Continued from part 1.

The game project is split into the toplevel application crate and a world library crate in a subdirectory. The world crate handles the game state and logic, while the main crate does user interface. It's something like a client/server architecture, though there isn't anything like a wire protocol between the two.

The toplevel client crate has full access to the public interface of the world crate, but the world crate isn't aware of the toplevel. Most of the time this works fine. The client translates UI events into game actions, updates world state with the action and reads the current worldstate to know what to draw on screen. The worldstate only stores persistent objects like trees and chests though, transient things like sound effects and particle clouds that don't matter to the game logic beyond the fact that they got spawned don't live in the game state. Transient effects get passed to the toplevel as values in the message queue in the world crate.

If I ever want to have NetHack style "Are you sure you want to stick your head in the Sphere of Annihilation Y/N" style confirmation dialogs that get tripped from within the world logic, I'm going to have new problems with figuring out the UI - world interaction. Though maybe I can just push functionality like that entirely into the UI side.

The screen state machine

The different screens in the game are implemented as state machine states that consume events from the backend and return state transition instructions. The title screen state is a very simple example that currently just renders the title screen. In the future, there will probably be some menu logic here to handle settings and save games. Most of the gameplay happens in the gameplay state. When the gameplay state is created, it initializes the global game world object and then starts running the game, displaying the game world and reading the user input. This object is a bit of a mess of responsibilities, and should probably split into multiple modules at some point.

The command loop

The inputs from the player to the game go through function action::input . The player controls a single avatar character, which has its own speed of action. It won't act on every world update frame, so the client uses action::control_state to find out whether it should try to come up with some player input or just update the world. When left to its own devices without a player expecting input, the world runs at 30 frames per second.

Theoretically the game should run exactly the same every time it gets the same random number generator seed and player input sequence, to the point where these could be used as save game data, but I don't have tests in place to see if this is actually the case.

The action module in the world crate is a general grab-bag of free functions that operate on the global world state.

The global world structure

With some hesitation about losing all the lovely referential transparency, I decided to just go ahead and put the mutable world state in a thread-local store accessible from anywhere (as long as I stick to a single thread). This lets me stop worrying about just how the world reference should be carried over to every point that wants to know things about the global game state. Roguelikes are basically some simple display code you throw up in a weekend and then years and years of accrued rat's nest of world logic code that needs to know obscure things about dark corners of the game world deep in some logic path or another.

It's also starting to become obvious at this point that the Rust borrow checker hates video games. If you implement the world structure naively, the first time you take a write reference to the world you stop being able to read anything else from the world. For example, you might want to do something like world.do_mutable_stuff(world.do_immutable_query()) . Nope. Can't have mutable call's parameter be an immutable call to the same object. I don't know if there's a good reason here why the compiler doesn't just translate this into something like the let x = world.do_immutable_query(); world.do_mutable_stuff(x); form that I always end up typing by hand.

It gets more fun. Worlds contain game entities. You'll want to go through them, run game logic for them and update them. Accessing the entities of a naively put together world structure gets the world locked. If you got a read lock, congrats, now you can't change the world state in any way while holding on to the entity. Maintaining a single write lock on the other hand becomes an ergonomical nightmare if you want to, say, call a method on an entity that wants to query the world state, another method that wants to mutate the world state, maybe call one method with the other's return value as its parameter and so on.

The world access pattern

After wondering whether the decision to try to write video game logic in Rust was one of those not very clever ideas to begin with, I came up with a pattern to manage things. The Cell that I use to implement the thread-local worldstate value does a runtime equivalent of borrow checking. As long as I make sure never attempt to borrow an already borrowed world, everything will work fine, and I can write high-level game code that doesn't get gimped by constant borrow checker issues.

The way I ended up doing things is to push reading or changing things in the physical worldstate data structures as deep down into the call chain as I can, and only acquiring the Cell borrow when I absolutely must access the physical worldstate memory. At this point I push a closure past the borrow airlock using the world::with or world::with_mut functions. Once within the borrow, calling any other function that uses the airlock will probably cause a runtime panic, so the code inside the closure needs to be short and simple. Most of the time this works quite well, since the with code pattern is pretty distinct. The one thing I can't do is give the concrete datatypes that go in the world any sort of complex methods that interact with the high-level world logic, since those would end up calling other airlock functions and panic on me.

Now I can have stuff like game entity handles, game world location values and the like, which can be passed around with no borrow locks and have interfaces that use the high level game logic that bottom out to pushing the actual physical gamestate data around. Though I also need to write some getter and setter type boilerplate code because I can't expose references to any of the internal data through the API.