So you'd have to craft details and nuance in the atmosphere that pass the pertinence check on the first playthrough, and maintain the relevance to the overall theme, while still being vague enough to be interpreted regardless of the conclusion the player picks.

Dicey. Not impossible, but... dicey.

Quote:

Original post by Beige So you'd have to craft details and nuance in the atmosphere that pass the pertinence check on the first playthrough, and maintain the relevance to the overall theme, while still being vague enough to be interpreted regardless of the conclusion the player picks. Dicey. Not impossible, but... dicey.

Is there really any choice? We have to present details and nuances from the very beginning, and it's not an interactive story unless the player's actions determine the conclusion, so no matter what structure or method you use to generate your interactive story, you will always end up needing a beginning which could go in different directions, and makes sense when you look back from various conclusions.

Quote:

Original post by sunandshadow Quote: Original post by Beige So you'd have to craft details and nuance in the atmosphere that pass the pertinence check on the first playthrough, and maintain the relevance to the overall theme, while still being vague enough to be interpreted regardless of the conclusion the player picks. Dicey. Not impossible, but... dicey. Is there really any choice? We have to present details and nuances from the very beginning, and it's not an interactive story unless the player's actions determine the conclusion, so no matter what structure or method you use to generate your interactive story, you will always end up needing a beginning which could go in different directions, and makes sense when you look back from various conclusions.

I don't know. That's what I was wondering about.

Quote:

Original post by sunandshadow Is there really any choice? We have to present details and nuances from the very beginning, and it's not an interactive story unless the player's actions determine the conclusion, so no matter what structure or method you use to generate your interactive story, you will always end up needing a beginning which could go in different directions, and makes sense when you look back from various conclusions.

That's right. If it doesn't satisfy those requirements, then it isn't an interactive story.

Quote:

Original post by sunandshadow What I was trying to describe is a system which does not have only one goal, but a range of two or more goals which are logically determined by the thematic argument. For example, say that the thematic argument is "self-interest vs. self-sacrifice". This is the choice we are presenting to the player. Logically, the player can only respond in one of three ways: by choosing self-interest, by choosing self-sacrifice, or by choosing a mixture of the two. So please picture our rat maze as being wedge-shaped. The player starts at the point. Every time they choose self-interest they move to the left, and every time they choose self-sacrifice they move to the right. There are 3 different goal points at which they can trigger the game to end in one of three different ways: the left corner delivers a premise about self-interest, the right corner delivers a premise about self-sacrifice, and anywhere in between delivers a premise about balancing the two.

In your example, there is a basic story arc defined. The fact that there are several possible goals to reach is really not that big a difference. You could still evaluate actions in the same way, and see if there is still a path to any of the possible goals.

I think we're more in agreement on this than is immediately apparent. What I mean by 'enforcing' a story is to force the player to take actions that further the story, or at least does not make the story collapse. I do this by not allowing the player to take action that break the story. As I read your example you're enforcing the story implicitly, by only making those actions that further the story (takes you southbound in your graph) available to the player. Reading your picture as a map, there is no way for the player to go northeast. This is basically the same thing?

While you imagine the set of all 'storypaths' as the space within the wedge, I'm just imagining the set of story paths as the entire plane. Then I color all the paths that lead irreversibly away from the goal(s) red, and I'm basically left with your wedge shape. One difference might be that as I see it, the player could wander outside the wedge, as long as there is a way for him/her to return to the storyarc (wedge) at a later date. Say for instance that you need the Greter Key of Holy Unlocking to advance the story at some point. Then you could still sell that key to an NPC, as long as there is a way for you to get it back later (buy it back, steal it or whatever). Destroying the key would OTOH not be an option given the player, since that would put the game in a state from which there is no possible path to the goal(s). I think of it this way, to be certain that I give the player as many options as possible at every turn, while at the same time making sure that the story will progress from the start to goal(s).

Quote:

Original post by Wombah I think we're more in agreement on this than is immediately apparent. What I mean by 'enforcing' a story is to force the player to take actions that further the story, or at least does not make the story collapse. I do this by not allowing the player to take action that break the story. As I read your example you're enforcing the story implicitly, by only making those actions that further the story (takes you southbound in your graph) available to the player. Reading your picture as a map, there is no way for the player to go northeast. This is basically the same thing?

This is a really good question, and I might have some trouble answering it in a manner that accurately expresses my opinion. I'll give it my best shot, though.

I think there's a subtle difference between the approaches, but it's hard to explain exactly what that is. I think interactive stories need to have limits on their domain, which is why I agree with sunandshadow's approach as presented here. The fundamental aspect is the choice; the decisions that the players can make. It is perfectly valid, and indeed necessary, to limit these decisions down to a managable subset, such as the example of "self-interest verses self-sacrifice".

However, the difference I've seen in the games that are out there now and with sunandshadow's example is the choice she is offering is at the core of the experience; it's a story about self-interest vs self-sacrifice, and the choice of the player will make a huge difference to the story. In the interactivity present in the stories in games today, they also limit the choices down to a subset, however the choices presented to you are cosmetic ones that do not affect the story arc to any significant degree.

Maybe I can explain with with a well known example; the story in the game Deus Ex. In that game, there is a limited degree of interactivity into the details of the story; you can influence whether your brother lives or dies, for example. However, there is a pivotal point in the game where the hero has to decide whether he stays with UNATCO, the government agency he works with, or defects to the rebels that he has previously been fighting against. But the player cannot make a choice for the hero here; all that can happen is to delay the hero's defection a little bit. The reason behind this is understandable; the decision of the hero to defect (or not) vastly affects the rest of the story, but taking this decision away at this point (and in several similar occasions throughout other points of the story) is why I consider the story of Deus Ex to be only very weakly interactive.

So while I think interactive stories have to limit the choices of the player down to a management subset, in order to be interactive they have to offer choice at the pivotal decision points of the game which will affect the story path, rather than clamping down on the options when they matter most.

I suppose it's mostly the same idea. Personally I believe it's structurally unsound to allow the player to leave the plot wedge, so I didn't include that in my design. Similarly, the player cannot go up, because only downward movements within the wedge make logical sense in the context of the portion of the plot already experienced and prevent the player from losing emotional immediacy while the plot stalls.

Something I forgot to mention: this plot wedge is modular, and corresponds to a physical area, preferably with doors which lock once the player has passed through them (this is what prevents going up). Rather than being a whole game, it might be a single level of a game. Reaching any of the goal points would start you at the top of the wedge, but with different starting conditions such as different equipment, a different class/alignment, a different level. Thus the plot of the whole game could be a linear chain of wedges, preventing the tree-of-death problem where the plot branches so much it becomes too costly and confusing to implement. The physical setting of the game would stay the same regardless of the plot branches taken, only the NPC, thearrangement of objects and NPCs in the level, and the behavior of NPCs would differ depending on previous choices. This makes things cost efficient by not requiring much in the way of alternate graphics to be designed for each plot branch. [smile]

Quote:

Original post by Trapper Zoid However, the difference I've seen in the games that are out there now and with sunandshadow's example is the choice she is offering is at the core of the experience; it's a story about self-interest vs self-sacrifice, and the choice of the player will make a huge difference to the story. In the interactivity present in the stories in games today, they also limit the choices down to a subset, however the choices presented to you are cosmetic ones that do not affect the story arc to any significant degree. Maybe I can explain with with a well known example; the story in the game Deus Ex. In that game, there is a limited degree of interactivity into the details of the story; you can influence whether your brother lives or dies, for example. However, there is a pivotal point in the game where the hero has to decide whether he stays with UNATCO, the government agency he works with, or defects to the rebels that he has previously been fighting against. But the player cannot make a choice for the hero here; all that can happen is to delay the hero's defection a little bit. The reason behind this is understandable; the decision of the hero to defect (or not) vastly affects the rest of the story, but taking this decision away at this point (and in several similar occasions throughout other points of the story) is why I consider the story of Deus Ex to be only very weakly interactive. So while I think interactive stories have to limit the choices of the player down to a management subset, in order to be interactive they have to offer choice at the pivotal decision points of the game which will affect the story path, rather than clamping down on the options when they matter most.

I don't see how my way of describing things limit the player in the pivotal decisions. If I say that the game starts at A and ends at either X, Y or Z, and then open every theoretical way to traverse the story, I've only limited the player insofar as deciding where the story starts and ends. Exactly the way the story of self-sacrifice vs self-interest is decided to start where you pose the thematic question and end in one of 'A', 'B' or 'some A some B'. Same difference?

From your description it sounds like Deus Ex has gone further than that (haven't played the game myself). They've decided that you start at A and go to either X, Y or Z, but they've added that you must pass through B on the way (B being to defect). This of course adds a level of enforcement, and is not something you'd want in most cases. But the general restraint of where you start and the different possibilities for where you can end are somehow needed for there to be a story at all. Otherwise I'd say you've got a simulator and a sequence of events, not an interacive story.

I don't see how you can ever achieve a greater degree of freedom for the player, and still convey a story. Not saying there is no way, just that I don't see it mind you.

Quote:

Original post by Wombah I don't see how my way of describing things limit the player in the pivotal decisions. If I say that the game starts at A and ends at either X, Y or Z, and then open every theoretical way to traverse the story, I've only limited the player insofar as deciding where the story starts and ends. Exactly the way the story of self-sacrifice vs self-interest is decided to start where you pose the thematic question and end in one of 'A', 'B' or 'some A some B'. Same difference?

In that sense, then yes what you described is fundamentally the same. I guess I'm just used to reading things from writer who when they mention things like "enforcing the story", they mean forcing the player to follow the rails that lead them into the story the writer wants to tell, such as in that Deus Ex example.

As an example of what I mean, here's a snippet from an interview with Cliff Bleszinski from Epic Games which I read at Gamasutra yesterday:

Quote:

(Cliff begins to demonstrate Gears Of War, and an NPC emerges to show the main characters into a safe building ) GS: Can you shoot that guy? CB: We're still figuring that out. GS: What's the choice there? CB: Well, he's going to help you out by offering you some items, and potential weapon upgrades. And if you kill him, you won't get that opportunity. GS: But is it a moral choice as to whether you can kill him? CB: No, we're not making Knights Of The Old Republic or anything here. Who these characters are is largely pre-defined, as far as Marcus being an anti-hero, and Dom being his buddy. Part of it is just my own game design philosophy because, for me, whenever I play those games, I always go evil. And I have a feeling that if they made those games, if you could only choose the dark path, and you only thought you could choose the light path, nobody would notice, because it seems to me that everyone who goes for the Force chokes. You can't shoot Dom [in Gears Of War] either. The fundamental problem with making an interactive narrative is like – how would you make Lethal Weapon 2, the buddy cop movie - if in the first scene Danny Glover turns to Mel Gibson and shoots him in the head? Never underestimate the ability of the user to undermine the narrative you're trying to tell. You have to allow for every single scenario. You're empowering the user's ability to make the game look stupid, essentially.

It's stuff like that (particularly the last paragraph) that I'm used to reading from game writers; for some writers it's more about forcing the player to experience their linear narrative than providing an interactive experience. I think that's the wrong philosophy to take for interactive stories.

Quote:

From your description it sounds like Deus Ex has gone further than that (haven't played the game myself). They've decided that you start at A and go to either X, Y or Z, but they've added that you must pass through B on the way (B being to defect). This of course adds a level of enforcement, and is not something you'd want in most cases. But the general restraint of where you start and the different possibilities for where you can end are somehow needed for there to be a story at all I would say. Otherwise you've got a simulator and a sequence of events, not an interacive story?

Not really. It's more you have to go through a linear series of bottlenecks throughout the entire game. You start at A, and must pass through B, C, D and so on up to W, and then choose X, Y or Z (that's actually quite an accurate description of the game [smile]). There's small cosmetic things you can do, such as determining whether NPCs live or die, but the main narrative thread cannot be changed until point W.

@sunandshadow
Seems you posted while I was writing...[smile]

I see how you could, and in some cases should, use a sequence of wedges throughout a game to tell a more specific story. But the price for doing so is you limit the player some more. As I understand it this is basically what Deus Ex did by enforcing defection (see my earlier post). The more specific the story you want to convey is, the more intermediate 'goals' you need. Or, in terms of your model, the more wedges is needed. Each thing you specifically want to happen in the game corresponds to an enforced state on the way to the goal in my terms, or another wedge in yours.

The reason I prefer my way of doing things (other than it being my way [smile]) is that I start out with no limitations and then add exactly those needed and no more. If you start out thinking of a wedge, it seems you loose some options, since you do not even consider the paths from start to goal that pass outside the wedge.

Also, you should know that 'my' 'system' as I've described it exists only in theory (in my head), so it's more of a way of thinking about interactive stories than anything else. Whether it can be formalized and implemented is still to be seen. I'm hopeful though.

[edit]
@Trapper Zoid
Again with the posting while I'm writing... Sheez. [rolleyes]

Ok, seems we're more or less in agreement then? In that case, the next question is; How do you go about actually implementing this wedge/enforcement system? Have you started this already? Has sunandshadow? Anyone?
[/edit]