Well actually I have two problems.The first one is I have these two characters.I guess in a sense both of them can be said to be heroes of the story but it follows one girl named Tamara.The first problem is that Tamara is a real strictly business type character.The kind that practices all day in dojos while the guy named Shiro is real layed back loose type.At first I thought this would be great but when I put the dialogue in the game it makes Shiro seem more charismastic than Tamara and I get stuck with the thought that what if people really want to play with Shiro instead??Has anyone else ever had a problem like this and how did you fix it?? In fact most of my problems stem around dialogue.Alright in the beginning of the game everyone is really worried about the recent monster attacks and the fact that the monsters are now on major trade routes and getting ever closer to towns.And all my NPCs center around those topics of conversation.Is that wrong?? I mean even when you had the 9/11 tragedy everyone didn''t talk about it.Majority yes but not everyone. Any advice you can give will be welcome The road to hell is paved in good intentions

Whew! Dialogue... you couldn''t have picked a tougher dragon to face, as any writer will tell you.

Tamara is a real strictly business type character.The kind that practices all day in dojos while the guy named Shiro is real layed back loose type.

These are the characters ''attitudes and POV''s'' and they influence everything they say and do with the exceptions of when they ''break out of character'' in moments of stress, emotion or character growth.

If Tamara is all business, then she is going to say things that are all business, if Shiro is laid back, he''s going to say those kinds of things. What you need to do is play with those two POV''s in test dialogue, getting the feel for how the two work together. It''s an old screenwriting technique, and it goes like this.



Tamara and Shiro are going to make a pie together.

Tamara: We''ll need flour, sugar, eggs, baking soda, butter, some milk and salt for the crust, and three cans of blueberries, number ten unsweetened medium size no less than three weeks old on the label.

Shiro: Let''s just throw everything in the bowl, stir it, and put it in the pan and don''t forget to turn the oven on. I''m going to go chill out and watch TV, bring me a big bowl of it with ice cream when it''s done.

Tamara: You must remain efficient, Shiro. I''m not going to do this all by myself, now get me the flour sifter and the wax paper and the measuring cup and the bag of white fine flour.

Shiro: My arms hurt.

Tamara: (looking at him like castration is imminent) now.

Shiro (grumbling) What was that list again?



If you were to try this example five or six times, you would probably get a fairly accurate idea of how these two attitudes converse or dialogue when they are working together.

Now, do the exercise again and this time have them compete for a prize baking pies against each other, so you get a sense of how these two attitudes work when competing or working against each other. This is often how physical comedy can be introduced, and do not underestimate how it or some other form of body language or facial expression can substitute subtly and powerfully for actual spoken words.

If you don''t find a way to contextualize in at least three major areas: cooperation, competition and confusion, you dialogue is not going to serve the through line of action, and just sit there stale. Dialogue and character action serve to move the storyline or action forward, even if they go round and round a bit adjusting to each other per situation.

As the dialogue between characters solidifies, as the characters are getting to know each other and become accustomed to trying to make the other understand, comply without argument, simply resist without making an argument, you''re not going to have the ''elasticity'' an evolving dialogue betweeen two characters who are becoming used to each other''s personalities and idiosyncracies will in reality.

And, for the record, this is duologue, words spoken between two people, dialogue is when more than three (a trilogue) people are speaking in a given scene. It''s important to know this distinction, because two people speaking have fifty percent of the conversational pie to work with, while three have thrity three point three three three, etc., and it will influence pace, objective and pentameter of the conversation. Now, there''s elasticity with this as well in that: one person could be just giving order while the other only says, yes sir (at one end of the extreme) and a see-saw argument like the ones Gilligan and The Skipper are famous for. You have to ''chart the range'' so to speak.

Then, once you know how these two attitudes work in a variety of situations from stock (mundane), transitional (one or the other could be leading the way) and action (both are leading or not, and the dialogue is very short cause they are running from or to monsters, or whatever, and you will have a framework to template down into any particular situation or circumstance or scene, and have a reliable understanding of where these characters will go verbally. This is minimum if you want to have both realism and plausability in your dialogue. Listen to a conversation at the breakfast table between two people who know each other well and then with two people who don''t and you will hear the difference.

As the relationship with the characters grows, they will ''borrow'' attitude from each other in little ways at first, then more and more as they progress in the relationship, for example, one scene, Tamara will display some laid backness, and Shiro will be surprised, realize she is adapting to him, and maybe he says something businesslike and productive. Perfectly plausible, if not realistic between two people of different characters or attitudes who have to get something accomplished between them.

It usually starts of with a small, but breakthrough, common vocabulary, such as Tamara saying, "you know how to make the pie right now, bring me some with a bowl of ice cream when it''s done, I''m gonna go lie down and watch tv."

This could be resistance in the form of passivity, this could be cooperation in the form of trust (tamara now trusts him to make the pie right) and active resistance (shiro thinks she doesn''t believe he can make a pie right, and is challenging him to do so, and he wil do it perfectly and act as if it was a laid back activity) -- you see how this works? Dialogue is elastic, and contextual based on the changing character arcs and progression of the relationship, and how the strengths or weaknesses of that relationship react to new challenges.


>At first I thought this would be great but when I put the dialogue in the game it makes Shiro seem more charismastic than Tamara and I get stuck with the thought that what if people really want to play with Shiro instead??Has anyone else ever had a problem like this and how did you fix it??

With this realism you have built into the relationship that grows, responds and supercedes both characters, as relationships will, you can create a range of expressions both characters can believably utter in almost any situation, except for the climax of course, when they supercede any previous contexts and grow to a new level of relationship based on the challenge they overcame changed both of them personality wise permanently. So, I don''t know if it can be fixed, but it can be managed bit by bit, situation by situation, line by line, so that the sum of all the spoken interaction or non-verbal ones, provides the solution.

In fact most of my problems stem around dialogue.Alright in the beginning of the game everyone is really worried about the recent monster attacks and the fact that the monsters are now on major trade routes and getting ever closer to towns.And all my NPCs center around those topics of conversation.Is that wrong??

No, this is of major concern to all parties, and should be a significant focus of communication, just remember that there are different types of people, some will be very verbal, some will drone about it, some will utter mutterances, and some will not speak a word but it is all over thier face (these should be close to camera so it''s conveyed strongly; again non-verbal communication can be 80% of conveying information), some will be from an area that monsters are not likely to attack, and will utter false confidences stupidly, like people will, and somebody else will call him a ''stupid kentuckian'' or whatever.

Reality is the best template for good dialogue. There are other aspects of dialogue I did not touch on that are added subtleties you can use to enrich the passive viewing or interactive conversation passages, and some screenwriting sites should help.


I mean even when you had the 9/11 tragedy everyone didn''t talk about it.Majority yes but not everyone.

Any advice you can give will be welcome

The road to hell is paved in good intentions

To adventuredesign:

Again you have proven yourself to be the most meticulous helper here.

I know he has helped me alot !!It has given me alot to think about.When you had mentioned the differences between conversations with different amounts of people I never really noticed it before but you''re right.In conversations of three you have one that kind of leads the conversation,you have a guy that adds on to what the other said and then you have the yes man.The guy who just kinda nods his head during the whole conversation you know.It was quite funny observing conversations but it was informative.Thanks again for your help.

The road to hell is paved in good intentions