From: jao@teer1.acpub.duke.edu (JOSEPH OSWALD)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.int-fiction
Subject: Re: Plot Vs. Interactivity
Date: 22 Jan 93 23:33:12 GMT

In article <10267044@MVB.SAIC.COM>, Whitten@Fwva.Saic.Com (David Whitten) writes:

|> I think Paul is right.  IF seems to be tied to the idea of interacting
|> characters, but I think the problem is that we have no way of specifying the
|> limitations on character's actions. (except keeping the parser from 
|> recognizing the words)
|>  
|> This is a pretty poor method of limitation.
|>  
|> IMAO, I feel we should have ways of specifying what kinds of actions are
|> 'in character' and which ones aren't.

|> What I mean is that if I write a story with a taxi, I have a person in the
|> story who drives the taxi.  Now, the taxi may only be an insignificant part
...
|> Anyway (I digressed), If I let a real person play the taxicab driver, I want
|> to put severe limits on their actions, since I need a taxicab several times in
|> the story.  I might let them talk, and to drive forward, but I probably
|> wouldn't want them to leave the taxi, nor would I want to let them take the
...

Not to criticize, but to get a better idea of what would be involved in a 
real work of multi-player IF

A taxi-driver who was necessary to provide transportation at several points
in the game might not be a good player--his role would have to be only to
respond to his dispatcher, go to that place, pick someone up, and deliver him
to the requested destination. Not too much fun, which is why most people don't
drive cabs without being paid (although some cabbies have more fun than others
:-).  Also, think of how many times one uses a part of the game when still
in the haven't-really-figured-out-what-I'm-doing stage that arises whenever
you're stumped by a new development. Imaging Joe taking you repeatedly from the
bank at 5th and 32nd to his apartment workshop at 3rd and 103rd  (and
back) because he doesn't anticipate what tools he needs to break into the 
bank safe. 

Just thought of this--in an Infocom-style game, I often save the game at
a certain point so that I can try several options, restoring each time one of
them doesn't work out. How does that sort of saving affect the status of other
people in the game, and what implications does that have for the kind of
trial-and-error play that is often a part of Infocom puzzles?

I think part of this is your implicit (and explicit) classification of characters
into "my primary character" and service characters "my taxicab driver." I think
equality of necessity is required among these players, though not necessarily
identical roles. Think of _It's a Mad, Mad, Mad World_ (or any ensemble picture,
for those of you who haven't seen the film)...several sets of characters, all
pursuing their own way in one film. None of those actors had a particularly 
better role than the others.

Of course, that gets back to the original problem--in the movie, the screen-
writer can FORCE one character to drive up just as another character finds
a lost treasure, or whatever....That's how farce works--forcing what would 
be otherwise unlikely scenarios. But if the one character is left behind because
he couldn't figure out how to open his (game) bedroom door this morning, because
the landlord character forgot to have it fixed....then the whole thing collapses.

Again, it's very hard for me to think of an example of a plot with essentially
1) independently thinking
2) independently acting
characters going through "plots" with 
3) independent results

but still remain within a plot structure thought up in advance by one person
and still require enough

4) co-dependent participation/cooperation/competition (I like the first 2 better) 

that it makes sense to have multiple people playing!
Of course, being hard is no reason not to think about the problem--if I
or anyone else can possibly come up with a good one, I'd like to hear it, and
more importantly, PLAY it!!!

--Joe