I've been writing my game in the second person as in - You have entered a room, you are feeling cold and tired.

However, when instructing the player to perform an action, it feels more right to reply in the first person as in - I don't feel the need to take that item presently. Saying You don't need to take the item seems overly authoritarian and doesn't sit right.

But would that confuse the player? To me it feels natural to narrate in the second person and perform actions in the first. Is that generally how it's done or do people generally stick to either one or the other? Are there any generally accepted conventions in IF regarding this?

Think I've solved this with inverted commas.

eg:

You approach the car cautiously.

"I think it has a flat tyre."

I think it depends on how much of a distance you perceive between the player and the in-game player character. This is the topic of much debate, but the convention in IF has historically been second-person for everything.

If you favor a more immersive approach, then I would consider second-person to be more natural - as in, you are actually in the game, and the game is relaying to you what is happening to you, what you are seeing, doing, etc.

I have also seen some games that are entirely first-person, though it seems more natural in CYOA type games.

The first-person switch is to me, actually, more authoritarian - you are dictating to the player character what to do, and it is responding as an individual to you, completely separately.

take box
No, I don't wanna take it.

take it
No!

take it!

I'm sure there can be some interesting things done with that. (I had an idea myself for a piece where you are in constant battle with a smart-mouthed and stubborn player character.)

It all comes down to how you view things, I suppose. But I would say this: pick one and be consistent. To have second person for some things and first person for others is either going to confuse or irritate people (in my opinion). I either want to know the player character is me or someone else. I can then know how to identify. If it keeps switching, then it would be jarring to me.

With regard to your example above, I think there is a simpler solution:

You approach the car cautiously. It seems to have a flat tyre.

I wouldn't use "you" in that case anyway (or "I") because it's not needed and gets repetitive.

perhaps my examples aren't the best. I prefer second person for narration but the player's thoughts are their own, surely?

So I could either type:

You slowly clamber to your feet, "We have lift off," you joke to yourself.

Or,

You slowly clamber to your feet.

"We have lift off."

The first example just doesn't work, imo. The second example isn't perfect but isn't as jarring. I like that it's *This is happening to you now* > "characters thoughts on the matter"

As opposed to *this is happening to you now* > *these are your thoughts on the matter*

Dunno, maybe my entire approach is wrong?

I can't help. To me, there both the same. Clearly in the second case, it's still the player character making the quote. Perhaps I'm missing the distinction.

The game is not telling the player what the player is thinking. The game is telling the player what the player character is thinking (at least until we get psychic software). It's a bit schizophrenic - you're sort of sharing the mind of the player character. In a sense, you're injected into the PC's mind. To the extent that you identify with the PC, the PC is you. There is a certain suspension of reality that takes place.

Here is something I was just reading today (coincidentally enough). Perhaps you'll find it interesting:

http://www.intfiction.org/forum/viewtop ... f=6&t=3071

Cheers for the link. I think I'll stick to second person and see how it pans out.

e2a - but if the player speaks it *has* to be in the first person. He can't say "you are too tired," because he won't refer to himself in the second person. This is bending my head a bit. I suppose I could just say - you are too tired. But what if he makes a quip? It has to be in the first person. eg -

you are in a room. you can see a spanner

>pick up spanner

you don't want that right now.

Okay that works, but anything more exciting will involve how the character *feels*.

"nah, mechanical engineering isn't really my forte"

The perspective is forced to change.

Or, mechanical engineering isn't really your forte. Hmm, maybe I'm wrong. Need to stop over thinking it.

Ah ok, I see. Yes, dialogue needs to be what the person would say. It's not really a change of perspective as such. Even if you had an entirely third person story, any dialogue is from the speaker's point of view:

BIlly ran down the hill, dodging cats and small children in his haste to get to where he wanted to be. Jumping over a skateboard left rudely in the middle of the sidewalk, he came down hard on his ankle. "I'm going to kill that brat once I get back from the hospital," he thought to himself.

Rounding the corner came his best friend, Sally. "Can you help me?" he asked. "I've sprained my ankle."

"Sorry," said Sally. "I have something else afoot."

That's just standard (non-interactive) fiction, but the pattern is the same. Characters always refer to themselves as I, just as people do in real life (except for those oddballs who like to say "we" or "JIm Bob doesn't like that" when his name is "JIm Bob".)

Yeah, I think the answer is to keep everything in the second person. Not sure where the confusion is stemming from. Hard for me to give a decent example. Hmmm. Perhaps:

You cross the summit and stop at the edge of a narrow chasm.

>jump chasm (player gives instruction to character)

-you don't think that is a good idea (game tells player what player is thinking)

(so why did the player suggest it!??)

>jump chasm (player gives instruction to character)

-I don't think that's a good idea (character suggests player doesn't kill him)

Hmm. That suggests I'm actually writing from the third person. The problem is probably in my choice of response. It's probably better as:

You cross the summit and stop at the edge of a narrow chasm.

>jump chasm

-That probably isn't a good idea.

No idea why I'm tying myself in knots over it.

I definitely think the third is better, for the reasons you're saying.

Depending on the tone of the game, you could even get fantastical:

You cross the summit and stop at the edge of a narrow chasm.

>jump chasm

-You leap into the abyss, but strong wind currents from below lift you up and deposit you back on the cliff.

I'm not saying that's good or even desirable, but more that there are lots of ways to be creative with it.

And, ironically, knots help us untangle things...

Yes creative seems better. Food for thought.