quote:

---

Originally written by Arenax:
Now we come to something of a slippery-slope argument. On its own, this design is acceptable (but not one I'd personally use, as I dislike the entire idea of visualizing it because I don't find it necessary). But once you simplify dialogue--what must now be done is simplify script editing, which is where the real problem lies. Again, you're taking this to a different place than I am. I agree with Brett, who said, "Now I'm sure some will argure that not all aspects of BoA scripting could be covered by this approach, and you are right. If we make as many things as simple as possible, well, that's a good goal to shoot for." Let's make dialogue and custom objects script editors now, because making good editors for those scripts is far easier than for town scripts and no such editors exist, and we can worry about town script editors later. They may not use the same ideas at all.

However, if a town script editor included all of the same capabilities as writing raw script — and I'm not sure I would make the distinction that you make between "data entry" and "real scripting," because what I'm suggesting may be "data entry" — then I couldn't argue with it. The goal is not to dumb this down so that we have BoE all over again; the goal is to make the system more user-friendly so that people who can write good stories won't have to worry about learning how to program in order to make scenarios.

BoA has the inherent problem that the people who are capable of writing good stories and therefore plots that we would want to role-play are usually not the same people as the ones who can code very well. To put it another way, math/science/computer people are usually different from humanities people. But ultimately we would like to attract writers as well as technical innovators, because the writers are the ones who will make good scenarios.

Any editor aid that will make it easier for humanities people to write a scenario — and has the same abilities as writing raw script — seems like a good thing.

The only real issue with your design is that coding it would be awfully difficult and probably out of my league if I wanted it to be cross-platform. I'm not saying it's not possible for others--but the benefits are outweighed by the inherent issues. Inherent issues? It seems like you're saying that my idea is bad because it would be hard for you personally to program. I'm not asking you to program it, and you are not the only programmer out there. I'm going to learn C and C++ one of these days — over Winter Break I'll start, probably — and I may make this program myself.

To be more explicit: I'm not really talking in your direction, Arenax. Not everything is about you.

I wrote AvDialogue because I needed something to speed up writing dialogue, not to idiot-proof it for me or make it more "understandable," because as it stands Avernumscript is perfectly understandable. That's great. However, you know multiple programming languages. Other people don't. One shouldn't have to learn C in order to make a scenario, at least in my opinion. We want people who can write good stories.

Also, certain people around here think that it's important to work for the community and not just for one's self. My favorite thread on any message board ever has entire paragraphs relating to this. To quote Alcritas:

"I believe it is the responsibility of every member of any community, including the BOE community, to contribute to the community's strength and well being.... I find the view that individuals do not bear any ethical or moral responsibilty to contribute to a community they receive benefits from nothing short of pathetic."

One can replace everything he says about "fun" with "useful to me" and the same argument would apply (probably better) to this situation.

---

quote:

---

Originally written by Arenax:
Now we come to something of a slippery-slope argument. On its own, this design is acceptable (but not one I'd personally use, as I dislike the entire idea of visualizing it because I don't find it necessary). But once you simplify dialogue--what must now be done is simplify script editing, which is where the real problem lies. Again, you're taking this to a different place than I am. I agree with Brett, who said, "Now I'm sure some will argure that not all aspects of BoA scripting could be covered by this approach, and you are right. If we make as many things as simple as possible, well, that's a good goal to shoot for." Let's make dialogue and custom objects script editors now, because making good editors for those scripts is far easier than for town scripts and no such editors exist, and we can worry about town script editors later. They may not use the same ideas at all.

However, if a town script editor included all of the same capabilities as writing raw script — and I'm not sure I would make the distinction that you make between "data entry" and "real scripting," because what I'm suggesting may be "data entry" — then I couldn't argue with it. The goal is not to dumb this down so that we have BoE all over again; the goal is to make the system more user-friendly so that people who can write good stories won't have to worry about learning how to program in order to make scenarios.

BoA has the inherent problem that the people who are capable of writing good stories and therefore plots that we would want to role-play are usually not the same people as the ones who can code very well. To put it another way, math/science/computer people are usually different from humanities people. But ultimately we would like to attract writers as well as technical innovators, because the writers are the ones who will make good scenarios.

Any editor aid that will make it easier for humanities people to write a scenario — and has the same abilities as writing raw script — seems like a good thing.

The only real issue with your design is that coding it would be awfully difficult and probably out of my league if I wanted it to be cross-platform. I'm not saying it's not possible for others--but the benefits are outweighed by the inherent issues. Inherent issues? It seems like you're saying that my idea is bad because it would be hard for you personally to program. I'm not asking you to program it, and you are not the only programmer out there. I'm going to learn C and C++ one of these days — over Winter Break I'll start, probably — and I may make this program myself.

To be more explicit: I'm not really talking in your direction, Arenax. Not everything is about you.

I wrote AvDialogue because I needed something to speed up writing dialogue, not to idiot-proof it for me or make it more "understandable," because as it stands Avernumscript is perfectly understandable. That's great. However, you know multiple programming languages. Other people don't. One shouldn't have to learn C in order to make a scenario, at least in my opinion. We want people who can write good stories.

Also, certain people around here think that it's important to work for the community and not just for one's self. My favorite thread on any message board ever has entire paragraphs relating to this. To quote Alcritas:

"I believe it is the responsibility of every member of any community, including the BOE community, to contribute to the community's strength and well being.... I find the view that individuals do not bear any ethical or moral responsibilty to contribute to a community they receive benefits from nothing short of pathetic."

One can replace everything he says about "fun" with "useful to me" and the same argument would apply (probably better) to this situation.

---