Re: Content (fan fiction and tools)

[WFreitag@aol.com]

In a message dated 10/16/01 10:22:22 AM, joseph@the-one-song.org writes:

>Hello,
>        While I've been following this discussion with some interest,
>this particular bit caught my eye.  I believe, to a large degree, one
>can substitute deeper immersion and more meaningful interaction for
>polish.  For examples, one need only look so far as the innumerable
>miserable Quake maps, sketchy Diablo clans, and tedious RPG fan fiction.
>In each case, both the producers and consumers are willing to forfeit a
>degree of polish for a greater level of personal immersion and the
>ability to impose their own storylines on the simulation.
>        Granted, no one is likely to whip out the wallet when presented
>with the offer of a FFVII fanfic or long-winded EQ saga.  However, I do
>think these nascent "emergent narratives" suggest a need for better
>tools for the end user, to improve the quality of both their interactive
>experience and their stories.  Essentially, to cast their usage of the
>software as a cooperative storytelling effort between the author and
>the end user.

I think these forms of fan fiction illustrate the general idea of a viable 
trade-off between polish and participation. I want to be careful to 
distinguish, though, that we're talking about improving the users' ability to 
shape the story as it's happening at runtime, not just improving their 
ability to write retrospective fiction about it afterward.

It seems I'm perpetually threading a middle line between various Scylla and 
Charybdi. In this case, I believe that the narrative created by an 
interactive storytelling system need not provide the same level of polish as 
a linear presentation (which is not likely to be possible). But I also 
believe that some polish is necessary (otherwise, the interactive 
storytelling problem has already been successfully "solved" by MMORP worlds 
and other simulators).

>        The more I reflect on Gordon Walton's comments at Phront3, the
>more I am inclined to agree with his thinking on the importance of The
>Sims, and (more importantly) Sims-inspired fan fiction.  In order to
>have a viable collaboration between author and user, the end user needs
>not simply the freedom, but the tools to shape and extend the narrative
>in a meaningful way.

I very much agree. We tend to think more about tools when thinking in terms 
of directorial participation (as in The Sims), and more about freedom when 
thinking in terms of individual character participation in an interactive 
world (as in a computer role playing game). But the two are conceptually 
linked. To absurdly oversimplify, in The Sims the player applies the tools 
and the computer exercises the freedom, while in the best currently conceived 
storytelling engines (say, Andrew's HAP Summer Tale project, or an Erasmatron 
storyworld with very sophisticated Fate behavior), the computer applies the 
tools and the player exercises the freedom. In an idealized system, 
distinctions between exercising freedom and applying tools would disappear.

Consider the followng hierarchy of tools:

1. Tools that allow a skilled author to craft excellent narrative.

2. Tools that allow a person who is not a skilled author to craft adequate 
narrative.

3. Tools that allow a dumb computer to craft adequate narrative.

Number 1 already exists. A pencil and a writing tablet, for example. The span 
from 1 to 2 seems the hardest to bridge, but as pointed out, some simulators 
like The Sims (I would also suggest, believe it or not, some of the WWF 
console games) have already shown progress in doing so. In a different way, 
Dramatica claims to bridge the same gap. Whether they've bridged the gap 50 
percent of the way, or 2 percent of the way, or some other figure may be a 
matter for debate.

The span from 2 to 3 could be more difficult still, but there's no proof of 
that. I'm rather inclined to believe that if 2 could be achieved to some 
degree, it's downhill from there to 3. That's because the users of type 2 
tools would most likely be making decisions of a type that would not be 
difficult to automate. "I like chase scenes, so I'm going to choose the 
option that sounds likely to lead to a chase scene." "I want the hero to win, 
so I'm going to choose the option that gives the hero a boost."

Of course, the stories generated by such systems is likely to be, from a 
certain critical standpoint, worthless crap. But fortunately, those same 
critics regard 90% of all existing popular storytelling to be worthless crap. 
So unless we're shooting for the top ten percentile (and why should we, when 
we have participation to trade off?), we should be in good shape.

- Walt