Narrative form of Talking

[SekoETC]

So you claiming Jos never assumed people would feel a need to communicate non-verbally other than by pointing and later hitting?

[Jos Elkink]

So you claiming Jos never assumed people would feel a need to communicate non-verbally other than by pointing and later hitting?

In the original design, no, I didn't really think of emoting ... If I remember correctly, that is. I think we even had some discussion on the mailinglist whether it was ok or not ...

But my memory is not usually trustworthy in these things ...

[Marian]

My message from November last year: "I see more and more descriptions of actions in peoples` talking, like *smiles* or ::walks to ...::. As such, this is fine, and it adds to the roleplaying character of the game, but please limit it to behaviour that does not affect a surrounding and does not involve objects that are not actually in the game. E.g. ::hits Paul:: is not allowed, as for that there is a hitting function, or ::hides his bottle:: is not allowed, as there are no bottles in the game, or ::runs behind a building so nobody can see him:: does not mean nobody can see him ... That would simply be a different type of game." This policy has always applied and still stands.

I knew all the time I spend digging around in the archives would come in handy one day.

[Chris Johnson]

So you claiming Jos never assumed people would feel a need to communicate non-verbally other than by pointing and later hitting?

No - I didn't say anything like that at all - I said the event generated by the talk to all button expresses and describes speech as it's supposed to and consequently isn't broken. Jos's intentions or assumptions were never mentioned though I did say that it probably was unsuited to non-verbal communication

[psymann]

it does exactly what it's supposed to do
The line "You Say: ..." reflects exactly what you put into the "Talk to All" box - sounds grammatically correct to me and not broken in any way Now it may not work too well as a means of emoting or expressing other non-verbal communication but it does exactly what it is designed for - nothing broken at all.

Gracious me...

You write down exactly what is wrong with it right between saying how there's nothing wrong with it:

- it does what it should do
- it doesn't work well as a means to express non-verbal communication
- it is not broken

This is as nutty as me saying:

- I am the most talented person in the world
- Ok, I'm only the most talented person at making little stars out of paper
- But there is no-one more talented than me

As another random example, my recent excel macro did 'exactly what it was designed to do'. Sadly, my boss then gave me a different version of the spreadsheet I was meant to be using. Sensibly, I believe, I redesigned the macro to run on the new spreadsheet, rather than just running the old one which would have lost most of the data. But my original macro always did what it was designed to do...



The word "says", and the speech marks, are forced upon you even if you say nothing.

The fact that this comes from a "Talk to all" box does not make the word "says" correct, it means that the "Talk to all" box is also wrong. This should say "Communicate to all" if you really want to be pedantic about it.

So much of communication is non-verbal, so why pretend that everything is verbal?

I am also already getting tired of the "It's what we've always done so it must be right" line from a couple of people... I'd always chopped up tinned tomatoes by pouring them into the pan and hacking at them with the pusher-thing. It worked ok. A friend pointed out it was far quicker and got better results if I used a pair of scissors, chopping them while they were still in the tin. Rather than saying "Well, I've always done it this way" and continuing to hack at them in the pan, I said "Hmm, never thought of that, yes it does seem to be more effective" and that's what I usually do now.

If you want a less trivial example, there are various situations in the company I work in where we've "always done it like that," but changing to do it a different way, while seeming strange to start with, can save millions of pounds. If we didn't change, we'd still be sending telegrams and wondering why we were out of business.



Finally, I'm not saying this is the most important thing you need to change in the game. But (especially for something that should be so simple to change), that shouldn't mean that it is not accepted. I've played another game where the sole admin will go to the lengths of correcting commas and re-doing minor formatting because people suggest it, whether or not he's in the process of coding major game changes. He is of the opinion that it can only make the game a little better, and that's always a good thing. I like that attitude so I hope to see more of it here...

=====

Nice bit of history, Marian, I agree with Jos's post that you quote - it makes no sense to do things that involve items you don't have. But it's not really relevant to the discussion I think because that would apply regardless of the method you use for displaying it on-screen.

psymann

[deadboy]

I've said this many a time and I'm going to say it again, one word is nothing to fret about, it is fine and the least confusing way to express non-verbal communication, usingYou say:"**"'s, as you are in effect saying it, only non-verbally, but that still counts as saying it and also the easiest way to talk with You say:""'s, in fact the only accurate way to do this, and you're method also falls down on the You say:"**""**""**"'s, and your way is very confusing so let's please just keep it how it is!

I mean, think of the You say:"**""**""**""**""**""**""**""**""**""**""**""**""**""**""**""**""**""**""**""**""**"'s!

[the_antisocial_hermit]

The word "says", and the speech marks, are forced upon you even if you say nothing.

The fact that this comes from a "Talk to all" box does not make the word "says" correct, it means that the "Talk to all" box is also wrong. This should say "Communicate to all" if you really want to be pedantic about it.

Your character isn't even aware that there is a "You say:" or "So and So says:". From the viewpoint of the character, all that matters is what's between the quotes, be it **'s or speech, so there's not really a need to change it. The "You say:" etc. are merely cues for the player, not the character.

I think that's why I don't even really notice them, other than to pick out who it is doing the action or saying the information. Essentially... I see automatically for my knowledge, "Little Bo Peep says:..." then think, okay, "Little Bo Peep is the person my char is observing", then slip into character mode in which my character sees/hears whatever it is Little Bo Peep does/says. It doesn't matter how I make that connection in my mind, merely how they view what's between the quotes. Maybe it's disruptive and restrictive to some people, but it isn't to me, because all that matters is what comes after it. That is why I don't think I'd mind the aloud speech being only marked in play style. It would irk me to see "Name [to you]:" for whispers, but I'd adapt to it in time, which is how I view the way it is, just adapting even if it's a bit irksome and weird at first. Still think it's all just making a mountain out of a molehill. It's not that difficult to adjust to little things like that either way you put it.

[SekoETC]

Good point, Hermi. I like the part of you browsing through the stuff as a player and then "slipping" into character. Since I was having this discussion with Phalynx some time ago and it was hard to say we see the events as a player rather without sounding like an emotionless ...well, player.

[psymann]

deadboy I have to confess I am unsure what you're saying there.

The proposal, as it now stands, is for the removal of the word "says", and the removal of *all* speech marks.

All I can say to you is what I said earlier - I am amazed that you consider the current method easier to understand, and more correct, than the proposed one. I find it hard to tell whether you believe this because you actually believe the play-style to be confusing, or whether you just don't like change. So I can't really go any further with what I have said:

deadboy, I can't believe that you can claim that:
You say to Him: "*pats on back*"
is better grammar than
You [to Him]: *pats on back*
when the first suggests that the patting is being said, and has spurious speech marks, and the second (apart from the stars) is a standard format that has been used in writing plays for (probably) centuries.

=====

Hermit, you are right, that the left-hand side acts as a cue for the player.

And since it does that, why try to pretend that it is part of the role-play by trying to make it the beginning of a sentence?
psymann: is a cue
psymann says: is the beginning of a sentence
Why not just use the top one, which is a more concise, less confusing and more common format of cue?



Sorry to go on about this, I'm just truely astonished at the negative responses this is getting. I was really expecting a rather low profile "Yep, that would be a bit clearer, we'll switch it over at some point when we get a spare moment." Oh well...

psymann

[Frits]

Well i think that's cos they're used to it... and you are not... but you will be! And when it's changed everyone would have to get used to it again!
Dynamic naming seems like a great idea but could be too modern, too demanding on the server, too consuming, too much crashrisk etc.

[tiddy ogg]

Just to stick my oar in...
I can see it might be more aesthetic if the word "says" were removed, so the line would simply read:
Fred: "*picks his nose*
But I can't see it's that big a problem, and could possibly cause confusion.
All the rest seems to me a waste of resource time if it's a big programming job. A bit of thought before typing can make your statements comprehenxsible.

[N-Aldwitch]

So you're that woman in Akypor are you?

I personally hate this style,

So do I! It's really irritating. I saw one of your characters somewhere, too, it was damn annoying.

[N-Aldwitch]

And there should be a simple solution to formerly-known-as-hf's question. The line would say one of these (whichever seems clearer on the screen):

You [to woman in her thirties]: *smiles* Thanks! *eats noisily*
woman in her thirties [to you]: *passes over bag of cookies*
You: I'm hungry! *wails and staggers around*

You *to woman in her thirties*: *smiles* Thanks! *eats noisily*
woman in her thirties *to you*: *passes over bag of cookies* Enjoy
You: I'm hungry! *wails and staggers around*

Not to mention it is EXTREMELY confusing for a new player. 'A woman in her twenties to you: Hello'
I mean.. wtf?