Backstory (was RE: [MUD-Dev] New poll)
Lee Sheldon
linearno at gte.net
Tue Jun 13 11:53:40 CEST 2000
> -----Original Message-----
> From: mud-dev-admin at kanga.nu
> [mailto:mud-dev-admin at kanga.nu]On Behalf Of
> Angela Ferraiolo
> Sent: Monday, June 12, 2000 5:13 PM
> To: mud-dev at kanga.nu
> Subject: Re: Backstory (was RE: [MUD-Dev] New poll)
> my experience was, well, if you've ever had to go from
> playing classical
> music to playing jazz improvisation? writing a game was a lot
> like that.
> actually, writing the game was just like writing anything else, but
> structuring the game & beginning to understand the uses of
> story within a
> game, was a lot like that musical experience.
That's a very nice analogy in a number of ways. The differences in the ways
they are structured. The approach to each. The relative newness of one
compared to the other...
>some people
> will make the
> jump. some don't want to.
Yes, fear of the new thing. Or total non-interested in interactive, or its
audience. And many are basically just lazy.
> now, saying you want to, how much
> of a traditional
> writing background will apply? as in music, many of the
> traditions and known
> rules were really useful and very powerful when writing a
> game. other so
> called rules of writing and structure were best forgotten
> entirely. they
> were restrictive and irrelevant. --- angela
Exactly, what I try to do when I teach is give examples of traditional
narrative tools (from fiction, drama, film, whatever) that seem to work
quite well in games and MUDs. And by no means do I think we've used all
that are possible. New connections are waiting to be discovered.
Other than a couple obvious ones like linearity, though, I haven't found
many rules that can just be thrown out. What are some that you think simply
don't work?
Lee
_______________________________________________
MUD-Dev mailing list
MUD-Dev at kanga.nu
http://www.kanga.nu/lists/listinfo/mud-dev
More information about the mud-dev-archive
mailing list