Well, I don't agree about actual CoC (rather than high school CoC), which I've played...rather a lot of, actually.
This is a pulp horror game--so the winning thing to do is to dive into the darkness, embrace the possibility of senseless loss, and come out with your shield, on it, or mindlessly gibbering and evil. All, you know, depending.
But I do get the point, and re Oracle, I can't say I'm surprised.
Having read through the stackexchange exchange, I don't find it to be sanity-loss inducing. It's just relatively standard fuckery, and to be fair, I've never tried using bind-by-name with oracle, since positional is usually good enough (although bind by name results in clearer code--until and unless they give you nonsense like this, at least).
If there was a line in there somewhere that said "we don't actually support named stuff, we just wanted to support the API calls with this footprint, all binding is still positional" then I would feel more forgiving. But, no.
They taught me Summon Byakhee but not Bind Byakhee. I can work with this. Probably.
Yeah, that's a thing all right. I mean, based on the stackexchangexchange, it looks like you can turn on real bind by name, but it's not on by default, so meh.
I'd say it's more like that the book was translated from medieval French by someone who only knows modern French, so they messed up some crucial bits in describing which spells were which. They -work- -- but when "Summon Hunting Horror" is labelled "Bind Byakhee", while you can eventually work with this, it will be messy until you figure it out.
Their example really shouldn't omit "cmd.BindByName = true;", though. And IMO, any code which runs when that's false and calls any version of Add("parameter name", ...) should throw an exception for "bindbyname is false, names are meaningless."
Comments 6
This is a pulp horror game--so the winning thing to do is to dive into the darkness, embrace the possibility of senseless loss, and come out with your shield, on it, or mindlessly gibbering and evil. All, you know, depending.
But I do get the point, and re Oracle, I can't say I'm surprised.
Having read through the stackexchange exchange, I don't find it to be sanity-loss inducing. It's just relatively standard fuckery, and to be fair, I've never tried using bind-by-name with oracle, since positional is usually good enough (although bind by name results in clearer code--until and unless they give you nonsense like this, at least).
Reply
If there was a line in there somewhere that said "we don't actually support named stuff, we just wanted to support the API calls with this footprint, all binding is still positional" then I would feel more forgiving. But, no.
They taught me Summon Byakhee but not Bind Byakhee. I can work with this. Probably.
Reply
I'd say it's more like that the book was translated from medieval French by someone who only knows modern French, so they messed up some crucial bits in describing which spells were which. They -work- -- but when "Summon Hunting Horror" is labelled "Bind Byakhee", while you can eventually work with this, it will be messy until you figure it out.
Reply
Baaad design.
Reply
Leave a comment