RE: Just to spur some discussion
At 21:03 19/11/98 -0800, John D. DeCuir wrote: >5 - The most exciting (to me, anyway) approach is to take advantage of >things you really can't predict. Implement neural networks and/or >genetic algorithms. Mmmm yes! :-) >The extreme danger in #5 is that (a) you don't know if the training >will work to your satisfaction, and (b) if the end result will be what >you intended. It's entirely possible to create a big brute that acts >like a kittycat. But if you have done the groundwork -- the (unnatural) selection process -- properly you will get the characters you want. This still doesn't guarantee a particular "story" outcome, but then if you want to relate a story you don't choose this method. >It seems to be that the more nonlinearity we build into a system, the >harder it is to predict. And to me, I think the prediction of a >storytelling system is of the utmost importance to an author. > >Therefore, is there any point to nonlinear storytelling? Absolutely! The author may wish to create a 4D world (a 3D world which changes over time). They don't necessarily have to tell a story. Other authors will want to tell a story. This requires a different approach, where the world is deterministic and the user is in there to either witness the story or solve it (as in a mystery story). Nonlinearity doesn't preclude determinism. You can have a nonlinear, deterministic world where the user can go and do as they please but it has limited influence on the unfolding of the plot. The author would need to anticipate those effects and write them in, unless something like the AI-driven computer moderator Jed mentioned in his "Happily Ever After" machine did the grunt work of keeping things under control on-the-fly. And you can have a nonlinear, nondeterministic world. The world inhabited by genetically evolved AIs would be a perfect example. The author sets it up and watches it run, with no idea which way it will go. I find both prospects very exciting for different reasons. The nonlinear, deterministic world would be a great way to tell stories. The nonlinear, nondeterministic world is more like artwork. Of course they are not black and white, but two ends of a spectrum with various degrees of determinism and linearity in between. For the sake of completeness, a linear, deterministic world is the sort of thing which we walk into when we go to the movies or pick up a book. A linear nondeterministic world might be one where you are glued to a director's viewpoint in an unpredictable world... but I'm not sure... Cheers, - Miriam --- The probability of being watched is proportional to the stupidity of your actions.
Re: Just to spur some discussion
At 14:42 18/11/98 -0800, Alan Taylor wrote: > I saw this too, and must admit it got me thinking - however, in >the ST universe, it seems as if every person is very intelligent and >imaginative from the very start. What a great presumption for a >storyteller! If assume your audience has some intelligence, you can leave >all kinds of avenues open. Unfortunately, most of what passes for >entertainment these days assumes I have the IQ of a pork chop. Darn! I haven't been able to catch much TV lately... even so, our programming in Oz leaves much to be desired -- that episode probably hasn't even been screened here yet. As for the tartget audience's IQ: the entire audience is so big now we can afford to choose who we want in the audience. Take Duckman, for instance... any viewer unable to catch such rapid-fire humor didn't stand a chance. (This kind of thing makes some shows unpopular with the suits of course. Their only real bottom line is total audience size.) > Other thoughts - my God, what an insane amount of algorithm you'd >have to build in - AI for the characters to react "in character" to any >new situation, Actually with the beginning of programs that evolve, this might not be as futuristic as one might think. Nobody would know how the programs work, but that's OK -- most deterministic programs today are not understood by any one person either. >physics models that take into account EVERY law of physics, >from Gravity to subatomic interaction, Plus - Cartoon physics This is the stuff which will be difficult, and I expect will come out of the ongoing improvements to vrml. We probably have a long way to go here. In the meantime we will be using creative kludges :-) > If we can deal with the monumental task of creating such a thing, >how very cool it would be - Touchrealistic (as opposed to photorealistic) >Avatars with unlimited high-level AI who reacted in unanticipated manners, >yet within the parameters of expected personality. [sigh] how much fun our decendants will have with this stuff... Cheers, - Miriam --- The probability of being watched is proportional to the stupidity of your actions.
RE: Just to spur some discussion
At 19:28 19/11/98 -0800, Jed Hartman wrote: >John wrote: >is given a different "Happily Ever After" ending card, each printed with a >common ending to a fairy tale > Of course, this game is best when played more to create an enjoyable >story than to win Now there is an interesting idea. I like the idea of a story/game where the criterion is enjoying the journey... >I'm suggesting is that the computer moderator of a nonlinear story be able >to generate paths-to-a-satisfying-ending from any given state; if the state >changes, the end-paths also change. Kinda like the original Dungeons and Dragons... >about those endings. At each step of the story, it determines which ending >is closest (or picks one randomly, perhaps weighted in some way), then >determines what needs to happen to produce that ending, and takes small >steps in that direction. (This is the covering-up-the-deus-ex-machinae >approach that Len mentioned; in this case you cover up what you're doing by >doing it in small increments, steering slightly toward a particular >ending.) Let the player(s) act some, then recalculate what ending you're >aiming for, and thus what you need to do to get there. [I get a mental image of a Chinese Checkers board where each peg hole is a situation and the computer is trying to force you in a particular direction but you still have within those limitations some free will.] > The hard part is when you get very close to an ending and the player >suddenly veers and does something totally off the wall. The sudden >about-face can damage the narrative warp engines, causing you to have to >limp to the nearest ending on impulse power for repairs. But that would be the user's fault... like walking out into a freeway full of high speed traffic is within your capabilities but is not likely to bring your life to a very satisfying closure. Cheers, - Miriam --- The probability of being watched is proportional to the stupidity of your actions.
RE: Just to spur some discussion
At 13:27 19/11/98 -0600, Bullard, Claude L (Len) wrote: >Life isn't exactly nonlinear An extremely important point. We have limits imposed on us all the time and we don't really notice them. We who program VRs tend to see the limitless possibilities, whereas a user would probably accept many limitations without a second thought. >OTOH, to me the issue seems to be how to hide >the deus ex machinas one needs to ensure transitions >occur smoothly to keep the illusion solid. Those transitions could actually be put to good use as a form of 'cinematic' shorthand, as in the example someone gave on this list some time back of cutting from someone leaving their house, to their arrival at their destination. The big problem for us I think will be finding what visual or experiential metaphors are useful for that... but there is probably no shortcut for us there. Finding them will probably just come from doing the stuff and stumbling across what works and what is required. >OTW, does the user have to register >as a character so the profile is set, or do they set the >profile in advance and when they try to get around it, >are they corraled? I was helping develop an open-ended multi-character game a little while back. The other people in the development group favored the user playing the character directly, but I felt the only way to execute the kind of scenarios they wanted was to have the user direct and advise a near-autonomous character. They didn't like the fact that that made the user's experience one step removed from the game, but I saw this as the best way to ensure they can't go outside the character limitations. Cheers, - Miriam --- The probability of being watched is proportional to the stupidity of your actions.
RE: Just to spur some discussion
At 00:45 20/11/98 -0800, Jed Hartman wrote: > Your note went to me only, btw, not to the list; wasn't sure if that was >your intention. I thought it was a good addition to the discussion, >though; can I forward it to the list? Whoops!!! I'll repost it to the list... and the others I stuffed up :-( --- The probability of being watched is proportional to the stupidity of your actions.
RE: Just to spur some discussion
The other way is to isolate a character that misbehaves, somewhat the way people do. IOW, if a character keeps moving away from the center of action in a situation, they get fewer and fewer clues and cannot present the text or control tokens that cause the other characters to react. This can be done by software using token currencies of different types or as Stephen suggests, by human intervention, or some combination of these which I suggest for multiplayer, is the way to go just as simulators for training have both built in controls and simulation directors who present problems to the trainee. Developing standard visual metaphors as story devices become part of the style of the story teller or director, and the software which enables these become nicely marketable products or a whole section of protos for the VAN. Len Bullard Intergraph Public Safety [EMAIL PROTECTED] Ekam sat.h, Vipraah bahudhaa vadanti. Daamyata. Datta. Dayadhvam.h > -Original Message- > From: Miriam English [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > I was helping develop an open-ended multi-character game a little while > back. The other people in the development group favored the user playing > the character directly, but I felt the only way to execute the kind of > scenarios they wanted was to have the user direct and advise a > near-autonomous character. They didn't like the fact that that made the > user's experience one step removed from the game, but I saw this as the > best way to ensure they can't go outside the character limitations. > > - Miriam > >
RE: Just to spur some discussion
You put the point on it: what is story *telling* vs story *creation* or more mundanely, programming. Who is being entertained, the storycraftsman or the audience? The audience does not know the ending and tries to predict it. That is a tension which induces suspension of disbelief. These predictions are based on many things including personal preferences for certain traits of characters and certain personal experiences. How many women out there wanted to see Leonardo diCaprio on the door and would let the redhead drown? To the extent that the storycraftsman wants to induce particular endings and particular reactions, they have to control the reactions of the majority and many story devices are designed to do just that. Game designers are starting to realize this thus the increasing sophistication of the storylines in games. Yet games are also situational and depend on the path you take, the characters you kill or don't kill etc.. In fact, this single point of view with states determined progressively by individual skills tend to be the way that non-linear stories are evolving. The difference between the linear and non-linear story is the amount of predictability on the second reading/play. If you build a story over a persistent database, you may be able to create a world in which characters remember AND forget and where certain environmental features, (trees, houses, animals, weather, seasons, etc.) change both cyclically and acyclically. This becomes a never-ending story. Len Bullard Intergraph Public Safety [EMAIL PROTECTED] Ekam sat.h, Vipraah bahudhaa vadanti. Daamyata. Datta. Dayadhvam.h > -Original Message- > From: John D. DeCuir [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > It seems to be that the more nonlinearity we build into a system, the > harder it is to predict. And to me, I think the prediction of a > storytelling system is of the utmost importance to an author. > > Therefore, is there any point to nonlinear storytelling? > -John > > > On Thu, 19 Nov 1998, Jed Hartman wrote: > > > > > Delighted to see people posting here again. I had something relevant to > > post last week, but didn't get around to it, and seem to have > temporarily > > forgotten what it was... > [snip]
RE: Just to spur some discussion
Hi everyone. > Some more thoughts follow. I'd like to chart out all possible > ways of creating a nonlinear story... if you see a recipe that > I've left out here, please go ahead and add it. In a previous life, I was a Dungeonmaster with my own D&D world. There we had a structure built by mtself, but the people who played in my world were the ones who generated the "story." I believe that more than genetic algorithms, narrative branching and other computer-controled devices, it will be human operators overseeing the worlds they create as well as those people participating in that world what are the key components to a non- linear story. I have been playing around with some ideas about how to implement this type of "story", and am still working out the kinks. But there's my two cents. Regards, Stephen == | Stephen N. Matsuba| Senior Partner| Is't real that I see? The VRML Dream Company| -William Shakespeare 620 Jarvis Street - 2712 | Toronto, Ontario | Canada M4Y 2R8| Phone: (416) 922-6793 | Fax: (416) 534-7094 | E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Web: www.vrmldream.com| | ==
RE: Just to spur some discussion
Some more thoughts follow. I'd like to chart out all possible ways of creating a nonlinear story... if you see a recipe that I've left out here, please go ahead and add it. 1 - The most primitive way of doing nonlinearity is to create N storylines and choose between them via a random number generator. Easy development time, but is not really nonlinear. Also is nondeterministic; if I encounter a "cool thing" it's not guaranteed that the next time I play, and repeat all of my actions exactly, I will achieve the same result. Does anyone remember the old game "Dark Tower" or something like that? It was a board game, with a large black plastic tower in the middle. It was swivel-able so that it would face only one person at a time. Whenever someone moved, a button was pressed and the tower would reveal an outcome (e.g. a brigade approached you to battle). I have fond memories of that game, even though the tower was nothing but a glorified die :) 2 - The next-easiest way of implementing a story is to provide the N storylines, but create a tree structure where everytime the user chooses an action, a different path along the tree is chosen. This provides determinism. This is very similar to the Choose-Your Own-Adventure books, as well as the vast majority of Infocom games. There were exceptions; I think Deadline was time-based instead of turn-based. 3 - Next approach seems to me to take control out of the user's hands, while not delegating the choice to a random number function. The only place to put this control, then, is in the characters and/or environment. This involves infusing some level of AI into the characters. Again, this can be done via random functions; if the dice is less than 3, have the character welcome you; otherwise have the character shoo you away. This is "simple" AI and is not very intelligent. 4 - You can expound on that and provide a rule-based AI; for instance if a character likes what you've said so far, it will do a certain thing. Notice the parallels; 1 is similar to 3 and 2 is similar to 4. In fact we're not really changing anything, we're simply moving the control of the story from "The Code" running the program, to "The Code" personified in a character or environment. 5 - The most exciting (to me, anyway) approach is to take advantage of things you really can't predict. Implement neural networks and/or genetic algorithms. A neural network is a program that can train itself over time. It's conceivable to place a NN in each character and train them through the beta phase; by the time you release, the characters will be fully trained to do what you want, but still not be completely predictable. The other approach is to embed them with traits (i.e. genes). Create a whole lot of them and have them reproduce (copy the traits via the usual cellular reproduction paradigm). Kill off the characters that don't do what you want, and eventually you will have a fleet of characters that do what you, as the author, intended. The extreme danger in #5 is that (a) you don't know if the training will work to your satisfaction, and (b) if the end result will be what you intended. It's entirely possible to create a big brute that acts like a kittycat. It seems to be that the more nonlinearity we build into a system, the harder it is to predict. And to me, I think the prediction of a storytelling system is of the utmost importance to an author. Therefore, is there any point to nonlinear storytelling? -John On Thu, 19 Nov 1998, Jed Hartman wrote: > > Delighted to see people posting here again. I had something relevant to > post last week, but didn't get around to it, and seem to have temporarily > forgotten what it was... [snip]
RE: Just to spur some discussion
Delighted to see people posting here again. I had something relevant to post last week, but didn't get around to it, and seem to have temporarily forgotten what it was... John wrote: > What I still grapple with is how to ensure that all possible > outcomes lead up to an equally satisfying story-telling experience... A possible answer just occurred to me, but it might require extremely good AI: Have you folks ever played a game called "Once Upon a Time"? It's a fairytale storytelling game that uses a set of printed cards to help push the players/tellers into staying within the genre. (Sorry if I've described it before here; I don't remember...) For instance, every player is given a different "Happily Ever After" ending card, each printed with a common ending to a fairy tale. The goal of the cards-based part of the game is to move the story in such a way that it results naturally in the ending that you hold; if you get rid of all your other cards (printed with types of characters, events, places, etc commonly found in fairy tales), and then finish the story with your ending card, you win the game. Of course, this game is best when played more to create an enjoyable story than to win, but the goals aren't incompatible. At pretty much any point during a game of OUaT, I have a fairly clear idea of what I would do (if it were my turn and if I weren't interrupted) to use up the rest of my cards and get to my ending. That idea of how the rest of the story "should" go (in order for me to win) changes over time, of course. So what I'm suggesting is that the computer moderator of a nonlinear story be able to generate paths-to-a-satisfying-ending from any given state; if the state changes, the end-paths also change. Yes, this does require a lot of AI. A primitive version of the idea, though, might still be useful, modeled after OUaT: the computer knows a certain set (preferably a fairly large set) of satisfying endings, and it has a certain set of tools (characters, situations, etc) to use to bring about those endings. At each step of the story, it determines which ending is closest (or picks one randomly, perhaps weighted in some way), then determines what needs to happen to produce that ending, and takes small steps in that direction. (This is the covering-up-the-deus-ex-machinae approach that Len mentioned; in this case you cover up what you're doing by doing it in small increments, steering slightly toward a particular ending.) Let the player(s) act some, then recalculate what ending you're aiming for, and thus what you need to do to get there. It seems to me this approach is along somewhat similar lines to what Erasmatazz(sp?) does already; the engine might need a little more sophistication to behave as described above, but I think it would be feasible as long as ending-space is fairly thickly populated. The hard part is when you get very close to an ending and the player suddenly veers and does something totally off the wall. The sudden about-face can damage the narrative warp engines, causing you to have to limp to the nearest ending on impulse power for repairs. --jed, suddenly struck by a silly mood (thump) PS: Maureen, I think you missed some of the conversation; your old address was still subscribed to the list, so a couple messages bounced. I took the liberty of subscribing your new address (as given in bounce msg); hope you don't mind.
RE: Just to spur some discussion
Life doesn't guarantee that. Why should art? Life isn't exactly nonlinear. Every day I come to this office, it is still beige. Someone could change that, but that requires an act of volition by an agent capable of committing the act. What life can't guarantee is that by the end of the day, my code is free of bugs and my wife won't be fighting with my kids when I get home. If we want to build fairy tales, then nail the witch to the tree and get on with happily ever after... or hansel and gretel depending on whose ending we are talking about. I think for a single player, this kind of story can be built. For multiple players, it could be just a bit tougher. OTOH, to me the issue seems to be how to hide the deus ex machinas one needs to ensure transitions occur smoothly to keep the illusion solid. OTW, does the user have to register as a character so the profile is set, or do they set the profile in advance and when they try to get around it, are they corraled? Len Bullard Intergraph Public Safety [EMAIL PROTECTED] Ekam sat.h, Vipraah bahudhaa vadanti. Daamyata. Datta. Dayadhvam.h > -Original Message- > From: John D. DeCuir [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > This seems to me like the ultimate goal of nonlinear storytelling. > What I still grapple with is how to ensure that all possible > outcomes lead up to an equally satisfying story-telling experience... > > Comments? > -John
Re: Just to spur some discussion
Hi, I saw this too, and must admit it got me thinking - however, in the ST universe, it seems as if every person is very intelligent and imaginative from the very start. What a great presumption for a storyteller! If assume your audience has some intelligence, you can leave all kinds of avenues open. Unfortunately, most of what passes for entertainment these days assumes I have the IQ of a pork chop. Other thoughts - my God, what an insane amount of algorithm you'd have to build in - AI for the characters to react "in character" to any new situation, physics models that take into account EVERY law of physics, from Gravity to subatomic interaction, Plus - Cartoon physics - if stories can be assumed to have any sort of fantasy level to them (one of the character's finger/branches burned with a bright flame, yet all he did was whimper, not cry out in pain). If we can deal with the monumental task of creating such a thing, how very cool it would be - Touchrealistic (as opposed to photorealistic) Avatars with unlimited high-level AI who reacted in unanticipated manners, yet within the parameters of expected personality. Star Trek seems so very unmaterialistic, but imagine the market for such a "virtual friend" or slave or partner, what have you. I wonder what moral distinction would be drawn by Star Trek crew members between their holographic doctor and one of the holographic characters from that story. Hey - there's an interesting storyline right there! I'll be sending off my script to UPN any day now. Nice to get a discussion going. -Alan On Wed, 18 Nov 1998, John D. DeCuir wrote: > Since I love this list and no one has posted anything in a while, > here's a random topic thrown out. Did anyone catch last week's > Star Trek: Voyager? The storyline involved a little girl who, > among other things, likes to hang out in a holodeck. The story > is a child-like story involving two characters, one symbolizing > water and the other trees. There's also a Fire-demon as well. > (Sorry, I forget all names). > > The interesting thing is that almost all of the crew reminisced > about the same story in THEIR childhoods. The kicker is that everyone > had different memories, because everyone encouraged the same story > to go in a slightly different direction. (Janeway: When I did that > story, so-and-so happened... Another crewmember: Really? Not for > me...) etc... > > This seems to me like the ultimate goal of nonlinear storytelling. > What I still grapple with is how to ensure that all possible > outcomes lead up to an equally satisfying story-telling experience... > > Comments? > -John >
Just to spur some discussion
Since I love this list and no one has posted anything in a while, here's a random topic thrown out. Did anyone catch last week's Star Trek: Voyager? The storyline involved a little girl who, among other things, likes to hang out in a holodeck. The story is a child-like story involving two characters, one symbolizing water and the other trees. There's also a Fire-demon as well. (Sorry, I forget all names). The interesting thing is that almost all of the crew reminisced about the same story in THEIR childhoods. The kicker is that everyone had different memories, because everyone encouraged the same story to go in a slightly different direction. (Janeway: When I did that story, so-and-so happened... Another crewmember: Really? Not for me...) etc... This seems to me like the ultimate goal of nonlinear storytelling. What I still grapple with is how to ensure that all possible outcomes lead up to an equally satisfying story-telling experience... Comments? -John