Tell command for tables

[flurry]

I would like to have a verson of 'tell' that works at tables.  It happens so frequently that I find my pc seated at a table and walking to direct talks to someone specific.

Yes, I'm aware you can put in "(to ~soandso)" or something comparable, but that's a poor substitute (would you want to do that with 'say'?).

Because there's already an issue with the different uses of 'talk' (to talk at a table or talk to an npc), I'd love to see something like

'tsay' for the table version of 'say'

and

'ttell' for the table version of 'tell'

The name of the command isn't the important thing though.  I just want to have a table version of the 'tell' command.

[Rhyden]

Oh my god.

Flurry, I was just thinking of this idea yesterday. You mindbender.  :wink:

I'm totally down for it.

[daedroug]

Heh personally I don't really see the need, lately I've actually kept myself from using tell at all just to encourage more emoting to my normal says. I'd say just put in the emote and think of the dozens of different ways that you could turn to talk to the people at the table and how each one could help convey the portent of what your saying

[Rhyden]

Emotes don't equal RP, daedroug. And more emotes aren't better than few emotes, necessarily.

I've done this many times:

Code Select Expand

talk (to ~woman) Hey.

talk (to ~woman) What's up?

talk (to ~woman) Yeah, me too.

A tell-talk would just be a lot more convenient and has no room for abuse. I see no reason why it shouldn't be an addition to Arm.

[spawnloser]

I'm with daedroug.  I don't see a need.  Sure, it'd be cool, but it is far from necessary.  You can add so much flavor that is not expressed with "at your table you tell" ...because seriously, how does anyone KNOW that you are speaking directly to the person targetted by a tell?  There are subtle clues, and you could do well by including those clues in your speech and attached emotes instead of relying on a very typical, dry and uninteresting "(to ~target)"

[Medena]

I've done this many times:

Code Select Expand

talk (to ~woman) Hey.

talk (to ~woman) What's up?

talk (to ~woman) Yeah, me too.

A tell-talk would just be a lot more convenient and has no room for abuse. I see no reason why it shouldn't be an addition to Arm.

I've done those many times too but I do not see a reason for adding a directed talk.  I also do these a lot:

Code Select Expand

talk (jabbing a finger toward ~woman) Hey.

talk (shifting in ^me chair to look at ~woman) What's up?

talk (laughing and nodding at ~woman) Yeah, me too.

[daedroug]

Yeah sure if you just go with the bare minimum to be able to tell that your talking to them it's not better RP. However if you explain how you are showing that your talking to them or express some of the emotion behind what your saying to them all the better. It may not work for others but not using tell help encourage myself to RP out these things and in the end it brings more life to whats going on. If everyone did the same thing I'd love it would be much more interesting imo.

Which would you rather see?

tell elf Do not speak to me you lowly elf!
or
say (sliding a dark glare down the bar towards ~elf) Do not speak to me you lowly elf!

[flurry]

I didn't do a good job explaining why I'd like this.

Think about the existing 'tell' command.  Do you think it's useful?  If so, why?  If you don't think it's useful, maybe I can't convince you that a similar command would be useful for tables.

I threw in '(to ~soandso)' in my original post not to illustrate the full utility of command emotes, but simply in stating that I understand command emotes can be used indicating who the intended recipient of the dialogue is.  Of course it can be done in much more creative and interesting ways than that but that wasn't my point.

This suggestion isn't about reducing the need for command emotes.  On the contrary, it's to allow for greater flexibility in command emotes, just like the 'tell' command offers flexibility as an alternative to 'say'.

Let me explain.  In this text medium, it is often useful to make it clear that PC A is talking to PC B, especially if there are several people around.  This is true whether people are standing or seated.  As things are now, if you want your dialogue to be limited to a table, you'd have to use the 'talk' command and somehow indicate the recipient in your command emote.  Yes, there are some cool and crafty ways of doing that, and I don't diminish those at all.  There are some cool and crafty ways to do that with 'say' too, but that doesn't make 'tell' useless or redundant.

The reason 'tell' is useful is that it frees you to use the command emote for other things.  It allows for greater flexibility and, often, less awkward sentence construction.  

Simply put, a table version of 'tell' would be useful for exactly the same reason that 'tell' is a useful alternative to 'say'.

[Rhyden]

Yeah, I never said anything about not incorperating any other emotes while using this targeted talk.

My example was to show that I target people while at a table a lot and it would be more useful if there was a specific command for that, not to show using less emotes and using talk with less 'flavor'.

Like flurry said, it would be exactly like tell but used at tables.

[Vessol]

I hardly ever use the 'tell' command...seriously I can't remember when I last used it. But, I think this is a good idea also.

[daedroug]

I don't deny that for some people this may be useful but I'm also advocating for thinking of more interesting ways to deal with the lack of it.