[MUD-Dev] A footnote to Procedural Storytelling

[Brian Green]

Travis Nixon wrote:

> From: Sam Axon <mysticranger at earthlink.net>
> 
> >The final conclusions:
> >A totally automated system is impossible and impractical because of chaotic
> >player actions that a computer cannot understand in its decisions. However,
> >a totally human controlled system is not preferable because the variety in
> >stories and plots would be limited because the man in charge simply wouldn't
> >have time to create nearly as many interesting stories and quests as the
> >computer would be able to.
> >So, a guided dynamic world theoretically allows for and supports fair
> >storytelling and experiences for all types of players, including those that
> >just want to kill stuff, without taking away from the amount of stories to
> >get involved in, the sense of uniqueness in each story and place, or the
> >sense of accomplishment in affecting that story or place.
> 
> I wholeheartedly disagree that a totally automated system is impossible, but
> I agree that for right now, it's impractical.  For large scale
> world-changing events, human intervention is absolutely necessary.

I, too, agree it's possible, but the point I had in my original post
was, is it what we really want to do?  Sam touched on that, but I talk
to him a bit, so I'd be disappointed if he doesn't know how I think by
now. :)  As always, it seems to be a compromise.  100% human run stories
are expensive and time-consuming, but are 100% automated stories going
to be better?

> This whole goblin tribes thing I brought up though isn't meant to be
> anything even remotely like that.  I'd put it more akin to your love-letter
> delivering quest, in terms of global impact.  I mean, we are talking about
> three insignificant goblin tribes on an otherwise insignificant
> mountainside.  

Again, the point I was trying to make is that with a completely
automated system you might not be getting optimal stories.  If I were a
serious RPer, but I thought your game was just another mindless
hack'n'slash that I use to fill my free time, why would I bother to talk
to the goblins?  Because of that misperception, I'm missing a lot of the
depth of your game and the work you put into the automated system!

> The potential impact on the players interacting with the
> goblins (be it by talking to them or killing them) is fairly large,
> especially if they try to figure out what's going on before going in with
> guns blazing (which happens to be something I would like to strongly
> encourage...figuring out what's going on first, I mean, not going in with
> guns blazing), but the impact on the world as a whole is practically nil.

How are they going to know that you want them to try to work things
out?  Highly scripted automated stories are only okay at getting a
message across.  I've decided to play some games in the Ultima series
again, and I've started playing Ultima 4 (Quest of the Avatar) again. 
The game is wonderful, but the moral lessions are a bit heavy-handed.  I
don't believe that a loosely scripted automated system is going to be
any better, especially not in the early stages of evolution.

> Well, ok, that's not quite true.  Compared to the player's ability to impact
> the world at all in the massive persistent games of today, even the ability
> to become a "village hero" seems huge, but compared with some of the other
> things I envision going on at the same time, this encounter truly is
> insignificant, no matter how it turns out.  :)

Well, this depends on scale.  If I lived in the area, or were looking to
settle in the area, this would be my "world", so something like this
would be world-altering.  Two people exchanging gunfire outside my
window may not be world-altering to people on a different continent, but
it certainly would alter my world (at least my perception of it) pretty
drastically!
 
> Here is my goal, stated as simply as I can:  to create a system that can
> automatically create stories/events/things to do that players will find
> interesting, and to create enough of them that the world does not stagnate.
> Now, that is not to say that this system would make up the entirety of the
> world.  This is one part, one that would take the writers and designers away
> from creating thousands of small scale events, and get them where they
> belong, working on the large scale ones, the ones where even *I* won't argue
> that a computer is capable of creating everything that is necessary without
> at least some human input.

But, why not allow some human input on the smaller stories, too?  Some
of the most fun I  had creating "stories" on Meridian was when I worked
with a small group.  Maybe it was simply spoofing an NPC's dialog, or
maybe spawning a few "strange" monsters in an area, but these events
were always remembered fondly by the participants.  Moreso, I'd say,
than the "world-altering" events we did try to run....  

The biggest problem with running stories, in my experiences, is the
setup and creation of elements on the fly.  If these elements were in
place, but I could alter them to taste, I think this could create some
wonderful stories.  Sometimes that small amount of human intervention
can turn an adventure of killing goblins for loot into an event where I
stop to listen to a goblin begging for the life of his friends and
getting involved in a larger (but, perhaps not world-altering) story.

--
"And I now wait / to shake the hand of fate...."  -"Defender", Manowar
     Brian Green, brian at psychochild.org  aka  Psychochild
       |\      _,,,---,,_      *=* Morpheus, my kitten, says "Hi!" *=*
 ZZzz  /,`.-'`'    -.  ;-;;,_  
      |,4-  ) )-,_..;\ (  `'-'  "Ritalin Cures Next Picasso" 
     '---''(_/--'  `-'\_)               -The_Onion_, August 4th, 1999



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