If the player is the actor this produces: “As You does something…”
I’ve just been ignoring this (for the time being) or handling it with custom inline logic. I have looked at the documentation, but I can’t seem to find how to do fix either of these 2 problems using the adaptive text section.
As a shot in the dark, I tried:
say "As [The actor in lower case] [regarding the actor][does] something..."
But “in lower case” here caused a compiler error, and “regarding the actor” does nothing.
The extension Assorted Text Generation by Emily Short lets you do this with [you or the actor]. The relevant code is:
[code]To say you or (culprit - a person):
if the culprit is the player, say “you”;
otherwise say “[culprit]”.
To say you or the (culprit - a person):
if the culprit is the player, say “you”;
otherwise say “[the culprit]”.
To say you or a/an (culprit - a person):
if the culprit is the player, say “you”;
otherwise say “[a culprit]”.[/code]
(This seems kind of non-6L02, since it won’t work for non-second person games. But your game seems to be second person, so it should be fine. And I suppose that, since this isn’t necessary when you know the game is third person, the failure case is really when you don’t know in advance which narrative viewpoint you’re using, in which case authors can devise their own solution.)
Ok, so the Standard Rules don’t do this. To use Assorted Text Generation with L602 I needed to remove its dependency on Plurality by Emily Short and also get rid of this:
To decide what number is (N - a number) to the nearest (A - a number):
now N is N divided by A;
now N is N times A;
decide on N.
Because it’s already part of the new Standard Rules.
After doing that, this works (it doesn’t recognize [you or the actor] as regarding “you”):
[you or the actor] [regarding the actor][do]
I personally have no concerns about narrative voice or tense, as any text game I would write will be in the default second person present. That being said, if this was leveraging Plurality, are there going to be any weird hiccups with the substitutions used differently in the way they were incorporated into the Standard Rules than how they were expected to behave in Plurality? I guess even I can figure that out since Plurality is documented and it’s all just text substitution stuff in I7 where the issues would arise. If I come across any use cases that break using this with L602 I’ll share.
Huh, I had figured that Assorted Text Generation was going to be compatible with 6L02 because it’s in the Public Library, unless I’ve goofed this up. Anyway, I don’t know.