[MUD-Dev] Self-Sufficient Worlds

[Lee Sheldon]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: mud-dev-admin at kanga.nu
> [mailto:mud-dev-admin at kanga.nu]On Behalf Of
> Zak Jarvis
> Sent: Thursday, April 27, 2000 2:29 PM
> To: mud-dev at kanga.nu
> Subject: RE: [MUD-Dev] Self-Sufficient Worlds
> I'm going to be bold here and say this is flat out wrong.
>
> As a species we have anywhere from millions of years of
> evolution with narrative
> and 60-150 thousand years living with it in what we'd
> consider a modern state.
> We build narrative. Creating narrative is a basic function of
> our brains. If
> interactive storytelling were an oxymoron, autobiographies
> wouldn't exist.

Creating narrative may be a basic function of everyon'e brain.  Creating
entertaining narrative is not.  If everybody were able to contribute to our
culture with the significant impact to justify an autobiograpy, I think
there would be far more of them published.  And finally most autobiographies
are actually "told" to real writers anyway, so I'm afraid I don't buy the
example.

> If you think of interactive storytelling in terms of a
> branching construct, you
> *do* reasonably arrive at the conclusion that it's not a
> desirable goal
> (usually, it can be used effectively if the branches are
> transparent enough).

Branching.  Sigh.  Yes, if the vision one has of interactive storytelling
relies on branching to create its structures, then the vision is limited so
severely it is better not to attempt it at all.

> However, if you try to build an interactive story based
> around the way we tell
> ourselves the ongoing story of our lives, things become much easier.

If only most of our lives weren't so bloody dull, we might justifiably have
the expectation that others might be entertained by them.  Life isn't drama.
Drama is heightened life.  Structured life.  And by using the word structure
I am by no means implying linear or branching structures.  Real life by its
very nature has a very loose structure.  We are born.  We live.  We die.
That "we live" part is acceptably non-linear. but there is no guarantee in
it that it will be entertaining to others, let alone ourselves.  Nor that we
might have the power to translate it into a structure that will touch other
human beings.

> A good example of this and how it can be done (albeit in a
> less dramatic, much
> more domestic sense) is Maxis' The Sims. For those of you who
> aren't familiar
> with the game (a single-player, retail product), here's a
> very brief synopsis:
>
> Domestic simulator detailing human interpersonal, object and
> environment
> interaction. The user has very limited control of the 'Sims',
> consisting of
> commands such as 'Go there' 'use that' or a slightly larger
> character dependant
> constellation of options for interaction between the sim
> you're controlling and
> a target sim. Example interactions include: talk, hug, slap,
> backrub, joke,
> scare, kiss, boast and a handful of others. Plus the special
> options Propose and
> Ask to move in. Using this pretty simple framework, you
> effectively direct the
> lives of the simulated people. If you can accept the level of
> abstraction it
> works with, it's really rather effective.

I'm very familiar with "The Sims," and the "stories" that have grown out of
it, and that Maxis encourages people to publish.  Most of them are useless.
Jonathan Baron, after using them as an example to support a case similar to
your own in his talk this year at GDC, admitted though that the reason some
few were entertaining is that they were "so bad."  And there is a built-in
need to be told stories (I've made my living for a long time feeding this,
lol).  But if we are going to Ed Wood our culture, or even our game worlds,
I don't believe the need for story is going to be satisified at anything
approaching an acceptable entertainment level.  Stories (in a story-telling
world) must be granted the same... courtesy... as any other factor in the
entertainment equation.  To do less is to belittle our products, our
players, and ourselves.

> The key -- indeed the key to all game design -- is acceptable
> abstraction.
> Unfortunately, what's acceptable is highly dependant on
> individual taste.

I'm not sure I can really question this last bit, since we're headed into
the foggy reaches of semantics, but I would use a different word.  It is a
writer's word, not a game designer's word (when I'm designing, I use
abstraction all the time, when writing rarely).  But the two words indicate
attempts to approach the same ideal I think.  You say "abstraction."  I say
"illusion."  And if you create the proper illusion (with abstraction as but
one tool), you begin to imply there are mechanisms, however subtle,
necessary to create story that will reach the audience.  And we are one step
farther away from abdicating the story-based entertainment in our worlds to
our players, and one step closer to guaranteeing it on our own.

Lee




_______________________________________________
MUD-Dev mailing list
MUD-Dev at kanga.nu
http://www.kanga.nu/lists/listinfo/mud-dev