A response to Walt

[Chris Crawford <chriscrawford@wave.net>]

Title: A response to Walt

Sorry the delay in responding; I'm more swamped than usual.

> does this mean that despite frequent pretensions to the 
> contrary especially among the academics, interactive storytelling systems 
> will continue to be predominantly games (whether or not they're labeled as 
> such)?

I think this is a matter of definitions. I've gotta definition, you've gotta definition, and we can argue our definitions all day long. For pragmatic purposes, I think that the definition that counts is the marketing definition -- what consumers end up thinking and expecting. Because consumer expectations for games are quite specific now, I think it best that we position interactive storytelling at a safe distance from that market.

The issue you raise concerning conflict raises all sorts of interesting questions in my mind. It seems to me that conflict is an abstraction based on a character-centric view of storytelling, i.e., conflict exists only between two characters. What's confusing to me is that conflict can also be described as a plot element. Is conflict the right abstraction to chase? It certainly seems like a worthy one, but we'll need lots of supporting abstractions to make it work.

> Chris has described how messages can be conveyed through process alone. This 
> concept, I believe, has to be refined further. Rules (components of process) 
> can represent messages about how the world works, but so far we only 
> understand how to do this in a literalistic way.

I just can't follow your reasoning here.

Your definition of game strikes me as overly broad; a lawsuit fits your definition of game. However, I don't think we need to argue this matter to make headway on the more important interactive storytelling issues.

Chris