Using game-related terms in dialogue: okay? not okay?
Moderator: Forum Moderators
Using game-related terms in dialogue: okay? not okay?
In my scenario-in-progress, the player has to capture a particular village deep in enemy territory and hold it for three turns. At some point, if the player has not yet captured the village, there won't be enough time to complete the objective before time runs out.
In your opinion, is it acceptable for a unit to say, "Sir, we cannot win by capturing the orcish village and holding it three turns. There isn't enough time. We must attack the castle."
Referencing a "turn" uses game-related language, something which generally should be avoided in dialogue. However, in this instance, the player needs turn-related information.
I could have the game display this message on the screen: "You cannot win by capturing the orcish village and holding it three turns. There isn't enough time. Your new objective is to attack the castle and defeat the enemy leader." However, doesn't it seem more immersive for a unit to deliver the information?
What if a unit said something like, "Help! I only have 1 hit point left!" or "Sir, the skeletons are vulnerable to impact damage! You need to recruit more Heavy Infantry!"
What are your thoughts about referencing game-related mechanisms in dialogue?
In your opinion, is it acceptable for a unit to say, "Sir, we cannot win by capturing the orcish village and holding it three turns. There isn't enough time. We must attack the castle."
Referencing a "turn" uses game-related language, something which generally should be avoided in dialogue. However, in this instance, the player needs turn-related information.
I could have the game display this message on the screen: "You cannot win by capturing the orcish village and holding it three turns. There isn't enough time. Your new objective is to attack the castle and defeat the enemy leader." However, doesn't it seem more immersive for a unit to deliver the information?
What if a unit said something like, "Help! I only have 1 hit point left!" or "Sir, the skeletons are vulnerable to impact damage! You need to recruit more Heavy Infantry!"
What are your thoughts about referencing game-related mechanisms in dialogue?
Author of:
DIY Campaign, Confederacy of Swamp Creatures: Big Battle 1, Confederacy of Swamp Creatures: Big Battle 2, Frogfolk Delivery Service, The Pool of Ek.
DIY Campaign, Confederacy of Swamp Creatures: Big Battle 1, Confederacy of Swamp Creatures: Big Battle 2, Frogfolk Delivery Service, The Pool of Ek.
Re: Using game-related terms in dialogue: okay? not okay?
Not an expert here.
My own suggestion goes like this:
- Have a wolf rider show up, when the player has just barely enough time to capture the orcish village and hold it for long enough.
- The wolf rider reports "Warchief! Reinforcements will arrive at sunset!" (Or whatever time is a logical description of the end of the game.)
- Your leader says, "We are running out of time! Unless we can immediately claim a foothold in orcish territory, we won't be secure enough when the horde arrives. We may have to push for the castle."
- Next turn, if nobody's on the village, "No time for caution! We need that castle before the horde arrives. Charge, men! Take down their leader!"
I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with referencing gameplay terms, but it always bothers me when the scenario ends and the game is like, "oop, out of time." (I mean, did an overwhelming enemy force arrive? If so, wouldn't it have been nice to have warning? Did the enemy lich just complete the evil ritual he started on turn 5? Are the heroes rushing to rescue someone, and now they're sure that they will be too late?)
The "better" option is probably to provide explanations for why the gameplay mechanics are invoked.
I'm sure I've seen statements like this in at least one campaign: "Sir, our spears and arrows will go right through the skeletons. You should rely on the Heavy Infantry and their maces for this battle." (Unit and attack names are probably "in-universe" but damage types and recruiting seem like abstractions.) If a unit has only 1 hit point left, he could just say "Help! I'm almost dead!" instead of talking about how almost dead he is. (Or he could make a dramatic speech about how his breath grows still and he sees a light. Obvious retort: if you're talking, you're breathing. Hold on until we can rescue you.)
My own suggestion goes like this:
- Have a wolf rider show up, when the player has just barely enough time to capture the orcish village and hold it for long enough.
- The wolf rider reports "Warchief! Reinforcements will arrive at sunset!" (Or whatever time is a logical description of the end of the game.)
- Your leader says, "We are running out of time! Unless we can immediately claim a foothold in orcish territory, we won't be secure enough when the horde arrives. We may have to push for the castle."
- Next turn, if nobody's on the village, "No time for caution! We need that castle before the horde arrives. Charge, men! Take down their leader!"
I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with referencing gameplay terms, but it always bothers me when the scenario ends and the game is like, "oop, out of time." (I mean, did an overwhelming enemy force arrive? If so, wouldn't it have been nice to have warning? Did the enemy lich just complete the evil ritual he started on turn 5? Are the heroes rushing to rescue someone, and now they're sure that they will be too late?)
The "better" option is probably to provide explanations for why the gameplay mechanics are invoked.
I'm sure I've seen statements like this in at least one campaign: "Sir, our spears and arrows will go right through the skeletons. You should rely on the Heavy Infantry and their maces for this battle." (Unit and attack names are probably "in-universe" but damage types and recruiting seem like abstractions.) If a unit has only 1 hit point left, he could just say "Help! I'm almost dead!" instead of talking about how almost dead he is. (Or he could make a dramatic speech about how his breath grows still and he sees a light. Obvious retort: if you're talking, you're breathing. Hold on until we can rescue you.)
Re: Using game-related terms in dialogue: okay? not okay?
Thanks for sharing your thoughts. You have a knack for writing dialogue.
I feel the same way. In my scenarios, I always provide a logical reason why the turns run out. For example, in the scenario I'm working on, the objective must be accomplished before a ship full of orcish grunts arrives from the north, a force that would be impossible to defeat.
Author of:
DIY Campaign, Confederacy of Swamp Creatures: Big Battle 1, Confederacy of Swamp Creatures: Big Battle 2, Frogfolk Delivery Service, The Pool of Ek.
DIY Campaign, Confederacy of Swamp Creatures: Big Battle 1, Confederacy of Swamp Creatures: Big Battle 2, Frogfolk Delivery Service, The Pool of Ek.
- Celtic_Minstrel
- Developer
- Posts: 2290
- Joined: August 3rd, 2012, 11:26 pm
- Location: Canada
- Contact:
Re: Using game-related terms in dialogue: okay? not okay?
I would try to avoid the use of the word "turns". You could either create a convention that a "turn" is, say, "three hours" and say they need to hold the village for nine hours; or (probably better), do some calculations to figure out what the time of day will be three turns from now and say they need to hold it "until sunset", "until dawn", or the like.Helmet wrote: ↑October 16th, 2020, 1:35 pm In my scenario-in-progress, the player has to capture a particular village deep in enemy territory and hold it for three turns. At some point, if the player has not yet captured the village, there won't be enough time to complete the objective before time runs out.
In your opinion, is it acceptable for a unit to say, "Sir, we cannot win by capturing the orcish village and holding it three turns. There isn't enough time. We must attack the castle."
Referencing a "turn" uses game-related language, something which generally should be avoided in dialogue. However, in this instance, the player needs turn-related information.
I could have the game display this message on the screen: "You cannot win by capturing the orcish village and holding it three turns. There isn't enough time. Your new objective is to attack the castle and defeat the enemy leader." However, doesn't it seem more immersive for a unit to deliver the information?
Hit points are an abstract game mechanic that I'd avoid mentioning in dialogue. Impact damage on the other hand isn't so clear. It's a real thing that exists, after all, though calling it "impact" is a bit weird. Perhaps if you said something like "Sir, the skeletons are weak to bludgeoning weapons!" it would work better?
It really depends on the mechanic. Some mechanics can be clearly mapped to real-world concepts, while others cannot.
Recruiting is likely an abstraction, but damage types are less clear-cut. Fire, cold, piercing weapons, slashing weapons, bludgeoning weapons… these are all real things that exist. Arcane damage could be thought of as magical damage, so from a Wesnoth standpoint it could also be a "real" thing that exists, though it's also possible it's a roll-up of several "real-world" concepts that just happen to be kinda similar.