Conversation systems?

Thanks, will have a look and see what I can figure out.

If you want “talk to Alicia” to be preloaded into the input line (so the player can modify it or just hit enter to submit it), you’ll need Command Preloading by Daniel Stelzer. This still needs to be updated for the new version, but if you’re using anything before 10.0 this should work out of the box.

1 Like

Thanks, will have a look

Thanks again.

I figured it out and it is working fine now.

How can I get something like the below to work?

nathan-chat-alicia-2 is choose-once chat node with quip "([italic type]Alicia[roman type]) I’m glad we had time to meet up.". "([italic type]Nathan[roman type]) Me too. So, what’s going on?".
Rule for finding responses to nathan-chat-alicia-2:
	if greeted-peter is false:
		link to nathan-chat-alicia-3; link to nathan-chat-alicia-1a;
		now greeted-peter is true;
	otherwise:
		link to nathan-chat-alicia-3; link to nathan-chat-alicia-2a.

I know this is probably not correct but I want to bring a third person into the conversation.
So far it works well but at some stage I need to refer to the third person’s second response. The problem is there are already two references for two other quips.

So, is it possible to bring in an if-otherwise statement like I tried above?
The one above does not work.

Can you please advise on how I can get this to work?

Below is the error:

The error message says what the problem is: each phrase inside the if-otherwise blocks in the rule definition needs to occur on its own line. Phrases like ‘link to nathan-chat-alica-1a’, which follow directly on from the previous phrase, aren’t allowed.
That refers to this line:

link to nathan-chat-alicia-3; link to nathan-chat-alicia-1a;

The statements/phrases are marked off by semicola and are independent from each other, and they can (and in this case must) be written on separate lines.
(The examples from the extension have them on one line in some places where it is allowed, presumably to save vertical space, but I’d generally advise against that, and instead recommend putting them on separate lines even in cases where it’s not mandatory, because it’s easier to see at a glance what’s going on.)

So, this should work:

Rule for finding responses to nathan-chat-alicia-2:
	if greeted-peter is false:
		link to nathan-chat-alicia-3;
        link to nathan-chat-alicia-1a;
		now greeted-peter is true;
	otherwise:
		link to nathan-chat-alicia-3;
        link to nathan-chat-alicia-2a.

Thanks, you are a life saver. Looks like it will work.

I will test it out and see if it gives me the output I want.