How do you go from dialogue text to .D

[Ascension64]

I haven't been able to determine whether this has already been discussed. I'm wondering what media people generally use to write their dialogues from scratch, particularly non-linear diaogues, and then subsequently convert to .D.

 

As I see it, complex dialogues can be difficult to navigate when there is so much branching and jumping. So, I'd like to hear about what programs you use to write your dialogue, in what format you prefer it, and then how you go about transferring all your text to a WeiDU .D file.

[cmorgan]

I write directly in CHAIN or D, often directly using code templates and then cutting out the unused potions.

 

for more complex stuff I just do the exact same thing, following Domi's materials and some of her examples, only occasionally reverting to paragraph format, but I have a sekret wepun - I run everything past berelinde for dialogue checking and making sure the logic/style is consistent

[CamDawg]

I code straight into .d with ConTEXT. I also traify as I go since it makes the code more readable and saves a lot of typing for repeated lines.

[berelinde]

I, too, write straight into the D, usually using a blank code template. I'll write the subject of the dialogue and the overall tone of the PC responses and then have 50 or so blank states below it, especially for complex dialogues. Then I go back and fill in the actual dialogue itself, starting with the first line. That lets me write without being distracted by code. I need to fill in the state labels as I go, or I get lost. Using very simple, mostly numeric state labels helps me make sure I don't drop any links.

 

In fact, for sequential scripted dialogues, I'll often code up the whole series of dialogues first, with the script, so I can test to make sure they all fire while I'm still writing them.

 

Wow, CamDawg, you code straight into the TRA? I'd be sure to get lost.

[Rabain]

I just had a thought that it would be nice if you could TRA your entries as you write them in the D file and put the comment behind them and then weidu could somehow magically read your TRA number and Comment and make a usuable TRA from it.

 

That way you'd only have to write in your D file. Of course it means you are too lazy just to use TRAIFY after writing straight in the D file...but hey.

 

Plus I just realised it's the same amount of work as if you just write in the D and use TRAIFY afterwards...ignore me now...thanks.

[CamDawg]

Wow, CamDawg, you code straight into the TRA? I'd be sure to get lost.

I prefer it for two reasons--the dialogue flow is much more clear to me, and it's a lot easier for those states which recycle PC replies.

[cmorgan]

I tried to do CamDawg's way, but got lost with the "in-brain LOAD_TRA" problem. The code flowed beautifully, no problems, but I just couldn't keep the narrative going.

[jastey]

I code directly into the .d, using notepad.

(I would never tra them directly, what a nightmare! )

[Kulyok]

Straight into .d in Word.

 

Writing and _then_ coding has its advantages, too, since I then I don't risk losing my trail of thought. It depends.

 

As for Notepads/Contexts and such, I continue to advocate "Use spellcheck, people!" approach, whether via Microsoft Word or otherwise - the number of typos in RE/BG1 NPC texts I worked with was enormous.

[Ascension64]

Straight into .d in Word.

 

Writing and _then_ coding has its advantages, too, since I then I don't risk losing my trail of thought. It depends.

That's what I thought. Train of thought seems so important for me. Having to worry about aligning and scripting the code is certainly a distracting thing.

 

So then, how do you handle dialogue branches? Do you use something nifty like Outline View, or do you script it linearly like a play with different scenarios, e.g.

 

NPC: Text

Player1: A

Player1: B

Player1: C

 

Case A

NPC: This

 

Case B

NPC: That

 

Case C

NPC: The Other

 

?

 

As for Notepads/Contexts and such, I continue to advocate "Use spellcheck, people!" approach, whether via Microsoft Word or otherwise - the number of typos in RE/BG1 NPC texts I worked with was enormous.

Perhaps it would be worthwhile to ask people to read their writing thoroughly (no skimming) as well.

[Rabain]

Usually you need a proofreader other than yourself to go over dialogue. The human brain doesn't need much information to process the meaning of a sentence so it tends to skip things because of familiarity.

 

I'm sure everyone has seen that "yu oy nd te ft ad lt lr of a wd in a se to ud it" (you only need the first and last letter of a word in a sentence to understand it) online somewhere.

 

You will still miss things even when you don't skim.

[berelinde]

So then, how do you handle dialogue branches? Do you use something nifty like Outline View, or do you script it linearly like a play with different scenarios, ...

 

I don't really do much that I wouldn't do for "looped" dialogue, where all dialogue choices lead to the same outcome state. Even though I code it first, for the most part, I write every dialogue with no more than a general idea of where I want the conversation to go. Sometimes, it goes in a direction I hadn't necessarily anticipated at the outcome, just the PC responses that suggest themselves don't always resolve neatly. Even so, I'll keep several branches progressing simultaneously. Like I said, I write out the plan for the first state, then handle each branch one state at a time, sequentially.

 

Expressed without the code distraction, in greatly simplified format:

 

NPC: Opinion stated.

PC1: agree closely

PC2: agree for the most part, but not completely

PC3: disagree

PC4: attempt to derail the conversation

 

NPC response to PC1: question conviction to such an opinion

PC5: was sincere

PC2: all right, might have simplified it a bit (leads into the same branch as "agree for the most part, but not completely"

PC4: attempt to change the subject

PC6: admit to agreeing just to shut NPC up

PC7: change opinion

 

NPC response to PC2: please explain difference of opinion

PC5: not necessarily a difference of opinion, really

PC6: admit to agreeing just to shut NPC up

PC8: explanation 1

PC9: explanation 2

PC10: explanation 3

PC4: attempt to change the subject

 

PC3: please explain

PC8: explanation 1

PC9: explanation 2

PC10: explanation 3

PC4: I don't want to talk about it

PC4: MYOB

 

PC4: follow the change or just admit the conversation is over, as appropriate (conversation might continue, or it might end)

 

PC5: ah (conversation ends)

 

PC6: could have said you didn't want to talk about it (conversation ends)

 

PC7: ORLY? GOTO PC3

 

PC8: comment

 

PC9: comment

 

PC10: comment

[Ascension64]

@berelinde: Heh, looks mazey already.

 

Usually you need a proofreader other than yourself to go over dialogue. The human brain doesn't need much information to process the meaning of a sentence so it tends to skip things because of familiarity.

 

I'm sure everyone has seen that "yu oy nd te ft ad lt lr of a wd in a se to ud it" (you only need the first and last letter of a word in a sentence to understand it) online somewhere.

 

You will still miss things even when you don't skim.

Sure, I don't discount the need for other proofreaders. I recently wrote a thesis and missed quite a few mistakes - plus, proofreaders missed a few mistakes too. However, one nice technique is to leave a piece of writing for a week or so, and when you go back to it, you'll find a load of typos you would never have found otherwise.

[Kulyok]

So then, how do you handle dialogue branches?

 

Mostly, I still code in .d - I guess it's like a bad habit. But if it seems to me I _must_ keep writing, it happens like this(I think):

 

First, I use tiles all the time. Then I usually use order to my advantage. Like this:

 

~Xan line 1~

~Xan line 2~

~Xan line 3~

 

// Replies:

 

~PC line 1~

~PC line 2~

~PC line 3~

 

// and now in the same order

 

~Xan's reply to PC reply 1~

~Xan's reply to PC reply 2~

~Xan's reply to PC reply 3~

 

// Another space, and here goes another 'main' state

 

~Xan speaks again.~

 

Another way would be just creating a separate file, the way I did with Xan SoA: I created a text file in Notepad, called it xan999, and each time I had a thought about the mod, a line, a paragraph or whatever, I added it there. Each time it hit 30kb, I dumped the contents in Word and coded it: bits here, bits there.

 

 

 

NPC: Opinion stated.

PC1: agree closely

PC2: agree for the most part, but not completely

PC3: disagree

PC4: attempt to derail the conversation

 

The replies are all good, but I noticed the form and I just couldn't help sharing: if you're going to be writing and then coding, don't use this form(PC1: , PC2: ). Anything, but not this. I'll explain why:

 

Recently, I've been helping with two projects: one by jcompton(de'Arnise Romance, testers needed, please visit us at PPG forums) and another one by someone else, let's call them SisterVigilante. So, here's a difference:

 

Jason's draft:

 

Nalia:

PC:

PC:

PC:

PC:

 

I run Replace "PC: " with "++ ~" and the mod is half-coded already.

 

SisterVigilante's draft:

 

NPC:

PC1:

PC2:

PC3:

PC4:

 

Me: Groan, then manual replacement for each line. Speed -> down. Coding errors -> up.

 

 

 

Also, with TBH drafts, I write them like this:

 

Manolis: "Hey there, citizens."

PC: "Hola, amigo!" -> M1_Amigo

PC: "I'd like a hamburger, please." -> M1_Hamburger

PC: "Do you know where these nasty smugglers are?" -> M1_Smugglers

 

M1_Amigo

Manolis: "On to business." -> M1_Quest

 

M1_Hamburger

Manolis: "Agent Mulder ate it, sorry." -> EXIT

 

M1_Smugglers

Manolis: "Smugglers over here,

Smugglers over there,

Smugglers over here, over there, everywhere!" -> M1_Quest

 

But you have to ask Grim how difficult it was to code this stuff.

[berelinde]

Yeah, but I've already got the code in place, so it's just filling in the space between the ~~.