Re: Higer-order plot abstractions

["Laura J. Mixon" <ljm@digitalnoir.com>]

Thanks for posting, Benja!  Lots of interesting stuff to mull.


on 11/27/01 7:42 AM, WFreitag@aol.com at WFreitag@aol.com wrote:

> Benja, you've brought up quite a lot to process and respond to. But what
> strikes me first as of possible interest is the relation between "higher
> order plot elements" as you've just defined them, and "nested subplots" as
> you and I (and others, but mainly you and I) discussed at some length back on
> the Erasmateers list.
> <snip>
 
> I agree that this is a better way to combine conflicts than "there are
> conflicts A and B," while preserving combinatoric possibility. My main
> question is whether higher order plot abstractions should pre-exist (e.g. as
> templates or targets or options) in a storytelling system, or if they should
> be regarded as something that arises out of a general process of conflict
> nesting. In other words, should they be input or output?

I think we *can* rely on context in the user's mind to supply, or hold onto,
the inputs, to a large degree, as long as we're very careful with both
inputs and the filters on the potential outputs, so as to avoid nonsensical
outcomes. 
 
> My other concern is the process of instantiating higher order plot elements
> (whether from deliberate use of a template or haphazardly as a result of
> subplot nesting), when executed by nonhuman agents. <snip>
> 
> IF "X endeavors to accomplish B" is A Good Plot
> AND "Y endeavors to prevent A" is A Good Plot
> AND a whole passel of filtering conditions regarding X, Y, A, B, and the
> relationships between them are true
> THEN "X threatens to do A if Y does not do B" is A Good Plot.
> 
> I think this rule IS valid (but not usable), as long as we leave the passel
> unspecified. Specifying the conditions so as to make the rule useful without
> too far compromising its validity is the challenge.


Agreed that it's valid; not sure I agree that it's unusable.

 
> I believe this challenge is similar to or perhaps a bit greater in magnitude
> than the familiar challenge of determining whether an event sequence "A does
> X, and in reaction B does Y" is valid.

Hmm.  Maybe I'm not understanding.  In my own mind this isn't all that
different from the first point you made, above.