Yet another 'forage' idea.

[Delirium]

Before I idea this, I wanted to run it by others and see what y'all thought.

You know how it usually took so long to find enough for a single measly bundle of kindling until they added 'forage kindling'?

I was thinking to myself, 'Self, one of the biggest pains that makes fletchery so time consuming is finding all the proper materials - I don't NEED that big ass chunk of onyx or a zillion little pebbles, I just want one freaking shard of obsidian.'

Then it hit me. 'Forage shard'. If there are types of stone shards to be found in the area, it'd search only for those. Yea? Nay?

[Larrath]

The problem is, I think, that we will end up with "forage rocks onyx shard" and what-not by the time this ends.

This is not a bad idea in and out of itself, but I think the general trend could turn foraging into a more cumbersome task, unless we split the findings into tier and then do "forage rocks 3" for medium-sized pieces, and that just has a very H&S feel to it.

I say 'yay' with some reluctance.

[The7DeadlyVenomz]

I say forage by keyword.

[Delirium]

You could always just 'forage rocks' if you were looking for all sorts of rocks.

Don't see anything particularly bad about it getting more splintered into different general types, save for the work it'd require. How the heck would it be H&S? Being able to specify what your character is looking for - i.e. the case where you're looking for small shards and yet your character is picking up huge blocks of stone - would just make foraging a hell of a lot less painless from a code and RP standpoint.

Anyway, I don't really mind so much on that level, to be honest - I can work around that. The main reason I was thinking of this was because there've been a lot of complaints about fletchery being unrealistically time consuming. Being able to forage for the shards alone could shorten that, and there aren't too many types, so hopefully it wouldn't be too difficult to impliment.

[spawnloser]

I like V's suggestion, myself...maybe adding another field that could be entered?

forage rocks shard
forage wood twig
forage artifact dildo

You get the idea.

[Canadian Beaver]

I like Delirium's idea. Would save so much time and make it more realistic then it is now to forage for shards. Three thumbs up

[jstorrie]

If you don't need that bigass chunk of obsidian, junk it and keep looking.

I don't see any big problem with forage right now - so you don't find what you're looking for right away, no big deal.  So you come across things that might distract you, no big deal.

[Avril]

I'm with Delirium on this one, though I'd like to see a small chance you wind up with other materials even if you look explicitly for something. I'd say it ought to work only for higher skill levels, since you're narrowing down your search, looking for specific signs that some object is out there, instead of just grabbing the first pebble in sight.

[Larrath]

The idea you proposed, Delirium, is perfectly fine with me.  I do not think it is H&Sesque.


However, I think that making foraging more complex could generally be a bad thing.  While the idea itself is perfectly alright, I do not know whether I am happy with the trend itself, however.

At first, we had 'forage kindling', which was needed because good foragers were, apparently, unable to find them in order to make their bonfires.  This is good.

Now you are proposing 'forage shards', because you do not need to look for sapphires and sandstone when you want to make your arrowheads.  This is also good.


The problem is that the next step could be 'forage tubers', 'forage agafari' and 'forage salt blue'.  This could be done by adding another level to foraging in a manner identical to CRW's proposal.  It will require a rewriting of the helpfile to detail what every category each sub-option belongs to, but that's not difficult.

After a while, though, we will probably end up with "forage rocks beryl pink block".  This is what I am against, and this is why I voted "a reluctant yay" for this proposal.

Fletching is exceedingly easy and exceedingly profitable and making it any easier would be an exceedingly bad idea. You just gotta go to the right placec for the materials and get a tool or two.

The way forage is, I see it as what you are sorting through to find what you are looking for. Seems fine to me.

[Ammit]

I like V's suggestion, myself...maybe adding another field that could be entered?

forage rocks shard
forage wood twig
forage artifact dildo

I also like this. I agree if we have forage shards then we'll eventually end up with a bazillion forageables. However having
forage <category> <keyword from item>
would have the same idea but a lot less categories The categories would be what we have now, you'd just have an additional identifier which would check for keywords. I'm a 'yay' for this idea.

[Omen]

Well, im sorta with Larrath on this a 'reluctant yay' but, seriously. If it was narrowed down it'd be alot more realistic. I mean, if im out in the woods looking for some berries im not gonna grab a rock off the ground, and if im looking for a volcanic rock im not gonna pick up a speckled brown stone or somthing. I think it could add alot of realism, searching for what you want, because thats what your looking for, not somthing else, but i'd also like the chance of possibly grabbing up somthing else, just a small chance though. And, if it was added, perhaps a longer search time? Yeah, your looking for a certain type of rock and gotta scan and pick out what your looking for, as it is, the thing your looking for you always find last... Well, thats just my opinion.

Omen

[spawnloser]

To flesh out my idea, I would not suggest that you only look for shards when typing 'forage rock shard' with the same chance of success...or that you would only get shards.  My intention would be to lower the chance of finding anything, lower the chance of finding anything good that fits the keyword provided, and still have a chance of finding other things, albeit a much reduced one.

[Canadian Beaver]

Why not with spawnloser's idea, have it so you type 'forage rocks shards' and only find shards, still same chance of success to find anything but a longer delay since you're moving other stones aside, searching specifically for shards?

[Delirium]

I also like this. I agree if we have forage shards then we'll eventually end up with a bazillion forageables. However having
forage <category> <keyword from item>
would have the same idea but a lot less categories ;) The categories would be what we have now, you'd just have an additional identifier which would check for keywords. I'm a 'yay' for this idea.

I like that even better.

To clarify, with the way I see it, the actual chance of finding the item wouldn't increase, it would just mean that you would pass over what you previously would've gotten distracted by. So, you'd pick up a lot less (unless you were REALLY good at foraging) but what you did pick up would have that keyword in it. Also, how many times have you gone foraging for something simple and picked up a sparkly shiny rare pretty thing? With this idea, you would actually pass that over.. so naturally there will be disadvantages to searching single-mindedly, but that's the price you pay to not have to sort through as much junk.