Paths that lead nowhere

OurJud
This might sound like a strange question, but is there any place for paths that are only there to give your game a feeling of size?

I'm not talking about leading players down dozens of pointless paths at every new location, but just including them in your descriptions, even if when the player tries to follow them they get something like 'There is nothing of interest that way."

I suspect this would make the player wonder why it was even mentioned in the first place, but when I'm writing a new location, I often struggle to know where and how best to put up the invisible walls.

For instance, you describe a street and give three story-driving paths (N, S and E), but then you say that a main street lies in the distance, or a park, or a beach. These locations have no relevance to the story, but you put them there as scenery, and as such have no 'exits' leading to them. But let's say the player wants to go to the beach, so he types 'go beach' and is told "You can't go there" - which isn't really logical, and creates the horrible linear experience I want to avoid.

I suppose this is down to me not wanting to make the player feel like they're on guide rails, and to give them as much freedom as possible, but the line has to be drawn somewhere, doesn't it?

I just feel sometimes that I want to let my player go on meaningless strolls, but suspect that in actual fact, it's the last thing the player wants.

In truth, what I want is GTA5 in text adventure format :D

Anyway, thoughts?

george
Not a strange question at all, in fact experienced text adventure writers use this technique a lot. You're a natural OJ :)

Marzipan
Yeah, I've seen this used a lot. It's practically a necessity if you want to write something in a big city or outdoors setting and still make it feel immersive.

The trick is to override 'you can't go there' with something like, 'You'd love to lie on the beach but right now you've got more important things on your mind.' or 'You ramble around a few minutes watching the waves lap at the shore, then regretfully head back to [wherever] and resume the task at hand.'

In Quest I think the easiest way would be to just create an exit that loops back to the original room. You don't actually have to move the player, just print a message. I'm doing something similar in my own game, the player can technically head in any direction while in the woods but they just get turned around and eventually wind up back where they started.

HegemonKhan
an (another) Emily Short's comments about Geography:

https://emshort.wordpress.com/how-to-pl ... geography/

enjoy :D

OurJud
Thanks for the replies - just these few posts have given me quite an insight.

Great link, HK.

It often lost focus on the subject, but the last few paragraphs were just what I was looking for.

The last paragraph is a little worrying, as I suspect my game has a number of 'You can't go that way.' responses.

The point of all this is to avoid having directions where there’s no described barrier, no reason to assume the presence of a building, a cave wall, or an impenetrable forest, but where the game nonetheless tells the player only, “You can’t go that way.” This situation leaves a strange blank the imagined world — as though the player had looked around and seen only an untraversable grey fog to the west, the wall at the end of the world.


I'm not sure what the author is saying here. Well, I am, but I'm not sure what they suggest is the answer.

Are they suggesting that every new location should include ALL compass points, but that those which do not drive the story should be handled in the way Marzipan suggests.

HegemonKhan
my understanding (and I think you're saying you understand too, just not agreeing with it), is this:

give the 'illusion' (description) of a larger world out there, like the real world, not having any 'walls' (actually it does, the horizon, but whatever, lol), though obviously, also at the same time, let the person know that it is an illusion, so that they don't think those are real locations that they can get to in the game, as that would annoy them (they're trying to get to a location that doesn't exist, obviously they'd not be happy about that). Though, they don't just want a 'wall' of an undescriptive 'you can't go there' messages, give them some description of a continuing landscape~world, don't have a 'horizon wall' of 'you can't go there', give a description of a continuing landscape~world as that of before hitting the horizon, though let them know that, it is just such a description for illusion, that they can't actually go to those places, that those places don't actually exist for them to get to, so they don't waste time in trying to get to a place that they can't get to, as it's just an illusionary description for that sense of an enormous immense grand big world environment.

OurJud
I've just experimented with this at one of my locations, combining the article from the wordpress site and Marzipan's method.

I describe a street and give the relevant compass points (just two in this instance, that drive the game forward), but then tell the player that side streets lead in all directions and describe a row of terraced houses.

I then add a command pattern including all the remaining compass directions, and have it run a script that says, "You explore your surroundings for a while, but discover nothing that aids your immediate concerns, and return to your spot opposite Millers Bar."

So long as I add a command for any compass point that doesn't lead anywhere, at each location, I can avoid the dreaded 'You can't go that way'. There will be exceptions of course, such as for interior locations, but I can handle them individually.

Marzipan
One thing to keep in mind is that Emily Short is a very experienced author, in a group that takes IF design VERY seriously and expects every game released into the wild to be a highly polished, professional product that pushes the envelope past what's been done before and perfectly immerses the player in the world of the game.

All of which are good things for the players, but just keep in mind that as a first time author, following all her advice to the letter might mean setting an impossibly high standard for yourself that just makes your game frustrating and unfun to write. I'd rather see one solid, playable game get added to the site than see ten epic WIPs with all the bells and whistles get abandoned halfway through because the author just got overwhelmed.

As for your original question, personally I think if you're explicitly drawing attention to something nearby (and especially if you mention a compass direction) you should expect your players to try to go there and have some kind of custom response waiting for them.

Of course there are tricks you can use in your writing to discourage the player trying certain directions. 'The road leads north and south. On your left-hand side a rail fence blocks the steep grade leading down to the beach and [more descriptions of other stuff not related to beach] while to the east you see [place].' That way you're avoiding the word 'west', you haven't described the beach in enough detail to catch their attention and the room hopefully includes other scenery objects they might be more interested in. And even if they do try you've already established the rail and the steep slope as reasons they can't.

Really though I think there's a good reason most classic IF takes place indoors.

e: didn't see your last post, looks like you've already got a handle on all this :D

OurJud
Good points regardless, Marzipan. I would never give a compass point unless the player needs to go there for good reason, but I like the idea of physically blocking off 'no go' areas, so long as it's explained logically as in your example, rather than just a lazy "The path to the beach is blocked".

AlDaBeast
Players Mind: A beach, I'd like to see if I could do anything there.
Players Action #1: *Types* "walk to the beach"
*Message* "You slowly approach the walkway to the beach when two officers approach you, informing you of a recent ship disaster, and warning you from interfering with the search and rescue process.
*Script* When you see this page, then eliminate the possibility of being able to go there again, and prompting them with a new message that reads: "Your not able to interfere with the search effort of the rescue party."

Players Action #2: *Types* "run to the beach"
*Message* "You jog to the walkway of the beach, when two officers begin to approach. They inform you of a recent ship disaster, warning you from interfering with the search and rescue process.
*Script* When you see this page, then eliminate the possibility of being able to go there again, and prompting them with a new message that reads: "Your not able to interfere with the search effort of the rescue party."

Marzipan
I know it's besides the point, but would a player realistically type either one of those things?

OurJud
Marzipan wrote:I know it's besides the point, but would a player realistically type either one of those things?

Maybe not those exact words, but I think AlDaBeast's point is that if you give a player an exit from a room - even a non-directional one - they will try to go there. I know that if I was given the description of a location and told a beach (or whatever) laid in the distance, I would type 'go beach'. If I then got a logical response such as the one suggested in his post, I would be far more impressed with the game than if I'd got the default, and quite frankly illogical answer, "I don't understand that command." or "I can't see that (beach)."

In fact, this brings up something I've been considering making a thread about; that of whether anyone else goes out of their way to avoid having the game reply to your commands in the first-person, as though it were a machine or robot replying to you in person.

I know it's ridiculous, given how much a person has to suspend belief when playing these games, but I find such responses a complete immersion killer.

For instance, when I create an object, I always use my own 'take' and 'drop' commands, even if I don't want that object to be dropped, so that if a player tries to drop it he gets something like "You consider dropping the gun, but decide against it for now" so that it seems as though keeping the gun has been a conscious decision on their behalf, rather than having a machine tell them they can't drop it. The function remains the same (I, the designer are stopping them from dropping the gun) but the decision not to has been theirs (albeit forced by me).

Marzipan
Well yes, his point still stands and it's basically what we were discussing before, I was just trying to imagine a situation where a player would type 'run to the beach' instead of a compass direction or just 'go beach'. :)

And we're definitely in agreement about overriding the default commands. For take and drop especially, all it takes is typing some words in a box, there's no reason not to put something more natural sounding there.

Which reminds me, since this seems like a good thread to ask in: So far we've been talking about writing custom responses for specific scenarios, but how do you tell the game to automatically override messages like 'You can't go there' or 'I don't understand that command' in any situation they'd come up?

HegemonKhan
look into:

1. GUI~Editor: Filter -> Show Library Elements (toggle option) -> click on the built-in code (the now visable grey text in the left side's 'tree of stuff' ) -> 'copy' button on the right side -> edit it (though this is universal~global changes, which you may not want, as applying 'you run from the orc' for every default response is, just as, if not worse than, 'you can't do that', for each~every situation you've got, lol)

2. Templates

http://docs.textadventures.co.uk/quest/ ... plate.html
http://docs.textadventures.co.uk/quest/ ... plate.html
http://docs.textadventures.co.uk/quest/ ... plate.html
http://docs.textadventures.co.uk/quest/ ... lates.html
http://docs.textadventures.co.uk/quest/ ... lates.html
http://docs.textadventures.co.uk/quest/ ... quest.html
http://docs.textadventures.co.uk/quest/ ... board.html
etc etc etc links

3.
<ELEMENT>
-> <defaultexpression>xxx</defaultexpression> // or whatever it is called, 'unresolved', meh
</ELEMENT>

http://docs.textadventures.co.uk/quest/ ... /verb.html
http://docs.textadventures.co.uk/quest/ ... mmand.html

OurJud
Marzipan wrote:Which reminds me, since this seems like a good thread to ask in: So far we've been talking about writing custom responses for specific scenarios, but how do you tell the game to automatically override messages like 'You can't go there' or 'I don't understand that command' in any situation they'd come up?

I think I've asked this myself, and it's certainly something I'd like control of. HK's response looks promising.

Having said that, I think it's probably easier to over-ride default responses as and when you see fit, by using command patterns on that object.

You can't allow for every conceivable command, of course, so the default "I don't understand that command' could still be called.

You are in a forest. A cabin lies to your east.

>Whoops, where's my thribble?

I don't understand that command.


Seems logical to me.

But you can narrow the default commands down. For instance #text# as a command, which runs a print script saying anything you like, means that anything the payer types OTHER than the commands you've set, would get that response.

ask #text#; say #text# allows you to print your own response if anyone tries to speak. Handy if you have a room full of NPCs you don't want the player talking to.

Marzipan
Okay, looks like I've got some reading to do, thanks. :)

I remember glancing over the template page now but it looked like something I wouldn't ever want to mess with...but if I understand it right it means I can open up the game file with notepad or something just paste something like '<template name="UnrecognisedCommand">Some kind of custom response goes here.</template>' in there?

...heh, lemme just back up my game real fast, this stuff looks scary. :shock:

OurJud
Marzipan wrote:Okay, looks like I've got some reading to do, thanks. :)

I remember glancing over the template page now but it looked like something I wouldn't ever want to mess with...but if I understand it right it means I can open up the game file with notepad or something just paste something like '<template name="UnrecognisedCommand">Some kind of custom response goes here.</template>' in there?

...heh, lemme just back up my game real fast, this stuff looks scary. :shock:

I'm in a similar position - all looks a bit daunting, but yes, I think you're on the right lines.

If I myself am understanding properly:

<command name="name" pattern="pattern" unresolved="unresolved text" template="template name">script</command>

You would put your own response, between quotes, where it says "unresolved text".... I think :?

I'm just gonna stick with custom commands in the UI :)

Marzipan
Hey come on, try it out, it's actually a lot simpler than it looks. :D

'Filter' is all the way on the bottom left side. Click it and then expand 'Templates' and you'll get a huge greyed out list to sift through...what you're looking for is things like 'UnrecognizedCommand' 'UnresolvedObject' 'UnresolvedLocation' and whatever else catches your fancy. (It even has a default command for xyzzy, how cute.)

Select it and click 'copy' in the upper right in order to edit, and at that point you're just typing whatever message you like in a box.

OurJud
Marzipan wrote:Hey come on, try it out, it's actually a lot simpler than it looks. :D

"Hey, come on in, the water's lovely," said the man, shortly before being eaten by a shark :D

So have you managed to find out how to change the default, "I don't understand that command?"

I think I'm going to have, "Huh?"

Marzipan


:)

OurJud
Brill! I'm going to go and change mine too!

Thanks.

HegemonKhan
there's also the 'HandleCommand' (which may be the location~source of having what you want to change with whatever else), but this is a super built-in Command, that deals with a lot of scripting functionality, so be very careful with it (and it's complex too, lol).

-------

I just referenced the links, as I myself haven't learned how Templates work, laughs (if you learn them, you know something that I don't, hehe. I'll be asking you to help explain them, hehe). They were too confusing (and daunting... especially take a look into 'RegEx', regular expressions, too, to also get scared, lol) for me, so don't ask me for help in undertanding them, lol.

This topic is now closed. Topics are closed after 60 days of inactivity.

Support

Forums