RE: Just to spur some discussion

1998-11-20 Thread Miriam English

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

1998-11-20 Thread Miriam English

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

1998-11-20 Thread Miriam English

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

1998-11-20 Thread Miriam English

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

1998-11-20 Thread Miriam English

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

1998-11-20 Thread Bullard, Claude L (Len)

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

1998-11-20 Thread Bullard, Claude L (Len)


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

1998-11-19 Thread Stephen N. Matsuba

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

1998-11-19 Thread John D. DeCuir

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

1998-11-19 Thread Jed Hartman


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

1998-11-19 Thread Bullard, Claude L (Len)


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

1998-11-18 Thread Alan Taylor


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

1998-11-18 Thread John D. DeCuir

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