-person noun. This shouldn’t normally occur with attacking though, since “attack” (and all its synonyms) are defined with a [something] token. Have you written replacement grammar tokens or something?

The Actions index (Commands) will tell you what grammar tokens are recognized; you can easily add others as required.

1 Like

Ack. The dangers of copying and pasting from the docs. There was indeed a [someone] token. I had several examples up and I copied from the wrong one. That’ll teach me. Maybe.

Thanks!

3 Likes