[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Interactive Drama: Why I've lost interest



Peter Gruenbaum wrote:

With a story, you want the decision making in the hands of the author. I'm very skeptical about the idea that we can program a computer to look at the input from participants in an interactive drama and make a good decision about how the story should go. We need something that makes it easy for an author to look at the input from participants in real time and make decisions and have those decisions be implemented. It's the equivalent of having a GUI to tell the computer what to do. The story remains under the control of the author and the technology allows it to reach out to many people.

You can do this on a small scale with email (I've done it with having an interactive story with four people), but that doesn't scale up. I only have vague ideas about what this tool would look like, but if anyone has heard of anything like it, please let me know. I'd be very curious.

Peter

I'd love to talk with you more about this, Peter - and anyone else on this list who is committed to using digital technology to empower, enable and support collaborative storytelling, and to sharing what we learn in the spirit of open development, rather than proprietary advantage. (contact information at the end of this email)


I was doing exactly what you describe five years ago on a relatively modest MMO scale in Kaon Interactive's "Terra" (until Kaon decided they'd rather sell their patented 3D technology to corporate advertisers rather than build computer games), and I was working on implementing it on a global MMO scale with my company Planetary Arts and our product "Mars First!" three years ago -- when my key employee tried to rip off our IP and the ensuing legal battle shut the company down (although we held on to our IP and won that battle, it was a pyrrhic victory - because of the costs involved with the case, we lost the war of keeping the company going).

I spent a few years licking my wounds and figuring out how to best use my creative talents in the most effective way to make the greatest possible difference in the world. Last year, I converted our development project to a non-profit, open-source, 501(c)3 creative studio - Public Interest Entertainment Corporation -- to which I have gifted all our assets. I built a solid board of directors, including crusading game design and virtual reality pioneer Brenda Laurel, independent film producer/director Ziad Hamzeh, and open standards/consortium legal expert Andy Updegrove, to help me explore how to create a successful digital entertainment company on an open development, non-profit basis, dedicated to public service -- i.e., maximizing value to society, rather than maximizing investor return.

We are developing on a new model to bootstrap operations with minimal funding, create some tangible output for the public domain, and then secure charitable funding for a socially-constructive massively-multiplayer virtual world environment -- one that relies on innate human storytelling skills and a deep understanding of social network dynamics to build a respectful, collaborative and exciting relationship with the participant-community, rather than relying on NPCs, automated scripts, binary logic and the as-yet oxymoronic "artificial intelligence".

All the tools, technologies, management systems, content and creative output we develop will be released for public use under Open Source and/or Creative Commons licenses, as appropriate for each type of "stuff", fulfilling one of the organization's three objectives, to make top-tier tools of virtual world building and massively-scaled community management accessible and affordable to the broadest possible community and thus free the creative energies of professional collaborative storytelling from the corporate publishing stranglehold.

The key to compelling, collaborative storytelling on a very-large scale, I believe, is using technology as you suggest - not to replace human decisionmaking, but, instead, to enable, empower and support it, specifically to build tools that allow the cyclical Emergent Story Process I developed to engage large-scale communities in ongoing immersive storytelling and play. The problem I have found is that most people pursuing "interactive drama" have had an engineering mindset and a fascination with automation - and that tends to lead to an artificial reduction of all storytelling to quantifiable, non-abmiguous binary choices. That is why I prefer the human-centric term "collaborative storytelling" rather than the machine-centric, or at least top-down author-centric "interactive drama". Relying directly on humans rather than technology to propel real-time evolving story reinjects the emotional depth and artistic truth that is often tossed out in our eagerness to automate complexity. (you can see some of these ideas implemented by Toby Ragaini's story crew in The Matrix Online).

It is like the difference between developing the Web and developing Powerpoint. The web is a broad technology that facilitates human communication on an unprecedented scale, freeing up human minds to explore and create in unanticipated ways, while Powerpoint is a focused technology that artificially constrains our creativity in machine-friendly ways, and quantifies the ineffable in easily digested, business-friendly chunks.

Personally, I'm interested in technology only and to the precise extent that it facilitates human communication and collaboration. I'm not interested in technology designed to constrain us to match its own limitations.

Anyway, if you or anyone else reading this is interested in talking more about this, check out our website at http://www.piecorp.org/

You may also be interested in my article about using opensource/open development methodology as tools for social change, "A Lever Long Enough: Value driven enterprise in the networked information economy", at http://piecorp.org/aleverlongenough.html

Feel free to email me at piecorp@galiel.com, and thanks for contributing your thoughts to this discussion.

David Galiel