Plots drive action. So can an environment. One way to
make Richard's approach work is to ensure the environment
interacts as well. Rain drives people into doorways where
interesting encounters happen. Guns drive people across
borders where interesting encounters happen. To have
interactive fiction, we have to give a little; what we may
give up is predicting the amount of time the game runs,
how many moves are possible, which moves always lead
to the same conclusions, etc. IOW, more like chess and
less like checkers, but still a game. Games only drive one
down a corridor. What drives a reader through a plot if
you mix up the pages?
Actors are actors. They are limited by their improvisations
and the power of their instruments to attract or repel attention.
The longer I think about it, the more I believe that true
non-linear fiction is a hoax. It quits being fiction and turns
into life. Is life entertaining? If you break it up into
episodes, maybe. Try this: (not being salacious but
using an example we all know) How long is sex entertaining
and when does it turn into work?
Len
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jed Hartman [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>
>
> If you want the plot to reach a dramatically satisfying resolution
> at the end, you can't just wind up the clockwork creatures of your world
> and release them to roam freely. You'll get something rather more like
> real life than like a story; the realism is laudable, but as in life,
> you're likely to end up with a series of interlinked incidents rather than
> with a coherent dramatic plot.
> This is certainly a viable approach; similar approaches are used in
> everything from soap operas to many roleplaying games to experimental
> fiction. But I'm growing more and more interested in providing stories
> with dramatically satisfying endings; that's hard enough to do in a
> traditional linear story in which the author controls all aspects of
> character and incident, and it only gets harder when you throw in
> nonlinearity and allow the interactor to specify one or more of the
> characters.
> Check the archives back around November of '98 for much more on these
> topics...
>
