Re: How about "situations" as a plot abstraction?

["B. Fallenstein" <b.fallenstein@gmx.de>]

Hi, Walt--

WFreitag@aol.com wrote:
> I made a case a ways back for an abstraction I called "conflict objects." The
> idea missed the mark, I believe, because conflicts can be seen as just
> another more complex type of event, while the abstraction that Erasmatron (or
> any other event-based storytelling system, I believe) needs is situations.
> This includes conflict situations, but not all conflicts are situations and
> not all situations are conflicts.

I do not understand the difference between conflicts/developments and
situations, yet, as technical abstractions that is. The only difference
I have been able to observe is that you don't describe situations as
nested in each other.

> Instead of the customary dramatic examples involving romantic passions and/or
> fisticuffs, consider a really prosaic one: "Dagwood has borrowed a lawn mower
> >from Herb." This is brought about, obviously, by the event "Dagwood borrows a
> lawn mower from Herb." The event is over, but the situation persists. As the
> author, I want this situation to motivate certain types of future actions.

So why is this not a conflict? And why would it be implemented
differently? -- I see a distinction between "state," a relationship that
does not need to be resolved, and "development," a relationship that
does need to be resolved. If I had to choose which one to describe with
"situation," I'd probably put the label on the former. But what you
describe technically seems to be a relatively straight-forward
implementation of the latter.

I'll stop here for now because I don't seem to understand what you're saying...

- Benja