Narrative form of Talking

[Elros]

Nosajimiki, yep, just removing the word "says" and the automatic inverted commas would improve things for me - for example the last thing my character did was totally silent, but yet they "said" it... Would be nice to be able just to use *...* for actions and "..." for speech at times of my choosing. I think I could get used to that.

I guess then I'd be happier compromising and using the stars-form of grammar. I still personally think it's clearer without, but I guess I'll just have to get use to it! Certainly your use of speech within a description is an intriguing method - speaking without speaking in a sort of way! Might try that...

*practises with his stars*

And maybe just removing the 'says:' and the auto-"" would be much easier to code, and would therefore get a higher entry on the To Do list, Elros?

*quietens down*

psymann

Yes I believe that this would be the better way to go. It shouldn't take much coding at all, and it really does need to be fixed. There really is no need for the "says" part of it, and sometimes it does mess up what you are trying to portray when you are just using emotions and it still shows:

Elros says:"*walks over to the boat and picks up a fishing spear*"

Where if changed it would show:

Elros:*walks over to the boat and picks up a fishing spear*

I know it is not a huge problem, but it would take very little time and work to change, and would help to improve the game a little more.

[Frits]

Like Marian says, after a while i no longer notice because i know it shouldn't be there sometimes like in nojasimiki says: *yawns* but that's my mind adjusting. If the verb is left out it will look like lines in a play, but you'll still see the : after each name.

[SekoETC]

Yeah, any chance we could do as Elros says? That's kinda how they list lines in plays. Those who still wanted to use quote marks could insert them ok, but it would mostly be understood as speech even without quotemarks and "says". Hell, let's change Cantr to irc format and enable /me. (Seriously.)

[formerly known as hf]

As for the initial suggestion: Cantr is an RP game, not collaborative fiction )In the traditional sense)


The removal of 'says' has been suggested before, or an alternative box for emotes which removes the 'says' and adds asterisks, and so forth... But many people write with speech and emotes at once...

I think will still need the 'says' in most cases - as characters do just generally talk. Also, you need to to indicate private-speech. And 'says to you' is more natural to read.

Without the says/says to - how would you indicate 'whispers'

[Oasis]

I think this compromise has a lot of merit. It could give you an option to change the "says" to something else, or remove it........if you choose not to change or remove, the default would put "says", as it does now. I know it's easy to get used to, and we don't notice it anymore, but it has always bothered me, and doesn't make sense in many posts. There should be an option, and if it's easy to code, and has a default, what would be the harm?

And by the way, Psymann, you don't rp like crap! That you even care to improve how you rp is so refreshing, but you're already heads above many who play this game. (no offense intended to anyone who plays this game )

[psymann]

Turning it into a play style does sound as if it would work well

psymann: If you want to talk, but also do things, you can just star the actions *demonstrates* and the rest can be understood to be speech.

So it would just be in a play style, only using stars instead of square brackets which I think are often used. Then we can forget all about the existence of inverted commas altogether, which saves me the trouble of trying to remember the gramatically correct place to put them!


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 sure which of those is clearer, I could probably live with either.

psymann

[deadboy]

I don't like it, I'm too used to the old method and this doesn't read well in my brain, I prefer You say to him: rather than You [To him]. For one this is in itself better grammer, and for two

If it ain't broke don't fix it!

[Elros]

I don't like it, I'm too used to the old method and this doesn't read well in my brain, I prefer You say to him: rather than You [To him]. For one this is in itself better grammer, and for two

If it ain't broke don't fix it!

I agree with Deadboy on this one. It seems more confusing and harder to read. However I "am" for dropping the says and quotation marks still, but not the other suggestion.

[SekoETC]

You --> a man in his twenties (PRIVATELY): Text here.

A man in his twenties --> you (PRIVATELY): jgoajiejtew

a man in his twenties --> a woman in her twenties.

Ok, it is a bit confusing.

"You see a man in his twenties and a woman in her twenties communicating in private."

[deadboy]

Please just keep it all the same! It works!

[psymann]

I don't like it, I'm too used to the old method and this doesn't read well in my brain, I prefer You say to him: rather than You [To him]. For one this is in itself better grammer, and for two ... If it ain't broke don't fix it!

I agree with the sentiment of "if it ain't broke don't fix it". However, in this case, I believe that it is broke.


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.


Can you honestly say (and again, try to look at this without your "I am used to what it looks like at the moment" spectacles) that this is confusing? :

[read bottom up as you would on Cantr]

- You: *shakes hand* Happy to help.
- Bhaal: Thanks, psymann and Asterix. *holds out hand*
- You, Bhaal and Asterix drag Kiron into Shed Building.
- You see Asterix communicating with Bhaal
- You see Bhaal communicating with Asterix
- You [to Bhaal]: *sniggers* Sure, let's do it *grins and licks lips*
- Bhaal [to you]: *waits until Kiron's not listening* Let's drag Kiron into the Shed to shut him up for a bit. You willing to help?
- Kiron: Pah, a lousy 1000g potatoes? You're so mean.
- Bhaal gives 1000g potatoes to Kiron
- Bhaal: Kiron, stop shouting and take this.
- Bhaal [to you]: Ha ha, no, ignore old Kiron, he's always complaining!
- You [to Bhaal]: That Kiron is a bit angry - did I do something wrong?
- Kiron: Hey, I want food! That's not fair! Give me food! *jumps about*
- You: Thanks, Bhaal *munches happily*
- You take 500g of potatoes.
- Bhaal points at Shed Building
- Bhaal: Hello psymann, have a look in the old shed. *smiles* But for now just take the potatoes from the ground here. Welcome back to Blobville.
- You: *looks around* Hello everybody, I am back, where can I find something to eat?

However I "am" for dropping the says and quotation marks still, but not the other suggestion.

Elros, I'm not sure you can have one without the other - removing the quotation marks and the "says" from each line means you would need a way of indicating whispers without using the word says. If you don't like the system I suggest above, then can you think of another one that might work? Because not-hf's point was a good one and needs a solution. But I think that the one above would work fine.

psymann

[Elros]

What would be hard about this?

You: *looks at Ana and smiles* You look lovely today.
Ana: *smiles back* Thank you. *turns to George* What do you think George?
George: *scans Ana's new dress* Wow, I think you look amazing.
You see Ana whisper to George.
You see George whisper to Ana.
You whisper to Ana: What was that all about?
Ana whispers to You: Nothing. *then with a sly grin turns to George and whispers something*
You see Ana whispering to George.
You see Ana go into Love Shack.
You see George go into Love Shack.


Ohhhhhhh, I just realized what you are saying. If I had only done an action to Ana it would have still said.

You whisper to Ana: *looks at your dress and smiles*

Ok well I concur that if the speech is to be changed then it would have to be done in you way. However, I don't really see the reason why it has to be changed. I mean we have lived with it for this long, why change it all now if we have alot more important things to do. Anyways, I have put my input on this thread, so I will move on.

[Nosajimiki]

I preffer the brakets over astrixes in the pretext b/c it it makes it not read as part of the body of text:

You[to John Doe]:*makes a face at you while others are not looking*

[the_antisocial_hermit]

I don't really think it's broken either. It's a very minor thing as far as I'm concerned. An easy way to detect what needs to be detected and simple enough to disregard the "says" or "says to". I really don't even think about them. It's something that simply requires some adjustment on the part of whomever isn't used to it.

I do not mind the suggestion to go to "Name:" like a play when it's out loud (kind of like that), but I don't really think it's necessary. All the things about whispering with an addition of [...] or *...* or whatever looks like they'd be annoying to me, but that's probably because I wouldn't be used to it and eventually I'd adjust.

[Chris Johnson]

I don't really think it's broken either.

Agreed - 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.