Talk:IF Cliches

I think that this probably needs to be combined with Elements of Interactive Fiction, or rationalised in a way such that they don't overlap and refer to each other more. -- Maga 06:05, 25 Oct 2005 (Central Daylight Time)

• In my opinion, the content of Elements of Interactive Fiction page (such as it is) ought to go elsewhere, and then be deleted. As it currently stands, it's incomplete, uncategorized, and uninspired. The very title of the page isn't very specific either. (I would also welcome any change that reduces the number of pages that say 'mazes are dumb' and similar rants. Maybe mazes are a cliché, but complaining about them is also, unfortunately, a recurring theme.) -- David Welbourn 15:46, 25 Oct 2005 (Central Daylight Time)
  • Hmm. Yeah, on closer inspection it rather looks as if Elements doesn't have much that isn't already dealt with already in better places, and that it's rather overambitious in scope. I've got no problem with strip-mining and abandoning it, if Dave's fine with the prospect.

Some of these things aren't cliches, but problems to avoid or common errors. Is there a page to move these to? -GregoryWeir 23:23, 25 Oct 2005 (Central Daylight Time)

• Perhaps, in keeping with Nate's suggestion below, we need a new category, maybe Category:Design errors?, and create one page per common error. I've wanted to write pages for duh-scription and pointless porch for months, but I didn't know where to put them. Since the design errors are considered commonplace, the Design errors category should itself be filed under Category:Tropes. -- David Welbourn 02:24, 27 Oct 2005 (Central Daylight Time)

• • Category:Tropes sounds great. I'll start playing with moving entries from here into their own Tropes pages. --Nate 04:16, 27 Oct 2005 (Central Daylight Time)

I think we should perhaps have a page which is an index of tropes/cliches/patterns/antipatterns/elements, and then have each element be its own page entry. Like the TV Tropes Wiki (which seems to be down at the moment) Catalogue. --Nate 22:37, 26 Oct 2005 (Central Daylight Time)

• I have no objection if each trope/cliché/etc gets its own page. The IF Cliches page, new as it is, already looks too long and unwieldy to work with. I suggest using a new Category:Clichés as a subcategory of Category:Tropes. -- David Welbourn 02:24, 27 Oct 2005 (Central Daylight Time)
  • I'm getting a little unsure about the use of a Category:Clichés; this is partly because 'cliché' is probably a touch more judgemental than a useful wiki should be, and has strong potential to lead to bickering; and partly because virtually anything that is a trope can also be a cliché, so making distinctions will be difficult. I like the pro-con model adopted by User:Nate in Abandonitis. -- Maga 19:06, 27 Oct 2005 (Central Daylight Time)
  • Good points, Maga. I'm willing to drop the Category:Clichés idea in favour of the pro-con model. -- David Welbourn 19:20, 27 Oct 2005 (Central Daylight Time)

• The links Nate has added so far to Category:Game_help topics suggests that at least some of these, when moved, could be combined with the help topics; the two will certainly end up overlapping a great deal. The help topics at present don't have a rigorous standard (and are, imho, unlikely to end up in one); cliche topics seem much more accomodating to standardisation. Do we want to try and jam them together, and if not how do we avoid an excess of redundancy? I can see a rough angle of division (cliche is advice to prospective authors, help is advice to struggling players), but if we don't demarcate this explicitly then this may end up becoming an unmanageable sprawl. -- Maga 07:47, 27 Oct 2005 (Central Daylight Time)

I see we already have the 'Category:Glossary' page, which might be a place to start. Can we unify or expand Glossary entries, or are they sacrosanct as imports from the Theory Book? --Nate 22:54, 26 Oct 2005 (Central Daylight Time)

• Because of its connection to the IF Theory Book, the Glossary category itself should not be removed. However, it is permissible to add new entries, or edit/expand existing ones. I think in time, the Glossary category, as it stands will become obsolete, but that time isn't now. In the meantime, I do want to see every article that is in the Glossary category be added to at least one other category so that if the Glossary category were, oh, I dunno, to mysteriously vanish someday, none of those articles will be orphaned. -- David Welbourn 02:29, 27 Oct 2005 (Central Daylight Time)

Deleted 'Web of Distrust' as it is not a cliché. I'd still like to document it and similar emerging interactive-storytelling techniques (even those which are shared with adjoining media types such as tabletop roleplaying and computer RPGs) somewhere on this wiki, perhaps under an 'Emerging' or 'Storytelling' patterns category.

We probably need a 'Scope' section (or page) on the Community Portal, I think, to define what topics are and are not in scope for the wiki.

Thinking about categories, I have a couple of questions: 1) is the canonical form of a category name singular ('Pattern') or plural ('Patterns')? 2) How many people have international-capable keyboard settings and should the canonical form be 'Cliché' or 'Cliche'? I'd prefer the 7-bit clean version myself but I suppose it's not strictly correct. 3) What categories should we have below Tropes? Patterns, Puzzles, Clich[e|é]s, Design Errors?

What about the Game Help pages such as Light puzzle, can we merge that with Trope information?

My idea of a Trope is that it is sort of a mini-pattern, with sections for description, features, (as an author) when you should use it, when you shouldn't use it, implementation tips... (if we were merging Game Help, for the player, if it is a puzzle type) common approaches to solutions. --Nate 07:56, 27 Oct 2005 (Central Daylight Time)

• At this point I'm inclined to think that cliché and help pages shouldn't be merged, but should probably (in many cases, at least) be twinned somehow. Both are likely to be substantial articles in their own right, and they serve very distinct purposes - one is theoretical and largely aimed at prospective authors, the other is mostly based on observations of existing games and is primarily aimed at players. I'm still not sure how comfortable I am with the overlap and page-disambiguation this is likely to require, however. -- Maga 08:08, 27 Oct 2005 (Central Daylight Time)

• My current inclination is also to keep the pages separate and have them refer to each other, eg: maze for game help, and maze (cliche) for the cliche discussion. -- David Welbourn 08:23, 27 Oct 2005 (Central Daylight Time)

• I haven't had time to comment or review maga's new game help pages much except to give them a once-over, but I feel that the Light puzzle page strays slightly from my core game help concept, and should be Darkness instead. Darkness is presented to the player directly; the idea of a light puzzle must be deduced. -- David Welbourn 08:26, 27 Oct 2005 (Central Daylight Time)
  • Yeah, I can see good reasons for a split-and-crossreference job here. Will do. -- Maga 08:30, 27 Oct 2005 (Central Daylight Time)