Shame on me! I am a writer, who cannot create a simple romantic dialogue. I wish I could use the poor excuse that I have lost my inspiration, but it would be a badly-sewn lie. I have all these ideas about what should happen with Azure, when it should happen, but when it comes to putting it together and creating the dialogue entries, my mind goes completely blank.

nothing to see here.

I wrote one romance up to now and I am not sure I want to write another one. On some talks I spent almost three weeks...
If you know what should be the topic of the talk you have a good start. And noone than you knows better how she should be talking and reacting. Think about different possibilities of how she could say it, write what comes into your mind (you can always change it later), think about possible replies while doing other things where you don't have to think (sitting in a bus, going shopping, etc.). And don't forget to have a pen and some paper beside your bed in case a good phrase comes to you at night!
Hopefully you get into it soon. I guess if the first start is made the dialogues will flow easier.

Thanks, this has been very helpfull. I hope it warks for me too.

While it may work for Domi, I can't generally recommend writing dialogues directly from your head into .D format in most circumstances.

- It makes it less convenient to shift around interaction branching if you change your mind
- It's probably extra "strain" on people who are both learning the .D format and learning the ins and outs of writing interactive dialogue
- And it's much, much harder to proofread, particularly since many spellcheckers will object to the presence of all those tildes.

I prefer writing in D-format directly myself, too. It's the only way not to loose sight of the different branches. And I don't think proof-reading "go to answer A,B,C,D,E" is easier to proof -read.

I agree that .d files are much, much harder to proofread than 'normal text format', especially than Extremist's 'trees and markers' structure - while Extremist's structure makes it as easy to read as a Harry Potter novel, .d format makes my eyes bleed. So, yes, as a proofreader, I scream: "Have mercy on me, and write normally!"

However, I've written (most part of) two romances now, one in .d and one in 'normal text format', and I agree that writing in .d is both faster, easier and more inspiring than writing in 'normal text format' - you know that you will not have to face a difficult task of transforming your text file into a .d file later. I'm flat out against .tra for now, so I do not take .tra into account.

It's highly individual, though - so I think that it's best to try both styles first, and then decide which one you want.

Hmm perhaps I'll be able to help with the .D file vs word doc problem in time with my D-Generator program and its built in spell checker. It's a long way from being finished, mod work comes first after all .

I disagree, because D format allows you to easily track which branch goes where, and you avoid looping problems more easily. You also have an easier way to see which option leads to which reply, so they actually are better coordinated. Plus, I have noticed, that my flat texts emulated D, only where much less convenient to read

Changing things is easy enough - when I add new branches, I simply add a new letter index on them, ie if I had a

SAY ~Text.~
++ ~Reply1.~ + REP1.1
END

I will just do:

SAY ~Text.~
++ ~Reply1.~ + REP1.1
++ ~Reply1.A.~ + REP1.1A
END

this does not change the rest of the structure.

As for proofreading, it is never easy, and in my case, the proofreader has to read the things through anyway, looking for all the ESL errors, not just use the spellcheck. So, I don't see how it changes things. When I switched from flat to D, I asked the feedback from at least three or four proofreaders, if they find it easier to read flats or D's. They all replied that it made no difference to them.

On the good side, you eliminate the wrong linking when coding the flat text to D, which is a nightmare when your dialogue is complex and exceeds 10 states per dialogue. Writing D also comes naturally in a VERY short while, plus you have to learn it anyway, why procrastinate or hope that someone else will do it?

I agree with Domi. Writing in *.D come much more naturally and you can easilly track any error on the spot if you WeiDu it in DosPrompt. And you avoid writing the thing all aver into a D file. Plus there's always a chance you'd miss something when you rewrite, even if you copy-paste.




About avoiding long commands: I have a text editor that allow you to make libraries with terms which can be short-pasted into the text. It was originally meant for HTML and C++ users but I changed a few thing and added the most usefull commands for DLGs and BCS files. If anyone wants to try it, send me a message or a e-mail and I will send it to you.