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


Title: Misc
Kenneth, I believe that your confusion here arises from the ambiguity inherent in your use of the intransitive form of the verb "to change". In this form, "The story changes" could translate to the transitive "The story changes itself" or the transitive "The storyteller changes the story." I am arguing for this latter transitive form, and most definitely against the former transitive form. When you use the intransitive form, you can't see any difference: "the story changes".

Interaction takes place between storyteller and audience, not between story and audience. It's that simple -- yet, as you can see, it is the source of endless confusion.


   What I mean is: are you proposing that implementation of IF should use
a database of static material with the 'game' concentrated in the
interface with that database? If so, that seems awfully limiting.

Bob, I'll first hasten to emphasize that I am not in any way talking about IF, because that term has already been appropriated by people to refer to something in which I have no interest. By confining myself to "interactive storytelling", I hope to avoid being contradicted on the grounds that my claims violate accepted wisdom in IF.

Next, I don't see anything about "a database of static material...." arising from my assertions. Static material is data, and you can't interact with data. No, the base of information on which storytelling relies is something I call a "storyworld"; it is a set of relationships, principles, and algorithms that define a dramatically complete world. You can't create an interactive "Romeo and Juliet", because that story has already been frozen. You can create an interactive storyworld demonstrating how family loyalties, interfamily rivalries, group hatred, and young love all interrelate. "Romeo and Juliet" would be one possible outcome of the playing of such a storyworld -- but there would be many other possible outcomes.