Why romance doesn't work as a game
J.D. Berry
just trying to get a discussion going. Also, I’m using reverse
psychology to make someone say, “oh, yeah? I’ll show you!” :-) I’m
basing this on recent threads which seem to indicate the desire to PLAY
a romance game and the wondering why there aren’t many out there. A
lot of this has been covered in one way or another, but perhaps this
can spark some creativity in some form.
First some of the styles:
Harlequin romance:
Exotic setting. Successful entrepreneur woman not actively
looking for a man. She’s pretty in an understated way. Sister of
woman is more outgoing and a better judge of people but not as creative
or grounded. She’s pretty in a more worldly sense. Semi-mysterious
man is in town on assignment. He’s unintentionally charming but with a
dark side.
The two accidentally encounter each other. There’s passion,
curiosity and brusqueness. But she won’t give him another thought
except for the often times she does. Another encounter. Stronger
passion and a sense of connection. Third encounter ends on a sour note
and what appears to be a permanent breakup.
But wait! Thanks to a random event and the sister’s meddling,
the two again meet. And this time, it’s for good.
Classic romance:
Mundane setting. Educated, inexperienced, upper-middle class
woman actively but not actively looking for a husband. She’s pretty in
an understated way. Sister of woman is more outgoing and a better
judge of people but not as creative or grounded. She’s pretty in a
more worldly sense. Formerly non-mysterious but now semi-mysterious
man has left town on assignment. He’s unintentionally charming but
with a dark side.
The two have known about each other for years, but she never
really thought about him in that way. Until now, when getting together
is inconvenient for everyone. Another encounter. Strong passion and a
sense of connection. Third encounter is by vague letter. Local
meddling. Sub-romances. It sure doesn’t seem like the two will ever
get together.
But wait! Thanks to a random event and the sister’s meddling,
the two again meet. And this time, it’s for good.
Soap Opera Romance:
Bedroom setting. Workaholic, high-powered businesswoman--with
somehow all the time in the world to engage in intrigue and revenge—and
actively looking for an affair. She’s pretty in an aerobicized, face
job, “perfectly tousled” hair way. Sister of woman is more outgoing
and a bigger slut, but not as creative or grounded. Mysterious man
steps out of character and leaves a good situation to pursue his new
ridiculous agenda. He’s unintentionally charming with a dark side.
The two have been in different scenes for years, crossing over
only occasionally. Until now, when the writers need omething “fresh.”
They meet in bed. Another encounter. Strong passion and no sense of
connection whatsoever. Third encounter is with another woman. No, not
in the way you’d like to see. She’s got a gun. Editing. Five shows
of no mentioning. It sure doesn’t seem like the two will ever stay
together.
But wait! Thanks to a random event and the sister’s secret
affair with this man, the two meet again. And this time, he’s in the
hospital with amnesia.
I think why romance won’t work in interactive fiction is that
there are so many elements that MUST be in place, there is no room for
freedom of choice. If you take an element away, you take away the
whole feeling to the story. The elements must exist, and the player,
knowing that they must, has no sense of suspense. Either you take away
the story or you take the choice.
What are some of the elements?
1. The man (or woman, but I will follow along as above) must
have a mostly unnoticeable dark side. There’s no tension if he
doesn’t. So the player of the woman knows right away that things
aren’t going to work out immediately, and “she” should probably skip
ahead to the investigation. So you can have no tension based on the
characters’ interaction or no tension based on player expectations.
2. There must be strong chemistry, a passion that transcends
just the physical. I think this is what separates the genre from a
story with a romance attached. How do you bring that feeling of
chemistry about in the context of IF? I would say in IF the player is
much more the PC than the reader is the protagonist.
3. There must be a sister! Well, not necessarily a sister,
but a romance needs a confidant. She’s someone to bounce things off,
keeps dialog while the man (again, using “man” in general) is away, and
she provides comic relief. And the man MUST be away. His departure
allows the embers to burn and the curiosity to build. This element is
more workable than the others for use in IF, but it still is
predictable.
It’s fine to describe someone else falling in love; those are
HER emotions. But to relate those feelings to someone who is taking on
her role, that fails. “SHE may feel that way, but I don’t.” There’s
not enough time in an IF and presumably “info-dumping” doesn’t help to
establish this in the player’s mind. If done in “proper” IF form, a
sense of connection comes across as kind deeds done and no more.
Chemistry comes across as you’ll like it because the words are saying
so on your screen.
I think IF romance can work in another genre as a side dish.
The player “fills in the blanks” of the romance and may proceed with
the game at hand whenever desired. If you, the player, feel the
connection, great. If not, the story may still succeed. (I think of
a certain comedian’s bit about the movie Top Gun. During the
(relatively speaking) romantic scenes, the women weep. All the men are
thinking is “when’s he getting back in the plane?”)
You can’t plunder any hearts with a xyzzy command.
Jim
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Kathleen M. Fischer
J.D. Berry <jdb...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> I don?t really feel like the genre is unsuitable for IF. I?m
> just trying to get a discussion going. Also, I?m using reverse
> psychology to make someone say, ?oh, yeah? I?ll show you!? :-)
I?m
> basing this on recent threads which seem to indicate the desire to
PLAY
Because people haven't written them? I could guess that's because most
IF is writen by men, who traditionally don't write genre romances (which
is what you seemed to be describing), but that would be sterotyping and
as I left my flame proof undies at home I won't take that path. :)
However, as one who is currently writing a historical romance (and has
been for the past 14 or so months), I'll offer what I've found. Most
genre romances involve:
* complex dialogue (optional, but most genre romances have it)
* at least one well developed** NPC (to fall in love with)
* internalized feelings for the PC (the falling in love part)
None of which are easy to do (well) in IF. And the problem isn't
just writing a good response to KISS NPC. That's easy. But just
try sustaining a romantic mood through a scene when the player
is free to walk out, ransack the furniture, or throw mash potatoes
on the ceiling at any point. You can't very well have a grue pop
out and eat the recalcitrant player.
Kathleen
** you know what I mean... :)
--
-- Excuse me while I dance a little jig of despair.
Andrew Plotkin
> I don't really feel like the genre is unsuitable for IF. I'm
> just trying to get a discussion going. Also, I'm using reverse
I hate that.
--Z
"And Aholibamah bare Jeush, and Jaalam, and Korah: these were the
borogoves..."
David Samuel Myers
many examples I would follow since then. Mostly because not too many
people set out in the first place to write Rom-IF.
Honestly, I really hate the pegging of *anything* into a narrow genre.
A lot what is traditionally regarded as SF (at least the good stuff) has
something more than just "SF" at the heart.
What makes you think that the "woman and man meet, like each other, have
a falling out, and get back together" plot wouldn't be amenable to IF?
This is essentially When Harry Met Sally, For Love of the Game, etc. any
big budget "romantic comedy" you can think of.
You have all the elements: protagonist(s), problem solving, annoying
puzzles that aren't entirely intuitive, unclear goals, huge potential for
NPC-driven plot (which is where the hard-to-code-with-existing-tools part
may hang you up)...
Anyway, you were trolling in the first place, so I'm not feeling like
spending a whole lot of time going on about how I'd do it if I were going
to write a Rom-IF.
Adam Cadre
> But just try sustaining a romantic mood through a scene when the
> player is free to walk out, ransack the furniture, or throw mash
> potatoes on the ceiling at any point.
Well, some of us have found that mashed potatoes are a sure way to
liven up a--
--hrm. I've said too much. Smithers, get the amnesia ray.
-----
Adam Cadre, Sammamish, WA
http://adamcadre.ac
Jim Aikin
game, in no small part because of the atmosphere, and at the same time
(b) it's a farrago of cliches. You could NEVER sell an actual paperback
book in 1999 that had this moth-eaten setup.
So why does it work in IF? I think it works because we all _know_ the
setting. There's a tremendous amount of cultural baggage that we can all
refer to, internally, while playing the game. This makes it possible for
the game's author to refer to certain things (the red-rimmed eyes in the
portrait, for example) and communicate with us clearly in a sentence or
two. It's ideal for a game, even though it wouldn't work in a *real*
work of fiction because there's not enough depth.
A romance setting should work the same way. To the extent that the
player is familiar with the genre, the writer can toss off lines like
"Geoffrey casts a smoldering look in your direction" and be understood.
A one-sentence description like that, if it were NOT in a familiar
genre, would be pretty vague. It would leave the player wondering,
"What's up with Geoffrey?"
Not to diss Anchorhead. There are other reasons why it works.
Consistency of tone, for example. You can do cliches well or badly. All
I'm saying is that I think cliched writing may actually be appropriate,
or even ideal, for IF.
Hmm. Maybe that dark urge that I've had all these years to write a
vicious send-up of Erle Stanley Gardner has an undreamed-of future....
Gotta go now. Where's my notebook?
--Jim (honest, I only read Perry Mason mysteries when I have a fever
above 101) Aikin
Quentin.D.Thompson
Standard Romance Plots, and shows why they won't make good I-F. (In fact, I
feel the problem is not that they won't make I-F, but that they'll make for
terribly, terribly linear I-F, with more of the "one slip and you're through"
element than your average puzzle-fest. And that's going to be very
frustrating to the player.) But if romance _on its own_ won't work, why not
romance + another genre? Combined with, say, mystery, adventure or (best of
all) intrigue? I still think the genre would work. It'd just be tougher to
write a good romance game than, say, an ADVENT clone. Or is the answer
_greater_ player freedom, with more than one way of reaching the "optimal"
ending? (I-0 for example...) It'd require some effort on the part of the game
author, but that's far from saying it's impossible.
- Quentin D. Thompson
(whose current project includes a parody of one of the Romance Plots)
Don Rae
> None of which are easy to do (well) in IF. And the problem isn't
> try sustaining a romantic mood through a scene when the player
> is free to walk out, ransack the furniture, or throw mash potatoes
> out and eat the recalcitrant player.
I agree. And, this genre depends far too much on emotional expression, if
speaking purely in terms of how the player interacts with the environment.
I'm not much for romance at all (well, actually, I truly despise it as pure
drivel) - but for arguments sake, can you imagine the player's interactive
component as it would need to be implemented?
>KISS ALICE PASSIONATELY
>KISS ALICE CONSERVATIVELY
>FRENCH-KISS ALICE.
>ALICE, SUBMIT TO ME.
Bleah. This kind of thing hardly inspires the imagination, as much as it is
repulsive....it would spoil the kind of mood you would ever hope to
establish.
As for setting mood, circumstance, and scene with your other characters:
>ALICE, COME HERE
>ALICE, KISS ME
vs.
>ALICE, PLEASE COME OVER HERE AND MASSAGE MY SHOULDERS FOR ME.
>ALICE, I COULDN'T IMAGINE ANYONE ELSE I'D RATHER HAVE IN MY LIFE - KISS ME.
Obviously, these are two different requests in terms of emotional content.
(Imagine implementing the 2nd set - not!).
- Don
Preben Randhol
| Because people haven't written them? I could guess that's because most
| IF is writen by men, who traditionally don't write genre romances (which
| is what you seemed to be describing), but that would be sterotyping and
| as I left my flame proof undies at home I won't take that path. :)
I found Plundered Hearts by Infocom a very nice game. The impression I
got from miscellaneous sources before playing, was that it wasn't a great
game. I guess most players were male and expecting grues lurking in
the shadow while they were off to save the princess. :-)
| * complex dialogue (optional, but most genre romances have it)
| * at least one well developed** NPC (to fall in love with)
| * internalized feelings for the PC (the falling in love part)
I think this would be a good summary of the problems.
--
Preben Randhol -- [ran...@pvv.org] -- [http://www.pvv.org/~randhol/]
"Det eneste trygge stedet i verden er inne i en fortelling."
-- Athol Fugard
Preben Randhol
| I'm not much for romance at all (well, actually, I truly despise it as pure
| drivel) - but for arguments sake, can you imagine the player's interactive
| component as it would need to be implemented?
|
| >KISS ALICE PASSIONATELY
| >KISS ALICE CONSERVATIVELY
| >FRENCH-KISS ALICE.
| >ALICE, SUBMIT TO ME.
|
| Bleah. This kind of thing hardly inspires the imagination, as much as it is
He he he. That's romance for you?
Mary J Mcmenomy
: >KISS ALICE PASSIONATELY
: >KISS ALICE CONSERVATIVELY
: >FRENCH-KISS ALICE.
: >ALICE, SUBMIT TO ME.
: Bleah. This kind of thing hardly inspires the imagination, as much as it is
: repulsive....it would spoil the kind of mood you would ever hope to
: establish.
IMHO, what makes a good romance is all in the setup. I'd be content to
have scenes like this narrated to me (as they are in Plundered Hearts) --
assuming that the sequence leading up that point is effective.
-- Mary McMenomy
Jake Wildstrom
Preben Randhol <ran...@pvv.org> wrote:
>"Don Rae" <game...@hotmail.com> writes:
>| >ALICE, SUBMIT TO ME.
>He he he. That's romance for you?
> ALICE, GIVE ME THE MANACLES AND WHIP
+--First Church of Briantology--Order of the Holy Quaternion--+
| A mathematician is a device for turning coffee into |
| theorems. -Paul Erdos |
+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| Jake Wildstrom |
+-------------------------------------------------------------+
Eric Mayer
>In article <m3n1rjt...@kiuk0156.chembio.ntnu.no>,
>Preben Randhol <ran...@pvv.org> wrote:
>>"Don Rae" <game...@hotmail.com> writes:
>>| >ALICE, SUBMIT TO ME.
>
>>He he he. That's romance for you?
>
>> ALICE, GIVE ME THE MANACLES AND WHIP
>
>Alice, to the moon
--
Eric Mayer
Web Site: <http://home.epix.net/~maywrite>
=====================================================
co-author of ONE FOR SORROW
A "John the Eunuch" mystery from Poisoned Pen Press
<http://www.poisonedpenpress.com/html/sorrow.html>
=====================================================
"The map is not the territory." -- Alfred Korzybski
Roger Carbol
> Most
> genre romances involve:
>
> * complex dialogue (optional, but most genre romances have it)
> * at least one well developed** NPC (to fall in love with)
> * internalized feelings for the PC (the falling in love part)
As a counterpoint, why is genre horror so popular in IF? It
seems to ALSO require things like internalized PC feelings and
so forth. It strikes me as odd that horror could succeed and
romance couldn't.
.. Roger Carbol .. rca...@home.com
Quentin.D.Thompson
wil...@mit.edu (Jake Wildstrom) wrote:
> In article <m3n1rjt...@kiuk0156.chembio.ntnu.no>,
> Preben Randhol <ran...@pvv.org> wrote:
> >"Don Rae" <game...@hotmail.com> writes:
> >| >ALICE, SUBMIT TO ME.
>
> >He he he. That's romance for you?
>
> > ALICE, GIVE ME THE MANACLES AND WHIP
>TONE CORDIAL
> ALICE, WOULD YOU OBJECT TO A LITTLE LIGHT BONDAGE?
Hah. "ALICE, SUBMIT TO ME" isn't romance, guys. It's AIF, and pretty
demeaning AIF at that. As for the kind of elaborate sentence constructions
that someone said were _impossible_, you could use Photopia's phtalkoo.h
module. Robb Sherwin's Chix Dig Jerks did an interesting job on adapting this
system to AIF; I'm sure a talented author could do it to romance. And I think
Muse set a standard for "puzzles" based on emotion, that we can always try to
follow or improve on. Forget the massage. :-)
[By the way: FRENCH-KISS is a guess the verb. No can do.]
Quentin.D.Thompson. [The 'D' is a variable.]
Lord High Executioner Of Bleagh
(Formerly A Cheap Coder)
Quentin.D.Thompson
That's a _very_ good point. Personally, the kind of game I had in mind would
stress setup (as you said), atmosphere, and perhaps emotion, some dialogue,
and all the potentially "guess-the-verb" interaction handled in cut-scenes.
Thanks for pointing it out.
>
--
Quentin.D.Thompson. [The 'D' is a variable.]
Lord High Executioner Of Bleagh
(Formerly A Cheap Coder)
Ron Moore
behavior modeling. It's basically an emotion engine and a lot of his ideas
could be used to make a generic 'feelings library' for IF npc responses. He
also many articles in his archive relating to handling npc psychology etc.
Pretty fascinating reading and tons of stuff on interactive game design.
This is all at -
http://www.erasmatazz.com
Anyone try out the Brainiac Behavior Engine?
Pax,
Ron
J.D. Berry
Roger Carbol <rca...@home.com> wrote:
>
> As a counterpoint, why is genre horror so popular in IF? It
> seems to ALSO require things like internalized PC feelings and
> so forth. It strikes me as odd that horror could succeed and
> romance couldn't.
>
I agree with Jim Aikin's point on why this is.
In a horror plot, there are tangible things to do that can be expressed
in relatively simple ways and without breaking the mood.
J.D. Berry
Andrew Plotkin <erky...@eblong.com> wrote:
> J.D. Berry <jdb...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > I don't really feel like the genre is unsuitable for IF. I'm
> > just trying to get a discussion going. Also, I'm using reverse
>
> I hate that.
>
Of course you do.
J.D. Berry
David Samuel Myers <dmy...@sparky.ic.sunysb.edu> wrote:
>
> What makes you think that the "woman and man meet, like each other,
> have a falling out, and get back together" plot wouldn't be amenable
> to IF? This is essentially When Harry Met Sally, For Love of the
> Game, etc. any big budget "romantic comedy" you can think of.
It may very well be amenable. I mentioned the problems associated with
this story line based on how it's been done in other mediums. "They"
do it that way because people, to whatever extent, buy it. At this
moment, I can't think of how it can translate with a parser.
>
> Anyway, you were trolling in the first place, so I'm not feeling like
> spending a whole lot of time going on about how I'd do it if I were
>going to write a Rom-IF.
Only a half-troll. I would like to know how you'd do write one. A
full troll would be something like "Language X sucks." The competition
discussions have died off and the only threads now seem to be code
based.
Kathleen M. Fischer
> As a counterpoint, why is genre horror so popular in IF? It
> seems to ALSO require things like internalized PC feelings and
> so forth. It strikes me as odd that horror could succeed and
> romance couldn't.
<aside: tried sending something like this last night and AOL dumped
me just as I was hitting the send button... grrrrr... does anyone know
how to disable the time out feature?>
While the PC's feelings of horror might be internal, the causes are
usually external (things that go bump in the night, dark cramped spaces,
a chilling wind, a scuttle of claws, etc). Things that are fairly easy
to code. In most genre romances, the feelings start from within, and are
often quite contrary to all external forces. Tall dark and handsome is
sitting there brooding over his brandy, after having lectured you on the
evils of throwing mashed potatoes in public, when the main character
suddenly has an inexplicable desire to kiss him. My guess is that the
"inexplicable" nature of genre love is going to be extremely difficult
to pull of in IF. Players don't seem to like being told they are
suddenly feeling love/hate/regret toward something, especially since up
to this point the PC has been going out her way to antagonize him. The
player's are going to turn around and say. "I don't regret throwing the
mashed potatoes at Grant, the cad deserved it! Imagine lecturing me on
the evils of dancing with another man when I know full well he's slept
with half the women in the room!"
Kathleen
--
-- Excuse me while I dance a little jig of despair.
J.D. Berry
Kathleen M. Fischer <green_g...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> My guess is that the "inexplicable" nature of genre love is going to
> be extremely difficult to pull of in IF. Players don't seem to like
> being told they are suddenly feeling love/hate/regret toward
> something, especially since up to this point the PC has been going
> out her way to antagonize him. The player's are going to turn around
> and say. "I don't regret throwing the mashed potatoes at Grant, the
> cad deserved it! Imagine lecturing me on the evils of dancing with
> another man when I know full well he's slept with half the women in
> the room!"
Back in my soc.singles days, men would post various
questions about understanding women (gfl ;-D). "I've done all these
things women supposedly like, but I'm still not getting anywhere."
Even before Comp 99 it seemed that chix did indeed dig jerks.
"OK, I'm dressed to kill." <no success>
"OK, I'm a good listener." <no success other than an LJBF>
"OK, I'm self directed." <no success other than an Obie>
ad nauseum...
A plus B doesn't necessarily equal C.
Thus in the interactive fiction world, you can be told all these
things are happening. But the proper elements need to bond to
achieve that certain chemistry. That "je ne sais gaga."
Compare, Kathleen, someone trying to set you up on a date with
someone you didn't know by giving you a laundry list of why it will
work. But that person setting you up doesn't know all of the so
many little things that comprise attraction. Specifically, your
situation. Yeah, it MAY work, but most likely it won't.
The chestnut most single people despise, "it'll happen when you least
expect it," applies. So if you're playing a romance game, you're
EXPECTING it! You're also getting a laundry list of features you
supposedly like. And now that I've told you that you like them, it is
human nature to contradict the list. "I will not be confined so."
"I don't *always* like that."
I think the author of an IF romance would have to be subtle. Well,
no kidding? But I mean more than the standard "make 'em *think*
they have a choice." advice. The player can't be expecting what
she thinks she is. As in books, the protagonist isn't aware of
what is supposed to happen. She knows merely enough that she wants
to continue.
...
BTW, it DID happen when I least expected it. Bastards! :-)
> -- Excuse me while I dance a little jig of despair.
Love this. :-)
Andrew Plotkin
> "Kathleen M. Fischer" wrote:
>
>> Most
>> genre romances involve:
>>
>> * complex dialogue (optional, but most genre romances have it)
>> * at least one well developed** NPC (to fall in love with)
>> * internalized feelings for the PC (the falling in love part)
>
> seems to ALSO require things like internalized PC feelings and
> so forth. It strikes me as odd that horror could succeed and
> romance couldn't.
Horror -- Lovecraftian horror, anyway -- explicitly excludes believable
NPCs. You don't have complex dialogues with the Spores of Yuggoth; they
may be well-developed characters, but there's no communication.
okbl...@my-deja.com
Andrew Plotkin <erky...@eblong.com> wrote:
> Roger Carbol <rca...@home.com> wrote:
> >
> > As a counterpoint, why is genre horror so popular in IF? It
> > seems to ALSO require things like internalized PC feelings and
> > so forth. It strikes me as odd that horror could succeed and
> > romance couldn't.
>
> Horror -- Lovecraftian horror, anyway -- explicitly excludes
believable
> NPCs. You don't have complex dialogues with the Spores of Yuggoth;
they
> may be well-developed characters, but there's no communication.
Lovecraft also explicitly avoided dialogue in his works, feeling that
the banality of conversation detracted from the atmosphere of horror.
--
[ok]
okbl...@my-deja.com
> "inexplicable" nature of genre love is going to be extremely difficult
> to pull of in IF. Players don't seem to like being told they are
> suddenly feeling love/hate/regret toward something, especially since
up
> to this point the PC has been going out her way to antagonize him. The
> player's are going to turn around and say. "I don't regret throwing
the
> mashed potatoes at Grant, the cad deserved it! Imagine lecturing me on
> the evils of dancing with another man when I know full well he's slept
> with half the women in the room!"
I actually don't see the difficulty here. If a woman reads a romance
novel, she's expecting to identify with the heroine. If she finds the
love interest loathsome, she's going to hate the book, right? Romance
novel heroes often trade on broad clichéd descriptions to avoid
alienating women, presumably for that precise reason. (Just once
I'd like to read "He looked like Marty Feldman--the way Marty looked
right now, ten years after his death--and had the manners of Homer
Simpson, but she had this sudden urge to kiss him.")
But, going into the story, the author starts with the knowledge that the
reader wants to fall in love. The author has to deliver a setting that
doesn't disrupt that.
Since this is still a male-dominated and highly snarky group, yeah, the
author would have to put up with people who came to the game WITHOUT
really being interested in the story, or who are even antipathetic to
the whole genre, and getting reviews like "Wow, this game sucked. It was
full of boring stuff about feelings and didn't even let me throw the
mashed potatoes."
An advantage of IF over static fiction is that a a player's choices
could reflect the timbre with which the romance played out. There are
various sub-genres in the field, reflecting the amount of sexual
contact, for example, among other things, and the player's choices could
affect whether the story was a dark, serious tale of mending broken
hearts or a lighthearted romp through a new adventure, and so on.
Another advantage IF could grant is the ability to do a multiple suitor
plotline where the reader could pick who she finally wanted to go with.
No matter how well done, though, I don't suspect such a work would get
raves here from most, because I don't think there's a lot of sympathy
for or interest in the genre (in raif). But it might expand the IF
audience as a whole. Ya never know.
--
[ok]
"That was the end of Grogan... the man who killed my father, raped and
murdered my sister, burned my ranch, shot my dog, and stole my Bible!"
--Kathleen Turner, "Romancing The Stone"
Kathleen M. Fischer
okbl...@my-deja.com wrote:
> I actually don't see the difficulty here. If a woman reads a romance
> novel, she's expecting to identify with the heroine. If she finds the
> love interest loathsome, she's going to hate the book, right? Romance
> novel heroes often trade on broad clichéd descriptions to avoid
> alienating women, presumably for that precise reason. (Just once
> I'd like to read "He looked like Marty Feldman--the way Marty looked
> right now, ten years after his death--and had the manners of Homer
> Simpson, but she had this sudden urge to kiss him.")
Actually, the "Beauty and the Beast" theme isn't that uncommon. Try
"Ravished" by Amanda Quick. Should be in most any decent book store or
at:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0553293168/qid=944866625/sr=1-15/103-0645596-5734228
But in those sorts of books there is always some redeeming quality about
the hero, though only the heroine seems able to find it... and sometimes
even she has trouble...
> An advantage of IF over static fiction is that a a player's choices
> could reflect the timbre with which the romance played out. There are
> various sub-genres in the field, reflecting the amount of sexual
> contact, for example, among other things, and the player's choices
could
> affect whether the story was a dark, serious tale of mending broken
> hearts or a lighthearted romp through a new adventure, and so on.
I imagine that carrying on two opposite levels like that in a single
game would be rather difficult to do well. Like writing two games in
one.
> No matter how well done, though, I don't suspect such a work would get
> raves here from most, because I don't think there's a lot of sympathy
> for or interest in the genre (in raif).
Thanks for the vote of confidence...
Kathleen - who feels exactly that way about college in-joke games :)
--
-- Excuse me while I dance a little jig of despair.
John W. Kennedy
> I found Plundered Hearts by Infocom a very nice game. The impression I
> got from miscellaneous sources before playing, was that it wasn't a great
> game. I guess most players were male and expecting grues lurking in
> the shadow while they were off to save the princess. :-)
It wasn't my cup of tea as fiction, but a perfectly good game -- I would
have purchased a followup, had there been one. My biggest complaint was
about the truly bizarre notions the author had about how a flintlock
works -- but everybody gets that wrong, I suppose.
--
-John W. Kennedy
-rri...@ibm.net
Compact is becoming contract
Man only earns and pays. -- Charles Williams
Stuart Barrow
On Fri, 10 Dec 1999, Quentin.D.Thompson wrote:
[snip]
> But if romance _on its own_ won't work, why not
> romance + another genre? Combined with, say, mystery, adventure or (best of
> all) intrigue? I still think the genre would work. It'd just be tougher to
> write a good romance game than, say, an ADVENT clone. Or is the answer
> _greater_ player freedom, with more than one way of reaching the "optimal"
> ending? (I-0 for example...) It'd require some effort on the part of the game
> author, but that's far from saying it's impossible.
The first thing that came to mind when you said this was "Jigsaw" -
there's a rather cute and deftly handled romantic subplot running through
that one. It's far from the central point of the game, and I guess it's
really only there for colour, preventing "Black" from being a
stereotypical, ahem, Black Hat. It only really comes into the fore in a
couple of places, and here I start with some mild Jigsaw Spoilers:
For example:
Initially, Black is described as an intriguing stranger as a hook to get
the protagonist out and exploring.
I guess the solution to the Abbey Road section is the most obvious
"intrusion" (for want of a better word) of the romantic aspects of the
game - I thought this was one of the best bits of the game!
The end of the game, of course, sees Black and White together, which
despite everything doesn't come across as forced.
The romantic subplot in Jigsaw works, I think, because of subtle
linguistic cues: Black is described as interesting and enigmatic rather
than flat-out sexy, and is set up in a romantic light early in the game.
The player is, in a way, forced to share the protagonists feelings, but
not in a sledgehammer kind of way.
I think, anyway.
(By the way, did anyone else find themselves mentally swapping genders
through Jigsaw, or was that just me?)
> - Quentin D. Thompson
> (whose current project includes a parody of one of the Romance Plots)
Sounds cool. I'm almost inspired to get to work on a romance game myself.
Crossed with Lovecraftian horror. Possibly. Except that it's been done,
almost.
Stu.
Graham Nelson
<URL:mailto:jdb...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> But wait! Thanks to a random event and the sister’s meddling,
> the two again meet. And this time, it’s for good.
Why do none of the girls I know have sisters?
--
Graham Nelson | gra...@gnelson.demon.co.uk | Oxford, United Kingdom
Stuart Barrow
On Fri, 10 Dec 1999, J.D. Berry wrote:
> Back in my soc.singles days, men would post various
> questions about understanding women (gfl ;-D). "I've done all these
> things women supposedly like, but I'm still not getting anywhere."
> Even before Comp 99 it seemed that chix did indeed dig jerks.
>
> "OK, I'm dressed to kill." <no success>
> "OK, I'm a good listener." <no success other than an LJBF>
> "OK, I'm self directed." <no success other than an Obie>
> ad nauseum...
I have to ask. LJBF? Obie? I suspect that I know the meaning but not
the words. :)
> BTW, it DID happen when I least expected it. Bastards! :-)
Trick is never to expect it. :)
Mary J Mcmenomy
: > No matter how well done, though, I don't suspect such a work would get
: > raves here from most, because I don't think there's a lot of sympathy
: > for or interest in the genre (in raif).
: Thanks for the vote of confidence...
There are some of us out here who are interested. :)
-- Mary McMenomy
Emily Short
----------
In article <ant102058345M+4%@gnelson.demon.co.uk>, Graham Nelson
<gra...@gnelson.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <82ovjs$ego$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, J.D. Berry
><URL:mailto:jdb...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>> But wait! Thanks to a random event and the sister’s meddling,
>> the two again meet. And this time, it’s for good.
>
>Why do none of the girls I know have sisters?
On the flip side, my sister has never been any use whatever in this respect.
I wonder whether I should sue for a replacement?
ES
Emily Short
----------
In article <Pine.GSO.4.10.991210...@chem.ufl.edu>, Stuart
Barrow <bar...@chem.ufl.edu> wrote:
<JIGSAW SPOILERS BELOW>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>(By the way, did anyone else find themselves mentally swapping genders
>through Jigsaw, or was that just me?)
Yes. Curiously. I found that the romance element "worked" (I was
captivated and entertained by it) but my perception of the genders of Black
and White flipped back and forth, or was simply indeterminate. I realize
that sounds deeply odd for a romance, but I have no special objection to
playing male characters, so it didn't bother me.
ES
Adam Cadre
> I found that the romance element "worked" (I was captivated and
> entertained by it) but my perception of the genders of Black and
> White flipped back and forth, or was simply indeterminate.
Oddly, while I also had my perception of Black and White's sexes
change from scene to scene, they were always a gay couple to me.
Sometimes White was Lance Menthe and Black was Eric Roberts, and
sometimes White was Mary Page Keller and Black was Shirley Manson,
but I could never read them as being different sexes.
-----
Adam Cadre, Sammamish, WA
http://adamcadre.ac
Emily Short
----------
In article <3851e20d...@news.nu-world.com>, l...@nu-world.com (Lelah
Conrad) wrote:
>On Fri, 10 Dec 1999 17:10:51 -0700, "Emily Short"
><ems...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>>On the flip side, my sister has never been any use whatever in this
>>respect. I wonder whether I should sue for a replacement?
>
>
>...and I of course suffer from an excess of sisters, seven to be
>exact, would you like to borrow one?
Oooh. That has "series" written all over it. Eight books at one a month.
You need a stern matriarch, and an irrepressible matchmaker figure (maybe an
old nurse). The rambling old house where the girls grew up... the boy next
door marries one of the sisters...
Maybe I'm just having flashbacks to _Little Women_. Thanks for the kind
offer, but I'll be keeping my sister after all.
ES
Jonathan Allen
Ok, one way you could put more depth into the story, and make interacting
with the NPC's a bit more interesting is to use a photopia style interactive
model (modified of course so you don't keep having to say that irksome "talk
to" to continue the conversation).
instead of:
| >KISS ALICE PASSIONATELY
| >KISS ALICE CONSERVATIVELY
| >FRENCH-KISS ALICE.
| >ALICE, SUBMIT TO ME.
|
| Bleah. This kind of thing hardly inspires the imagination, as much as it
is
He he he. That's romance for you?
(courtesy of "Don Rae" and "Preben Randhol")
You actually get a chunk of dialog with each response down a branching
conversation path. The author gets to show off his dialog and scriptwriting
skill, as well as provide more opportunities for the characters to "get back
together" after the player has been lead by the nose into screwing things
up.
Also, if you can keep the player interested in continuing the current
conversation chain they're less likely to begin wielding mashed potatoes.
I think you could do some really interesting things with this. You'd simply
have to script all the possible "encounters" fairly thoroughly.
-Dr. J
</DELURK>
"Quentin.D.Thompson" <stup...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:82pmhk$vvo$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> Well, I have to agree with Jim when he lists the cliched and
fate-dependent
> Standard Romance Plots, and shows why they won't make good I-F. (In fact,
I
> feel the problem is not that they won't make I-F, but that they'll make
for
> terribly, terribly linear I-F, with more of the "one slip and you're
through"
> element than your average puzzle-fest. And that's going to be very
> frustrating to the player.) But if romance _on its own_ won't work, why
not
> romance + another genre? Combined with, say, mystery, adventure or (best
of
> all) intrigue? I still think the genre would work. It'd just be tougher to
> write a good romance game than, say, an ADVENT clone. Or is the answer
> _greater_ player freedom, with more than one way of reaching the "optimal"
> ending? (I-0 for example...) It'd require some effort on the part of the
game
> author, but that's far from saying it's impossible.
>
> - Quentin D. Thompson
>
> (whose current project includes a parody of one of the Romance Plots)
>
>
Adam J. Thornton
Quentin.D.Thompson <stup...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>[By the way: FRENCH-KISS is a guess the verb. No can do.]
> GIVE ALICE TONGUE
Adam
--
ad...@princeton.edu
"My eyes say their prayers to her / Sailors ring her bell / Like a moth
mistakes a light bulb / For the moon and goes to hell." -- Tom Waits
okbl...@my-deja.com
> "Ravished" by Amanda Quick. Should be in most any decent book store or
OK.
> But in those sorts of books there is always some redeeming quality
about
> the hero, though only the heroine seems able to find it... and
sometimes
> even she has trouble...
True.
> I imagine that carrying on two opposite levels like that in a single
> game would be rather difficult to do well. Like writing two games in
> one.
Sure would be. But we're carrying on in the theoretical at the moment.
Point is: Novelists do fine with one timbre, one plot, one heroine, and
they have by-and-large done fine with it.
Either the reader is willing to go along, or she's not. Simple as that.
There's no need--no chance, really--that any single romance is going to
appeal to everyone. Novelists don't beat themselves up over it: They
know *their* audience and write accordingly.
So why should an IF author have to appeal to people who, in essence,
aren't really going to like it no matter what?
> Thanks for the vote of confidence...
It has nothing to do with confidence. For the record, I'm eagerly
awaiting your magnum opus. :-)
But just as Robb Sherwin instantly selected his audience by virtue of
"Chix Digs Jerks"'s genre (splatterpunk), you've selected yours.
There's nothing wrong with that, it just is. The larger part of your
audience is probably outside raif, or even rgif.
The other side of that coin is the community could gain new members from
a pool who had previously only thought of IF in terms of cave crawls and
busywork. (No pressure.)
> Kathleen - who feels exactly that way about college in-joke games :)
Or, for some, traditional fantasy games, dragon games, Delusions-type
paranoia games, sci-fi, etc. etc. etc.
--
[ok]
Lelah Conrad
>.
> I wonder whether I should sue for a replacement?
...and I of course suffer from an excess of sisters, seven to be
exact, would you like to borrow one?
Lelah
Robb Sherwin
<green_g...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>> No matter how well done, though, I don't suspect such a work would get
>> raves here from most, because I don't think there's a lot of sympathy
>> for or interest in the genre (in raif).
For what it's worth, I think a new, well-done romance IF game would be
solid and extremely fresh. It would be virtually impossible to do one
without strong characterization and as I get older I find such
features to be the best part about video-gaming.
(An aside: That's why the recently released first-person shooter
Kingpin was such a cruel tease. We were told that you can develop a
gang chock-full of hit-men, rogues and trigger-happy psychos. But
playing it revealed that they were just a bunch of personality-devoid
bots. No one to get attached to. Awful.)
In a game I can accept not being attracted / into / emotionally
interested in who the player character is -- so long as that PC is
well-defined, fun and has magnetism. Then you can seperate yourself.
Like, "OK, the main character is into this boy / girl. I'm not, but
I'll treat this like a role-playing game and have fun."
The late Infocom game "The Circuit's Edge" was adapted from a trilogy
of novels. So I knew the character (named Marid) I was playing in the
game pretty well. So while I -- the player -- may think, "I would
totally just shoot this girl with the needle gun. Marid's too good for
her" I can suspend my personal feelings and play the game from Marid's
point of view which is different from mine. And it works.
(I-0 was like that as well. Playing it, I would think, "OK, my take on
Tracy is that she wouldn't give this dude the time of day. Who else
wants some?" and so forth. )
If a text adventure has strong, interesting characters then in my
opinion genre -- even a genre I would avoid in a straight piece of
fiction -- melts away. It's a bit like how only Zork Zero could get me
to play that stupid peg game. =)
-- Robb
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Robb Sherwin, Fort Collins CO
Reviews From Trotting Krips: http://ifiction.tsx.org
Knight Orc Home Page: www.geocities.com/~knightorc
Adam Atkinson
>> "OK, I'm dressed to kill." <no success>
>> "OK, I'm a good listener." <no success other than an LJBF>
>> "OK, I'm self directed." <no success other than an Obie>
>> ad nauseum...
>I have to ask. LJBF? Obie? I suspect that I know the meaning but not
>the words. :)
"LJBF" must be "Let's Just Be Friends". I have no idea what "Obie"
means. "Oh, behave!" or "Obsessive", or something?
--
Adam Atkinson (gh...@mistral.co.uk)
Hello. My name is Inigo Montoya. You killed my father. Prepare to die.
Quentin.D.Thompson
"Emily Short" <ems...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
> ----------
> In article <3851e20d...@news.nu-world.com>, l...@nu-world.com (Lelah
> Conrad) wrote:
>
> ><ems...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> >
> >>On the flip side, my sister has never been any use whatever in this
> >
> >
> >...and I of course suffer from an excess of sisters, seven to be
> >exact, would you like to borrow one?
>
> You need a stern matriarch, and an irrepressible matchmaker figure (maybe an
> old nurse). The rambling old house where the girls grew up... the boy next
> door marries one of the sisters...
>
> Maybe I'm just having flashbacks to _Little Women_. Thanks for the kind
> offer, but I'll be keeping my sister after all.
Actually, if a few of them were already "settled", and some a little on the
younger side, it'd make an interesting concept (re: the corny 30s movie,
"Meet Me In St. Louis"). Coding the NPCs would be torture, though. (I'm
having memories of _Four In One_ now.) :-) -- Quentin.D.Thompson. [The 'D' is
a variable.] Lord High Executioner Of Bleagh (Formerly A Cheap Coder)
Graham Nelson
Stuart Barrow <URL:mailto:bar...@chem.ufl.edu> wrote:
> I guess the solution to the Abbey Road section is the most obvious
> "intrusion" (for want of a better word) of the romantic aspects of the
> game - I thought this was one of the best bits of the game!
Lots of people hated this bit, to judge from my email at the time.
But it's quite germane to the current discussion, because I was
deliberately going for a Hollywood-romance cliche -- the scene,
halfway through a romantic film, where the couple-to-be are
obliged for various complicated reasons to pretend to the world
(or at a dinner party, or while robbing a bank, or whatever)
that they are already married. With hilarious consequences.
Joe Mason
>> I'd like to read "He looked like Marty Feldman--the way Marty looked
>> right now, ten years after his death--and had the manners of Homer
>> Simpson, but she had this sudden urge to kiss him.")
>
>"Ravished" by Amanda Quick. Should be in most any decent book store or
Or, if you'd like to try a "romance novel" without actually having to read a
romance novel, _A Civil Campaign_ by Lois McMaster Bujold.
Joe
J.D. Berry
Stuart Barrow <bar...@chem.ufl.edu> wrote:
>
>
> I have to ask. LJBF? Obie? I suspect that I know the meaning but
> not the words. :)
>
LJBF -- Let's Just Be Friends. A euphemism for "I'm not attracted to
you." It can connote "and I never want to see you again" or "but you're
a good pal." Either way, it's not what you want to hear as a man.
Obie -- A Village Voice, Off Broadway award. One can pretty much use
any award as a "minor" token of limited success. Check the Simpson's.
Jim
Bonnie Montgomery
Bonnie
(writing telegraphically, baby at breast)
In article <82s3os$f3t$1...@netnews.upenn.edu>, mcme...@mail2.sas.upenn.edu
(Mary J Mcmenomy) wrote:
> Kathleen M. Fischer (green_g...@my-deja.com) wrote:
>
> : > No matter how well done, though, I don't suspect such a work would get
> : > raves here from most, because I don't think there's a lot of sympathy
> : > for or interest in the genre (in raif).
>
> : Thanks for the vote of confidence...
>
Graham Nelson
> >...and I of course suffer from an excess of sisters, seven to be
> >exact, would you like to borrow one?
>
> Oooh. That has "series" written all over it. Eight books at one a month.
> You need a stern matriarch, and an irrepressible matchmaker figure (maybe an
> old nurse). The rambling old house where the girls grew up... the boy next
> door marries one of the sisters...
Somehow, the IF version of "Seven Brides for Seven Brothers"
doesn't really appeal... Perhaps "Oklahoma!" or "The Sound of
Music"?
Emily Short
----------
In article <ant1110370b0M+4%@gnelson.demon.co.uk>, Graham Nelson
<gra...@gnelson.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>Somehow, the IF version of "Seven Brides for Seven Brothers"
>doesn't really appeal... Perhaps "Oklahoma!" or "The Sound of
>Music"?
----------
In article <82t7g4$dil$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, Quentin.D.Thompson
<stup...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>Actually, if a few of them were already "settled", and some a little on the
>younger side, it'd make an interesting concept (re: the corny 30s movie,
>"Meet Me In St. Louis")
Ah, the I-F musical. Now there's an underexplored genre. Some scenes I
would like to see:
*****
Professor Higgins' Study
You are uncomfortably seated at a high desk. Before you are a mirror and a
candle.
>I
You are holding a piece of paper with writing on it.
>READ PAPER
"The rain in Spain stays mainly in the plain." Honestly, if you've read it
once, you've read it a thousand times...
*****
Baker's House
An extremely cozy room. Heat and a smell of baking loaves come from the
oven. You lick your lips in anticipation.
The baker's wife is here, wishing she had a baby.
The baker is here. He is holding the hair as yellow as corn.
>I
You are carrying the basket you were taking to Grandmother's house. It
contains some wine.
>TAKE BREAD
Sometimes the things you most wish for are not to be touched.
*****
Fantine's Deathbed
A plainly furnished room, dense with the smell of sickness. Fantine lies
limply on the bed. She looks even more pale than she did yesterday.
There is a jug of water on a washstand here.
>TAKE JUG
Taken.
>WASH FANTINE
How unseemly! Better to let one of the women servants do that.
>SING
You burst into majestic song! In a few manly words, you assure Fantine that
Cosette will be well cared-for.
[You may now play Track 3 of your game CD.]
[Your score has just gone up by 15 points!]
*****
ES
Mary J Mcmenomy
: How does _Firebird_ stack up as a romance, those of you who have played it?
I would say -- without meaning any insult to the game -- that it doesn't.
Indeed, I didn't get the sense that romance, per se, was even what it was
aiming at. Romance requires some kind of emotional tension and suspense
(which is why I think it worked in Jigsaw -- you are forced to work at
cross-purposes to Black.). The genre of fairy tale doesn't really leave
itself open to that. (Usually. I suppose Beauty and the Beast might be
an exception.) I know there have been modern rewrites of various fairy
tales, eg. Cinderella, which belong to the romance genre, but they all
have to expand pretty heavily on the bare-bones story in order to get that
effect.
Just my take. I did like "Firebird" -- I just didn't see it in that light.
-- Mary
Graham Nelson
<URL:mailto:ems...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> Professor Higgins' Study
> You are uncomfortably seated at a high desk. Before you are a mirror and a
> candle.
>
> >I
> You are holding a piece of paper with writing on it.
>
> >READ PAPER
> "The rain in Spain stays mainly in the plain." Honestly, if you've read it
> once, you've read it a thousand times...
It is thundering outside and the children are frightened.
> LOOK INSIDE CUPBOARD
You can see bright copper kettles, warm woollen mittens,
whiskers on kittens and brown paper parcels all wrapped
up with string.
Kathleen M. Fischer
(Mary J Mcmenomy) wrote:> Kathleen M. Fischer (green_g...@my-deja.com)
wrote:> > : > No matter how well done, though, I don't suspect such a work >
would get> : > raves here from most, because I don't think there's a lot of >
sympathy> : > for or interest in the genre (in raif).> > : Thanks for the
vote of confidence...> > There are some of us out here who are interested.
minor problem of how to write "serious"genre romance (as opposed to parodies
and farces) in IF. How do you code interactive scenes that aren't cut-scenes
that relatively accurately portray two people "falling in love" without
resorting to telling the player what they are feeling at the time. Or is the
nature of a romantic IF that it is OK to tell the player that they are
attracted to tall dark and handsome. That their pulse quickens when he walks
into the room. That his kiss sends tingles down your spine?Kathleen (heading
for a cold shower)-- -- Excuse me while I dance a little jig of despair.
Lelah Conrad
wrote:
>How does _Firebird_ stack up as a romance, those of you who have played it?
Not a romance, imho. Enjoyed the game -- a lovely, quest-type fairy
tale. But to me the bit of romance was more incidental than
essential.
Lelah
okbl...@my-deja.com
jcm...@uwaterloo.ca (Joe Mason) wrote:
> Or, if you'd like to try a "romance novel" without actually having to
read a
> romance novel, _A Civil Campaign_ by Lois McMaster Bujold.
I have no problem reading romance novels whatsoever, unless I consider
them degraded/degrading. In fact, the first one I read was so bad in
that regard, I didn't read another for years--but I don't know if the
degradation was a characteristic of that "line" or if the book itself
was just a fluke.
Anyway, there are far, far worse genres.
--
[ok]
okbl...@my-deja.com
Quentin.D.Thompson <stup...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> Actually, if a few of them were already "settled", and some a little
on the
> younger side, it'd make an interesting concept (re: the corny 30s
movie,
(I'm
> having memories of _Four In One_ now.) :-) -- Quentin.D.Thompson. [The
'D' is
> a variable.] Lord High Executioner Of Bleagh (Formerly A Cheap Coder)
'40s. 1994, to be precise.
The interesting thing about that is that it was corny at the time, and
we're probably able to look at it with less irony today than savvy
moviegoers of the '40s did.
okbl...@my-deja.com
Quentin.D.Thompson <stup...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>>'40s. 1994, to be precise.
!@*(#&!@(*# 1944! 1944!
Nothing worse than screwing up your own pedantry.
Adam Atkinson
The corn is as high as an elephant's eye.
--
Adam Atkinson (gh...@mistral.co.uk)
Poor Impulse Control
Mary J Mcmenomy
: minor problem of how to write "serious"genre romance (as opposed to parodies
: and farces) in IF. How do you code interactive scenes that aren't cut-scenes
: that relatively accurately portray two people "falling in love" without
: resorting to telling the player what they are feeling at the time. Or is the
: nature of a romantic IF that it is OK to tell the player that they are
: attracted to tall dark and handsome. That their pulse quickens when he walks
: into the room. That his kiss sends tingles down your spine?Kathleen (heading
: for a cold shower)--
I think it's possible to do these things with some subtlety (cf. Em
Short's example of lustful description in _Gaudy Night_.) It's possible
to create at least some of the romantic effect just by forcing the PC to
spend more time "noticing" Him than anything else -- more description
when he enters the room, heightened awareness of where he is and what
he's doing, a tendency to exchange glances with him when one of the other
NPCs does something stupid/annoying, etc.
-- Mary
Gene Wirchenko
>In article <82s3os$f3t$1...@netnews.upenn.edu>, mcme...@mail2.sas.upenn.edu
>(Mary J Mcmenomy) wrote:> Kathleen M. Fischer (green_g...@my-deja.com)
>wrote:> > : > No matter how well done, though, I don't suspect such a work >
>would get> : > raves here from most, because I don't think there's a lot of >
>sympathy> : > for or interest in the genre (in raif).> > : Thanks for the
>vote of confidence...> > There are some of us out here who are interested.
>:) Thanks for the vote of confidence! :)Of course, that still leaves the
>minor problem of how to write "serious"genre romance (as opposed to parodies
>and farces) in IF. How do you code interactive scenes that aren't cut-scenes
>that relatively accurately portray two people "falling in love" without
>resorting to telling the player what they are feeling at the time. Or is the
>nature of a romantic IF that it is OK to tell the player that they are
>attracted to tall dark and handsome. That their pulse quickens when he walks
>into the room. That his kiss sends tingles down your spine?Kathleen (heading
>for a cold shower)-- -- Excuse me while I dance a little jig of despair.
And the real indication that TD&H is "interesting":
Tom walks into the room. You have a sudden urge to take a cold
shower.
Sincerely,
Gene Wirchenko
Computerese Irregular Verb Conjugation:
I have preferences.
You have biases.
He/She has prejudices.
Jason Thibeault
>expect it," applies. So if you're playing a romance game, you're
>EXPECTING it! You're also getting a laundry list of features you
>supposedly like. And now that I've told you that you like them, it is
>human nature to contradict the list. "I will not be confined so."
>"I don't *always* like that."
>
>I think the author of an IF romance would have to be subtle. Well,
>no kidding? But I mean more than the standard "make 'em *think*
>they have a choice." advice. The player can't be expecting what
>she thinks she is. As in books, the protagonist isn't aware of
>what is supposed to happen. She knows merely enough that she wants
>to continue.
So here's a plausible solution that would add a great deal of replay
value to the game -- try programming responses to all the various
actions that the player could take, either in a one-move-story type
game (i.e. Aisle?) or through multiple endings depending on certain
actions taken at crux points during the story. This last one I'm
currently implementing in Project: Xerxes (which in fact is NOT a
romance), but it seems the concept would probably lend better to the
romance genre than the sci-fi genre as I'm currently attempting. Bah
well, even my own epiphanies will not sway me from my mark!
Jason
------------------------------------------
Jason Thibeault
3rd year BA(Eng)
Acadia University
http://www.crosswinds.net/~ragnaroknemo/
------------------------------------------
Quentin.D.Thompson
Graham Nelson <gra...@gnelson.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <82ugs4$hmn$1...@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net>, Emily Short
> <URL:mailto:ems...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> > Professor Higgins' Study
> > You are uncomfortably seated at a high desk. Before you are a mirror and a
> > candle.
> >
> > >I
> > You are holding a piece of paper with writing on it.
> >
> > >READ PAPER
> > "The rain in Spain stays mainly in the plain." Honestly, if you've read it
> > once, you've read it a thousand times...
>
> It is thundering outside and the children are frightened.
>
> > LOOK INSIDE CUPBOARD
> You can see bright copper kettles, warm woollen mittens,
> whiskers on kittens and brown paper parcels all wrapped
> up with string.
You untie the parcel, revealing some schnitzel with noodles. Another one of
your favourite things.
[Your score has just gone up by one point.]
--
Quentin.D.Thompson. [The 'D' is a variable.]
Lord High Executioner Of Bleagh
(Formerly A Cheap Coder)
Bert Byfield -- no mail
>: resorting to telling the player what they are feeling at the time. Or is the
>: nature of a romantic IF that it is OK to tell the player that they are
>: attracted to tall dark and handsome. That their pulse quickens when he
>walks
>: into the room. That his kiss sends tingles down your spine?Kathleen
>(heading for a cold shower)--
Regular books tell the reader what they (the protagonist) are feeling. Then
YES, lead the user's feelings. Users/Readers might even LIKE being led into an
appreciation of a relationship they wouldn't normally care for.
**********************************************
Bert Byfield
http://www.caravelabooks.com (or amazon.com)
Now in print: Rage of the Bear and Scream of the Eagle
In Preparation: Last Stand at Perekop
********************************************
Magnus Olsson
Bert Byfield -- no mail <bbyf...@aol.com-nomail> wrote:
>>: that relatively accurately portray two people "falling in love" without
>>: resorting to telling the player what they are feeling at the time. Or is the
>>: nature of a romantic IF that it is OK to tell the player that they are
>>: attracted to tall dark and handsome. That their pulse quickens when he
>>walks
>>: into the room. That his kiss sends tingles down your spine?Kathleen
>>(heading for a cold shower)--
>
>Regular books tell the reader what they (the protagonist) are feeling.
But regular books aren't IF. What works in "static" fiction may fail
miserably in IF, and vice versa.
>Then
>YES, lead the user's feelings. Users/Readers might even LIKE being led into an
>appreciation of a relationship they wouldn't normally care for.
The problem with romantic IF is, perhaps, how do you do this with subtle
feelings like love? I'd say it's easier to write IF where the player
is led into hating an NPC than itno loving one.
--
Magnus Olsson (m...@df.lth.se, zeb...@pobox.com)
------ http://www.pobox.com/~zebulon ------
Bert Byfield -- no mail
>But regular books aren't IF. What works in "static" fiction may fail
>miserably in IF, and vice versa.
Anything might fail. But what works in regular books can also work in IF. Words
are words, dreams are dreams.
>>YES, lead the user's feelings. Users/Readers might even LIKE being led into
>an appreciation of a relationship they wouldn't normally care for.
>The problem with romantic IF is, perhaps, how do you do this with subtle
>feelings like love? I'd say it's easier to write IF where the player
>is led into hating an NPC than itno loving one.
Present something lovable and the reader will love it. Present something
hateful and the reader will hate it. WE the creators are in charge here! ;-)
Andrew Plotkin
> Bert Byfield -- no mail wrote:
>>
>> Regular books tell the reader what they (the protagonist) are feeling.
>
> to pretend that they are -- not in any of the books I've read, anyway.
> The protagonist is written about in the first or third person, not
> the second person.
>
> (There are, I gather, a few works around where this is not true,
> but they are a very small minority.)
We've been around this a few times before, but nonetheless:
I've found that when reading those few second-person works, the experience
of identification with the protagonist really isn't much different. The
author tells me how the character is feeling, whether the character is
"me" or "you" or "him".
And when I play IF that tells me how I'm feeling, it's *still* the same
experience.
--Z
"And Aholibamah bare Jeush, and Jaalam, and Korah: these were the
borogoves..."
Kathleen M. Fischer
bbyf...@aol.com-nomail (Bert Byfield -- no mail) wrote:
> >>Regular books tell the reader what they (the protagonist) are
feeling.
>
> >miserably in IF, and vice versa.
>
> Anything might fail. But what works in regular books can also work in
> IF. Words are words, dreams are dreams.
But success/failure will hinge on the implementation of those words and
dreams. Given the differences in the mediums, is not unreasonable to
assume that some methods of expression that are quite successful in a
book are beyond the reach of (or at least a bad idea for) interactive
fiction.
I'm still a fence sitter when it comes to telling the player what they
are feeling. My gut feeling is that it's bad form. My english teachers
did a fine job of drilling into my head that it's better to show than to
tell. But even that has problems as the player is suppose to be in
control of what the PC is doing and you can't very well wrench that away
just to show a romantic scene.
So if you can't tell the player they're in love ("You heart overflows
with love as TD&H strides into the room"), and you can't rip control
from the player to show the love ("As TD&H enters the field of daisies
you run to meet him, flinging your arms around his neck and showering
him with kisses"), then where does that leave author?
Dealing with THROW POTATOES AT TD&H.
Kathleen
(TD&H = Tall Dark & Handsome)
--
-- Excuse me while I dance a little jig of despair.
Greg Ewing
>
> Regular books tell the reader what they (the protagonist) are feeling.
But the reader of the book isn't the protagonist, and isn't expected
to pretend that they are -- not in any of the books I've read, anyway.
The protagonist is written about in the first or third person, not
the second person.
(There are, I gather, a few works around where this is not true,
but they are a very small minority.)
Greg
Bert Byfield -- no mail
>But the reader of the book isn't the protagonist, and isn't expected
>to pretend that they are -- not in any of the books I've read, anyway.
>The protagonist is written about in the first or third person, not
>the second person.
A book reader is ALWAYS the protagonist, in their imagination. They ARE
expected to pretend that they are. The third person is just a literary device.
When we read *Tarzan* we DO swing through the trees on the vines.
Bert Byfield -- no mail
>But success/failure will hinge on the implementation of those words and
>dreams. Given the differences in the mediums, is not unreasonable to
>assume that some methods of expression that are quite successful in a
>book are beyond the reach of (or at least a bad idea for) interactive
>fiction.
gimme a break
>I'm still a fence sitter when it comes to telling the player what they
>are feeling. My gut feeling is that it's bad form. My english teachers
Go ahead. Tell them. They will love it. Well, enough of them to matter.
>did a fine job of drilling into my head that it's better to show than to
>tell. But even that has problems as the player is suppose to be in
Exactly. Showing *is* telling, just in a different way.
>control of what the PC is doing and you can't very well wrench that away
>just to show a romantic scene.
Yes you can! The author is the BOSS!
>So if you can't tell the player they're in love ("You heart overflows
Yes you can! This is just like in real life, where we often find ourselves in
love with idiots and barracudas and so on. We are suddenly in this weird
situation that we would never have logically put ourselves in, and we are stuck
with it. So IF can do the same thing to people, just with more benevolence than
the poor victims have in real life from Fate.
>with love as TD&H strides into the room"), and you can't rip control
>from the player to show the love ("As TD&H enters the field of daisies
>you run to meet him, flinging your arms around his neck and showering
>him with kisses"), then where does that leave author?
In charge!
>-- Excuse me while I dance a little jig of despair.
Stop that, and dance with me the dance of touch and love and committed love...
;-)
Kevin Lighton
>>> Regular books tell the reader what they (the protagonist) are feeling.
>>But the reader of the book isn't the protagonist, and isn't expected
>>to pretend that they are -- not in any of the books I've read, anyway.
>>The protagonist is written about in the first or third person, not
>>the second person.
> A book reader is ALWAYS the protagonist, in their imagination.
No, they IDENTIFY with the protagonist. Not quite the same. The protagonist
will do things that the reader probably wouldn't do in the same situation
more than once. If the book is written well, the character's actions will
make sense to the reader.
> They ARE
> expected to pretend that they are.
They're expected to put themselves in the characters' shoes (some books have
multiple viewpoints) and frequently the characters' heads, not become the
character.
> The third person is just a literary device.
For setting how much information the reader has available. It can be used to
keep the reader out of any character's head, and done so successfully.
> When we read *Tarzan* we DO swing through the trees on the vines.
Not advisable. If you're swinging through trees while reading, you're likely
to crash into a tree ^_^.
Ja, mata
--
Kevin Lighton shin...@operamail.com (preferred to the From: address)
http://members.tripod.com/~shinma_kl/main.html
"Townsfolk can get downright touchy over the occasional earth-elemental in
the scullery. Can't imagine why..." Quenten _Winds of Fate_
Kevin Lighton
> >>Regular books tell the reader what they (the protagonist) are feeling.
>>But success/failure will hinge on the implementation of those words and
>>dreams. Given the differences in the mediums, is not unreasonable to
>>assume that some methods of expression that are quite successful in a
>>book are beyond the reach of (or at least a bad idea for) interactive
>>fiction.
> gimme a break
What problem do you have with this statement? Books and IF are related media,
but techniques that work in one don't necessarily work in the other, any more
than techniques in, say, painting and sculpture would.
>>I'm still a fence sitter when it comes to telling the player what they
>>are feeling. My gut feeling is that it's bad form.
> Go ahead. Tell them. They will love it. Well, enough of them to matter.
Telling someone what they're supposed to be feeling isn't going to work all
that well. Similar techniques in fiction tend not to work as well, either
(Just saying that a character is angry at another character doesn't have the
same impact as having the angry character do something that makes it clear
that they are angry).
>> My english teachers
>>did a fine job of drilling into my head that it's better to show than to
>>tell.
> Exactly. Showing *is* telling, just in a different way.
Not quite the same thing. Done correctly, showing builds more vivid images for
the reader/player and lets them fill in more of the details of emotions
themselves than just telling them the character's emotional state.
>> But even that has problems as the player is suppose to be in
>>control of what the PC is doing and you can't very well wrench that away
>>just to show a romantic scene.
> Yes you can! The author is the BOSS!
And if the author takes too much control of the character who the player
is supposed to be in IF, the audience leaves in droves to either find a
game that makes a reasonable pretense of being interactive or to read a
book that doesn't pretend to give the reader any control of a character.
Look up some of the reviews of _A Moment of Hope_ for how people can react
to this.
>>So if you can't tell the player they're in love ("You heart overflows
>>with love as TD&H strides into the room"),
> Yes you can! This is just like in real life, where we often find ourselves in
> love with idiots and barracudas and so on. We are suddenly in this weird
> situation that we would never have logically put ourselves in, and we are
> stuck with it. So IF can do the same thing to people, just with more
> benevolence than the poor victims have in real life from Fate.
Never once in real life have I had someone tell me that I was in love with
someone I'm uninterested in and been able to force me to act as if I was in
love (or force me to feel any other emotion for someone that I don't actually
feel for them simply by saying I do, for that matter). This is, however,
effectively what "You heart overflows with love as TD&H strides into the room"
is doing to the player.
>> and you can't rip control
>>from the player to show the love ("As TD&H enters the field of daisies
>>you run to meet him, flinging your arms around his neck and showering
>>him with kisses"),
This one's even worse.
>> then where does that leave author?
The best I can come up with is to try to make the NPCs feelings towards the
PC reasonably clear and hope the PC follows one of the possible paths you
set out. (The form would seem to want several possible objects of affection
for the player to chase/try to attract. Of course, if done well enough, you
could make the target clear early in the game, and wind up in a poor ending
if the player avoids them (the opening of _Muse_, for example).)
> In charge!
Out of players in IF if they take away the PC too much.
Magnus Olsson
Bert Byfield -- no mail <bbyf...@aol.com-nomail> wrote:
>>>Regular books tell the reader what they (the protagonist) are feeling.
>
>>miserably in IF, and vice versa.
>
>Anything might fail. But what works in regular books can also work in IF. Words
>are words, dreams are dreams.
The keywords here are "might" and "can". My point was just that you can't
say "it works in books, so it will work in IF", because you're talking
different media.
>>>YES, lead the user's feelings. Users/Readers might even LIKE being led into
>>an appreciation of a relationship they wouldn't normally care for.
>
>>The problem with romantic IF is, perhaps, how do you do this with subtle
>>feelings like love? I'd say it's easier to write IF where the player
>>is led into hating an NPC than itno loving one.
>
>Present something lovable and the reader will love it. Present something
>hateful and the reader will hate it. WE the creators are in charge here! ;-)
Yeah, and the audience is mindlessly feeling what we tell it to :-).
Seriously, I think that you can present a despicable character and
make people hate it, and you can present a lovable character and make
people *like* it. But love, as in romantic love? Do you fall in love
with every lovable person you meet?
The problem is this: in a book, or a film, or a play, you're basically
asking the audience to identify with a protagonist. You tell them that
Alice is in love with Bernard, and if you're good enough at it they
identify with Alice and feel that her feelings are natural and that
they would feel the same if they were in her place.
But what many (but not all) IF authors are trying to do is to make the
player step into Alice's shoes and *become* Alice. And while the
player may accept to be told that "You're Alice, a tremendously
good-looking and charismatic accountant" (or whatever), they may not
accept to be told that "Oh, and you're also hopelessly in love with
the pathetic loser Bernard". In fact, they'll probably just say "Am
not!" and leave.
In static fiction: "Alice is this-or-that kind of person. She has these
feelings, which you may or may not agree with. Empathize with her for
a while."
In IF: "You are this-or-that kind of person. You have these feelings.
Act on them".
I'm not saying that this is impossible, just that it's more difficult.
Magnus Olsson
Kevin Lighton <lig...@monet.bestweb.net> wrote:
>Bert Byfield -- no mail <bbyf...@aol.com-nomail> wrote:
>
>For setting how much information the reader has available. It can be used to
>keep the reader out of any character's head, and done so successfully.
I'd advise Bert to check out a good "how-to-write" book on the difference
between the various forms of thir-person narrative.
>> When we read *Tarzan* we DO swing through the trees on the vines.
>
>Not advisable. If you're swinging through trees while reading, you're likely
>to crash into a tree ^_^.
:-)
Most important in this discussion is, I think, that in static fiction
you can expect the reader to identify with the protagonist even when
the protagonist does stupid things, or evil things, or things the
reader just never would do. (OK, there are limits).
But in IF, if you expect the player to rat on his best friend to gain
a favour from the police, you're up against difficulties of a totally
different order of magnitude than when you're expecting the reader of
a novel to continue to see things through the eyes of a protagonist who
does the same thing.
Mind you, I'm not saying that it's impossible. "Varicella" succeeded in
getting normally peaceful people to gleefully commit mass murder, and
be proud of their achievements...
Jason Thibeault
<stup...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>In article <ant112355313M+4%@gnelson.demon.co.uk>,
> Graham Nelson <gra...@gnelson.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> In article <82ugs4$hmn$1...@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net>, Emily Short
>> <URL:mailto:ems...@mindspring.com> wrote:
<snip>
>> > LOOK INSIDE CUPBOARD
>> You can see bright copper kettles, warm woollen mittens,
>> whiskers on kittens and brown paper parcels all wrapped
>> up with string.
>> UNTIE PARCEL
>
>You untie the parcel, revealing some schnitzel with noodles. Another one of
>your favourite things.
>
>[Your score has just gone up by one point.]
I like the musical, but umm...
<shudder>
... you keep your cats in the cupboard, and only care about the cats
enough to mention they have whiskers (or you keep a whisker collection
in your cupboards), and your schnitzel and noodles have to be wrapped
up in unmarked paper boxes.
I was half expecting another reference to things wrapped in plain
brown paper wrappers being one of your favorite things... but then,
since I just said it, am I not expounding on a self-fulfilling
prophecy?
Lucian Paul Smith
: In article <82qp4u$nls$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
: Quentin.D.Thompson <stup...@my-deja.com> wrote:
: >[By the way: FRENCH-KISS is a guess the verb. No can do.]
: > GIVE ALICE TONGUE
(First taking the tongue)
You are always self-posessed.
[alt:]
You have to be holding your tongue before you can give it to Alice.
-Lucian
okbl...@my-deja.com
m...@bartlet.df.lth.se (Magnus Olsson) wrote:
>
> Seriously, I think that you can present a despicable character and
> make people hate it, and you can present a lovable character and make
> people *like* it. But love, as in romantic love? Do you fall in love
> with every lovable person you meet?
Er, um, yes. (How embarrassing.)
--
[ok]
okbl...@my-deja.com
bbyf...@aol.com-nomail (Bert Byfield -- no mail) wrote:
>
ARE
> expected to pretend that they are. The third person is just a literary
device.
> When we read *Tarzan* we DO swing through the trees on the vines.
As someone who's read through all 20-odd _Tarzan_ books, I can honestly
say I never once pretended I was Tarzan. Not even a little bit.
In fact, I never have that reaction in a book, play, movie, TV show or
any other narrative experience. I usually feel affinity for the
protagonist and if the protagonist doesn't excite a certain degree of
empathy, the author(s) had better be making a damn good point. ("Being
John Malkovich" failed for me in that respect.)
But, no, I view narratives as an observer (or a technician), not as a
vicarious participant.
A role-playing game is something else altogether. Some IF players are
willing (or want) to be a clearly defined protagonist and others hate
it. Aye, there's the rub: The more clearly defined the protagonist is,
the less interactive the fiction can be. (That's kind of ironic, when
you think about it.)
Taking Tarzan as an example, you couldn't very well have Tarzan *flee*
from rescuing Jane and still have him be Tarzan, could you?
It isn't a given that the "reader" of a particular work of IF is going
to agree with the author's take on the story.
Jake Wildstrom
>It isn't a given that the "reader" of a particular work of IF is going
>to agree with the author's take on the story.
It _better_ be a given--if the reader takes a path the writer hasn't accounted
for, the story simply doesn't happen. The reader needs to be involved in a
situation of some sort, and the author needs to draw the reader into that
situation. You can "win" Jigsaw in record time by just hitting "z" a couple
of times. And who is to say the reader doesn't have this right, and what author
would not plan for this possibility? Consider inertia the "default" option and
work from there. The only way to avoid the possibility of non-activity being a
viable action is to drop them in the middle of an uncomfortable situation, as
in Spider and Web. At no point in the game is it advantageous (or sometimes
even possible) to opt not to get involved--bcause you already are.
+--First Church of Briantology--Order of the Holy Quaternion--+
| A mathematician is a device for turning coffee into |
| theorems. -Paul Erdos |
+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| Jake Wildstrom |
+-------------------------------------------------------------+
Edan Harel
: A role-playing game is something else altogether. Some IF players are
: willing (or want) to be a clearly defined protagonist and others hate
: it. Aye, there's the rub: The more clearly defined the protagonist is,
: the less interactive the fiction can be. (That's kind of ironic, when
: you think about it.)
Well, in a good, unpre-defined character adventure, the *player* would be
able to define the character for himself. If he starts taking everything
that isn't nailed down, the game (and npc's seeing him) should consider him
a theif. If he flees from danger, he should be considered a coward. If
he hits everyone, he should be considered aggressive, etc. And the game
should compensate for that be openning up new opportunities (in terms of
subplot, puzzles, puzzle solutions, etc) for the currently-being-defined
character. And perhaps close some others, though some leeway should be
given. You can't determine a characters personality in 5 moves, though you
might be able to get a vgue idea after they've finished half the game.
IMHO, of course.
: Taking Tarzan as an example, you couldn't very well have Tarzan *flee*
: from rescuing Jane and still have him be Tarzan, could you?
I disagree. While, certainly, it may seem out of character for so-and-so to
do something, erm, unchracteristic, sometimes it is those very awkward
actions which *define* the character. Who can forget the coward, who, when
the moment to take action comes, takes it regardless of the consequence. Or
the macho man who, when the time comes, turns out to be the coward. Of
course, the reader is expected to "act the part" and not try killing every
npc, or they will be scolded. But the NPC should be able to experiment
with his part, and the game should compensate for it. If Tarzan flees
from the burning tree house where jane is in, then perhaps the game should
put in some subplot about how his favorite monkey, blinky, was killed in
a fire, so fire terrifys him. Of course, in most (all?) cases, it would
be hard for the game to ascertain what the player is thinking of, but it
can at least try to make sense of the actions the game character is taking.
Jim Aikin
>
> I'm still a fence sitter when it comes to telling the player what they
> did a fine job of drilling into my head that it's better to show than to
> control of what the PC is doing and you can't very well wrench that away
> just to show a romantic scene.
>
> from the player to show the love ("As TD&H enters the field of daisies
> you run to meet him, flinging your arms around his neck and showering
There's a long tradition in conventional fiction in which the viewpoint
character (or PC, in our terms) is not the protagonist. The viewpoint
character might be the best friend, for example. This approach would
seem to address that particular difficulty.
--Jim Aikin
Jim Aikin
>
> In article <83c14i$omu$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,> > So... uh... what's the answer?
>
> In my ostensibly humble opinion, the answer is "don't". Now, what was
> the question? Oh, yeah, character development with the unwilling player.
>
> There's no reason for the author to kowtow to people who are hostile to
> the concept of the game. Not every game should be a deconstructionist
> joke, for example. And not every game should be winnable (cf.
> "Photopia").
As much fun as this discussion is from a brainstorming point of view, it
seems to me that the problem, as posed, is fundamentally insoluble.
Trying to solve it is trying to make a fish out of a bicycle (or
vice-versa). IF is not the same as CF (conventional fiction), and it is
specifically in the area of plot where it is most clearly not the same.
If you want to have control over what the protagonist does next, WRITE
CONVENTIONAL FICTION. There's a market for it, even. ;-) The challenge
of writing IF is precisely how to relinquish control over the
protagonist and still create a work that has form and meaning.
--Jim (yes, I've written CF) Aikin
Kathleen M. Fischer
okbl...@my-deja.com wrote:
> A role-playing game is something else altogether. Some IF players are
> willing (or want) to be a clearly defined protagonist and others hate
> it. Aye, there's the rub: The more clearly defined the protagonist
is,
> the less interactive the fiction can be. (That's kind of ironic, when
> you think about it.)
>
> from rescuing Jane and still have him be Tarzan, could you?
An excellent question. The problem of a player who refuses to make
Tarzan brave sounds exactly like the problem of a player who refuses to
have Mary Sue fall in love.
So... uh... what's the answer?
Do you punish them:
> LOOK
You see Jane about to be eaten by a lion.
> RUN AWAY
Grabbing the nearest vine you head off at top speed in the opposite
direction. Unfortunately, blinded by fear, you fail to see that tree...
*** YOU ARE DEAD ***
Or guilt trip them:
> RUN AWAY
You reach for the vine but at the last minute decide it just wouldn't be
Tarzan of you to flee the scene.
Or disallow it:
> RUN AWAY
There are no vines in that direction.
Or try to be clever:
> RUN AWAY
You head off in the opposite direction but discover that all vines lead
back to your current location.
I suppose you could go with the no-lose solution:
> RUN AWAY
You grab the nearest vine and head off in the opposite direction.
Unfortunately the vine is attached to weak branch that immediately
snaps, sending you plummeting to the forest floor where you land with a
loud thud. Luckily, the noise frightens away the lion.
Or... ???
Kathleen
--
-- Excuse me while I dance a little jig of despair.
okbl...@my-deja.com
wil...@mit.edu (Jake Wildstrom) wrote:
> In article <83bj0q$g5o$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, okblacke wrote:
> >It isn't a given that the "reader" of a particular work of IF is
> >going to agree with the author's take on the story.
>
> It _better_ be a given--if the reader takes a path the writer hasn't
> accounted for, the story simply doesn't happen.
More precisely, the reader CAN'T take a path the writer hasn't
accounted for. In fact, it's fundamental to IF that the reader can't.
(If the reader can do things the author hasn't specifically planned for,
you have a simulation, not IF.)
> The reader needs to be involved in a situation of some sort, and the
> author needs to draw the reader into that situation. You can "win"
> Jigsaw in record time by just hitting "z" a couple of times.
I'm not sure what your point is here.
If people approached IF more like they do books, there'd be less of an
issue. For instance, if you didn't like romance novels but you went out
and read one anyway, and then proceeded to bash it because it *was* a
romance novel, people could rightfully consider you a boor (and a bore).
And quite possibly an idiot.
But there is more of a sense that IF has to appeal to everyone. Can you
imagine a romance novelist saying, "Well, I really want to appeal to the
guys who are into adult IF with this one, so I'll make this romance
novel less a romance novel and more a one-handed affair"?
I think there are a lot of factors in this: The comp has become such a
focus that writing things that will appeal broadly to comp-players can
become an issue; And, perhaps more centrally, our numbers are small and
it can hurt to cut down an already, em, *intimate* audience.
But the desire for autonomy among IFers is pretty high and they will be
disappointed that they can't play "Muse" like "I-O" or "Curses" like
"Jacks or Better".
> And who is to say the reader doesn't have this right,
The author.
> and what author would not plan for this possibility?
An author who doesn't want to turn "Winter Wonderland" into "Chix Dig
Jerks"?
> Consider inertia the "default" option and work from there.
Inertia is not the same as resistance.
> The only way to avoid the possibility of non-activity
> being a viable action is to drop them in the middle of an
> uncomfortable situation, as in Spider and Web. At no point in the game
> is it advantageous (or sometimes even possible) to opt not to get
> involved--bcause you already are.
I wouldn't say "the only way". I just wouldn't. :-)
IFers are a strange breed. If you force them to move when they don't
want to, they'll resent you for it. If you don't force them and they
miss out, they'll resent you for that. It's that pesky "I".
--
[ok]
Quentin.D.Thompson
That's hardly portable.
[or, in AGT speak....]
Sorry, you can't do that...
Quentin.D.Thompson. [The 'D' is a variable.]
Lord High Executioner Of Bleagh
(Formerly A Cheap Coder)
Quentin.D.Thompson
Quentin.D.Thompson
b...@pobox.com (Bonnie Montgomery) wrote:
> How does _Firebird_ stack up as a romance, those of you who have played it?
>
This bit of the thread reminded me that I'd never played Firebird before, so
I gave it a shot - and finished it yesterday. I loved it! It's probably one
of the few 10s in my book (and while I hand out a lot of 8s, 10s are a rarity
on my scale.) It had everything: adventure, puzzles, humour, folklore, and -
since you mentioned it - romance. Romance was, shall we say, a secondary
factor. Firebird was a fabulous game, but I wouldn't classify it under
"romance".
--
Quentin.D.Thompson
Quentin.D.Thompson
okbl...@my-deja.com
In my ostensibly humble opinion, the answer is "don't". Now, what was
the question? Oh, yeah, character development with the unwilling player.
There's no reason for the author to kowtow to people who are hostile to
the concept of the game. Not every game should be a deconstructionist
joke, for example. And not every game should be winnable (cf.
"Photopia").
If you want to tell a story about Mary-who-falls-in-love and the player
simply refuses to pick any of the eligible bachelors (or if you've only
provided one) then I see two options off the bat.
1. There's the "So Far" trick, where you get the message "You've
completely missed the point of the game".
2. There's the "It's a Wonderful Life" option, where Mary ends up alone
and bitter because George was never born. (Less literally, the idea that
inaction has unpleasant consequences.)
But #2 is really just the "alternate ending". You could also have Mary
turn into an autonomous, modern and possibly lesbian woman. But you'd
then have to decide what "other" story you wanted to write, and you're
no longer writing your romance.
> Do you punish them:
>
> > LOOK
> You see Jane about to be eaten by a lion.
>
> > RUN AWAY
> Grabbing the nearest vine you head off at top speed in the opposite
> direction. Unfortunately, blinded by fear, you fail to see that
tree...
>
> *** YOU ARE DEAD ***
Mmm. I don't think so. Running away, under any circumstance, is just
not Tarzan-like. (Come to think of it, a hero/superhero type story is
not without similar difficulties.)
>
> Or guilt trip them:
>
> > RUN AWAY
> You reach for the vine but at the last minute decide it just wouldn't
be
> Tarzan of you to flee the scene.
That's not a guilt trip, that's a disallow with guilt overtones. :-) A
guilt trip would be more like:
> RUN AWAY
You start to run away but you hear Jane shrieking in fear.
> RUN AWAY
You grab a branch to flee, even as the lion closes in on Jane for the
kill.
> RUN AWAY
OK, you reprehensible coward.
> Or disallow it:
>
> > RUN AWAY
> There are no vines in that direction.
That's one possibility. A more appropriate message would be "You
wouldn't dream of it! Not while Jane's in danger!" Remind the player
that he's TARZAN.
> Or try to be clever:
>
> > RUN AWAY
> You head off in the opposite direction but discover that all vines
lead
> back to your current location.
Again, remind the player he's TARZAN.
> I suppose you could go with the no-lose solution:
>
> > RUN AWAY
> You grab the nearest vine and head off in the opposite direction.
> Unfortunately the vine is attached to weak branch that immediately
> snaps, sending you plummeting to the forest floor where you land with
> a loud thud. Luckily, the noise frightens away the lion.
Nah, because the player still wasn't being TARZAN. Here, you've
frustrated his intention (which, unfortuantely, might be just to see
what you programmed for this).
If you're going to deal with a character whose specific intentions are
as clear as Tarzan's (or Superman's, et al.) would be, you could
rightfully prohibit the person from doing anything non-Tarzan-like.
Not that would necessarily be bad for the player to stumble upon a
solution accidentally, as long as his intentions were in-line.
Off in the distance, you hear a lion roar and Jane shriek.
> KILL LION
You don't see any lion hear.
> RESCUE JANE
You have to find her first!
> N
You're in the jungle.
> E
You're in the jungle.
> S
You've found a clearing in the jungle, Jane lies supine before an
oncoming lion. Hurry!
> THROW KNIFE
You forgot your knife back at the hut!
The lion charges!
Suddenly, Jane pulls a knife out from her boot and catches the lunging
beast right under the chin.
Nothing left for you to do know but wipe your greasy fingers off on your
sinewy thighs.(*)
It's one thing to prepare for odd requests, and another to write
entirely different storylines. The former should be expected. The
latter should depend on what the author wants to accomplish.
--
[ok]
*Obscure Tarzan reference.
okbl...@my-deja.com
ed...@xyzzy.cc.columbia.edu (Edan Harel) wrote:
>
> Well, in a good, unpre-defined character adventure, the *player* would
> be able to define the character for himself. If he starts taking
> everything that isn't nailed down, the game (and npc's seeing him)
> should consider him a theif. If he flees from danger, he should be
> considered a coward. If he hits everyone, he should be considered
> aggressive, etc. And the game should compensate for that be openning
> up new opportunities (in terms of subplot, puzzles, puzzle solutions,
> etc) for the currently-being-defined character. And perhaps close
> some others, though some leeway should be given. You can't determine
> a characters personality in 5 moves, though you might be able to get a
Not every story can (or should) be told this way.
> I disagree. While, certainly, it may seem out of character for
> so-and-so to do something, erm, unchracteristic, sometimes it is those
> very awkward actions which *define* the character. Who can forget the
> coward, who, when the moment to take action comes, takes it regardless
> of the onsequence. Or the macho man who, when the time comes, turns
> out to be the coward. Of course, the reader is expected to "act the
> part" and not try killing every npc, or they will be scolded. But the
> NPC should be able to experiment with his part, and the game should
> compensate for it. If Tarzan flees from the burning tree house where
> jane is in, then perhaps the game should put in some subplot about how
> his favorite monkey, blinky, was killed in a fire, so fire terrifys
> him. Of course, in most (all?) cases, it would be hard for the game
> to ascertain what the player is thinking of, but it can at least try
> to make sense of the actions the game character is taking.
The point is: If Tarzan flees from the fire, you no longer have Tarzan.
You have something else which apes (heh) Tarzan but does not act like
him. And that's fine, if that's what the author wants to get across.
But all of a sudden the author has become wildly limited in the story he
can tell, because he must also tell ten other stories that suit the
player's whim. (Wow, try factoring that in with your USUAL
combinatorial explosion.)
A work of IF can tell many stories, including an adventure story which
has cleary defined characters who *aren't* particularly subject to
"growth". Players who want to explore character development can look
elsewhere. Not every author is going to want to take the Philip José
Farmer route with Tarzan.
--
[ok]
Adam J. Thornton
Bert Byfield -- no mail <bbyf...@aol.com-nomail> wrote:
^C !
Adam
--
ad...@princeton.edu
"My eyes say their prayers to her / Sailors ring her bell / Like a moth
mistakes a light bulb / For the moon and goes to hell." -- Tom Waits
MFischer5
>"Kathleen M. Fischer" wrote:
>>
>> So if you can't tell the player they're in love ("You heart overflows
>> with love as TD&H strides into the room"), and you can't rip control
>> from the player to show the love ("As TD&H enters the field of daisies
>> you run to meet him, flinging your arms around his neck and showering
>> him with kisses"), then where does that leave author?
>
>There's a long tradition in conventional fiction in which the viewpoint
>character (or PC, in our terms) is not the protagonist. The viewpoint
>character might be the best friend, for example. This approach would
>seem to address that particular difficulty.
gimme a break :) :) :)
Have a romance novel where the PC watches Dick and Jane fall in love?
Not exactly a romantic experience for the PC (no, don't even think it.
We aren't going there.) We're talking GENRE romances (at least we
were some 70 or so messages ago). The PC has to be the protagonist,
right?
Kathleen
MFischer5
>> Or disallow it:
>>
>> > RUN AWAY
>> There are no vines in that direction.
>
>That's one possibility. A more appropriate message would be "You
>wouldn't dream of it! Not while Jane's in danger!" Remind the player
>that he's TARZAN.
But aren't we back to telling instead of showing? We are telling the
player they wouldn't dream of it, when obviously they would since
they issued the command, though most likely they are just trying to
find fodder for their scathing review of the lack of mimesis in
text adventures.
To truely solve the "romance problem" you need to come up with
a plausable answer to the romantic equivalent of:
> LOOK
You see Jane about to be eaten by a lion.
Which could be something like:
> ...
"Kiss me," whispers John.
and I don't think:
> RUN AWAY
You wouldn't dream of it! He's the love of your life!
is going to cut it.
Kathleen (not picking on you, honest, but I'm 2/3 the way through my game
and quite frankly I have yet to solve this problem to my satisfaction.)
Edan Harel
okbl...@my-deja.com wrote:
: In article <38596b98$0$22...@senator-bedfellow.mit.edu>,
: wil...@mit.edu (Jake Wildstrom) wrote:
: > In article <83bj0q$g5o$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, okblacke wrote:
: > >It isn't a given that the "reader" of a particular work of IF is
: > >going to agree with the author's take on the story.
: >
: > It _better_ be a given--if the reader takes a path the writer hasn't
: > accounted for, the story simply doesn't happen.
: More precisely, the reader CAN'T take a path the writer hasn't
: accounted for. In fact, it's fundamental to IF that the reader can't.
: (If the reader can do things the author hasn't specifically planned for,
: you have a simulation, not IF.)
I don't see why the two are mutually exclusive. I remember reading (in
the Designers Manual?) about someone who coded a game that required
the player to get a light source to travel into somewhere dark. The
Author provides a light source, but, by allowing certain things
to be flamable, the player can light something to lead the way.
Now, someone might call this a bug, since the player might miss part of the
story. And certainly, it could *become* a bug, seeing as how the author
didn't consider this solution (And the player finds himself thrown in jail
for stealing the royal flashlight...). However, I would consider this
a benefit to the story (assuming the above-like plot hole doesn't happen,
which shouldn't have happened if the author plotted carefully: He should
have put a flag in for the stealing of the flashlight).
Indeed, the object oriented nature of these programming languages makes
these games prone to being simulation. After all, the author *can't* account
for every situation in certain complex games. If you have a character
moving, are you going to plot every action associated with them relative
to where they are? Some actions, yes. But all actions, probably not.
The more the author takes control (make everything go his way), then the more
linear the game will become. I would prefer more freedom with some
occasional peculiarities, then to have to stick to some predefined path, imho.
Of course, both have their strengths.
: > The only way to avoid the possibility of non-activity
: > being a viable action is to drop them in the middle of an
: > uncomfortable situation, as in Spider and Web. At no point in the game
: > is it advantageous (or sometimes even possible) to opt not to get
: > involved--bcause you already are.
I'm not quite sure that I understand what this means, but there are a lot
of ways to "force" the story to move. Create another character that
"helps" the character, if he chooses to do nothing. Or don't allow
time to move unless they are actually doing something (ie, wait is not
allowed, and looking or exaining something doesn't move time... or maybe you
can only examine something once, so at some point they have to move). Of
course, I don't understand why non-activity can't be an activity of
itself... Observing is an activity, isn't it?
: IFers are a strange breed. If you force them to move when they don't
: want to, they'll resent you for it. If you don't force them and they
: miss out, they'll resent you for that. It's that pesky "I".
What if you don't force them, but allow some aslternative to
present itself, if they don't?
Damien Neil
>>That's one possibility. A more appropriate message would be "You
>>wouldn't dream of it! Not while Jane's in danger!" Remind the player
>>that he's TARZAN.
>
>But aren't we back to telling instead of showing? We are telling the
>player they wouldn't dream of it, when obviously they would since
>they issued the command, though most likely they are just trying to
>find fodder for their scathing review of the lack of mimesis in
>text adventures.
There's a couple differences here. One has to do with definition of
character. If the character is Tarzan, it makes perfect sense to disallow
actions which are not in his character -- certainly, a player who doesn't
want to be Tarzan won't be happy, but then the game won't be targeted
at that player.
This works even then the character is not Tarzan. Every player-character
in a work of IF has his or her own personality. Some games make this
personality strong, some make it weak, but it is always there. This
shows up in things like:
> JUMP OFF CLIFF
No.
> KILL THE CUTE LITTLE GIRL
You would never dream of harming her.
It would be possible, of course, to make a game where you can do anything
at all. I suspect this will result in the character having no personality
whatsoever.
>> ...
>"Kiss me," whispers John.
>
>and I don't think:
>
>> RUN AWAY
>You wouldn't dream of it! He's the love of your life!
>
>is going to cut it.
First off, I think that it is generally a bad idea to put the player into
a position where there is only one action which can be taken. (Unless
the goal is to create the feeling of restricted action, of course.)
If the romance's outcome is predetermined -- if you know from the beginning
that the PC is going to end up with a specific NPC -- then it would make
perfect sense for the main character to act independantly in this
circumstance.
"Kiss me," whispers John. At long last, you melt into his arms. As your
lips meet, a freak plot event occurs, drawing you into the next chapter...
This really isn't any more intrusive than:
The branch crumbles beneath your feet. Grasping wildly, you catch hold of
a conveniently placed vine...
In both cases, the player's character has acted independantly. If the
player wants a character who isn't interested in John, or who prefers
tumbling to the jungle floor, well, this isn't the right story.
The challenge in a romance, it seems to me, is to provide the player with
something interesting to do. You need some form of tension which the
character isn't going to resolve alone. Some possiblities:
There are multiple possible love interests. The player interacts with
them, and eventually ends up with one. (Or possibly none, or even two.)
(Aside: the game _Sakura Taisen_ does this quite well, I think. Alas,
this may be a poor example, as it has never been translated from the
Japanese.)
There is only one love interest, but he isn't interested. The player
must woo him.
There is only one interest, but intervening troubles. The player must
remove them. (Rescue the interest from pirates, prove one's worth to
the parents, ets.)
The one thing you probably can't do is make the personality of the
player's character in doubt. Most people are willing to play by the rules
(see _Varicella_, where many people gleefully hop into the role of a
Machiavellian manipulator and murderer), but they need to know what the
rules are.
- Damien
Dennis Smith
> "Kiss me," whispers John.
>
> and I don't think:
>
> -> RUN AWAY
> -You wouldn't dream of it! He's the love of your life!
>
> is going to cut it.
How about internal conflict?
->RUN AWAY
-Heart racing, breathing quickly, you edge backwards. John looks at you
-quizzically, one eyebrow raised. Devilishly. Deliciously. Your lips
-part slightly as you struggle to take a deep breath. Your heart
-pounds a giddy rythym. How could you leave _now_?
--
Den
Dennis Smith
>->RUN AWAY
>
>-Heart racing, breathing quickly, you edge backwards. John looks at you
>-quizzically, one eyebrow raised. Devilishly. Deliciously. Your lips
>-part slightly as you struggle to take a deep breath. Your heart
>-pounds a giddy rythym. How could you leave _now_?
[Forgot to add:]
Of course, you should use a counter or flag to catch the second and
future attempts to flee. Second time around, you can be a little more
blunt:
-> G
-Never!
--
Den
okbl...@my-deja.com
Jim Aikin <nikiaj.b...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
> As much fun as this discussion is from a brainstorming point of view,
> it seems to me that the problem, as posed, is fundamentally insoluble.
> Trying to solve it is trying to make a fish out of a bicycle (or
> vice-versa). IF is not the same as CF (conventional fiction), and it
> is> specifically in the area of plot where it is most clearly not the
> same.
>
> If you want to have control over what the protagonist does next, WRITE
> CONVENTIONAL FICTION. There's a market for it, even. ;-) The challenge
> of writing IF is precisely how to relinquish control over the
> protagonist and still create a work that has form and meaning.
Well, I suppose that is an argument some people have made about
"Photopia". But "Photopia" largely worked for me because, after the
initial scene, I "chose" the pre-determined path. (My initial response
to the first scene was to have my friend pull over and grab the keys
from the ignition. End of story. Heh.)
But, ultimately, I have to kinda, sorta, somewhat, disagree with you.
Except for there being a market for conventional fiction. I've heard of
that somewhere.
And a bit about plotting being different. It usually is, to some degree.
One of those finely-tuned-watch-type-plots (that CF writers hardly do
anymore for that matter) has a lot of liabilities in IF.
For the most part, you have to account for greater variability in plot,
but each variant isn't fundamentally different from plotting seven or
eight different stories, or seven or eight different ways to treat the
same story. (And I'm being generous here: In my experience, most IF
doesn't make seven or eight significantly different plots.)
And in many cases, you don't have a plot so much as a series of puzzles.
("Beat the Devil", e.g.)
IF does depart radically from CF in other ways. Suspense, for example,
is very hard to create in IF. Neither the usual CF techniques (without
serious alteration) nor the usual computer *game* techniques (being
typically derived from reflexes) work.
Probably the most significant departure that I see is "the willing
suspense of disbelief". IFers suspend disbelief a *lot* more
begrudgingly than traditional readers. That makes romance a challenge.
Or any non-snarky work, for that matter.
> --Jim (yes, I've written CF) Aikin
I've seen your byline before, though not on any fiction. Didn't you use
to write for the old PC Techniques magazine?
John W. Kennedy
> We're talking GENRE romances
In which, to use C. S. Lewis's terminology (in "An Experiment in
Criticism", one of the three or four most valuable works _ever_ on the
nature of art), the reader "uses", rather than "receives" the work?
Is that even _possible_ in I.F., at least below a "Star Trek" "holodeck"
level of technology (at which point Scott "Dilbert" Adams' criticism
comes into play)?
--
-John W. Kennedy
-rri...@ibm.net
Compact is becoming contract
Man only earns and pays. -- Charles Williams
okbl...@my-deja.com
mfis...@aol.com (MFischer5) wrote:
>
> But aren't we back to telling instead of showing? We are telling the
> player they wouldn't dream of it, when obviously they would since
> they issued the command, though most likely they are just trying to
> find fodder for their scathing review of the lack of mimesis in
> text adventures.
Yes, precisely. Are we to write adventures for people who don't like
them?
In the case of Tarzan--say the person really didn't know any better--you
could provide a character sketch. But we're unlikely to be dealing with
well-known, heavily licensed characters here, so the point is a little
abstract.
> To truely solve the "romance problem" you need to come up with
> a plausable answer to the romantic equivalent of:
>
> > LOOK
> You see Jane about to be eaten by a lion.
>
> Which could be something like:
>
> > ...
> "Kiss me," whispers John.
>
> and I don't think:
>
> > RUN AWAY
> You wouldn't dream of it! He's the love of your life!
>
> is going to cut it.
I agree.
> Kathleen (not picking on you, honest, but I'm 2/3 the way through my
> game and quite frankly I have yet to solve this problem to my
> satisfaction.)
I don't feel the least bit picked on, so if you were trying to, you need
to brush up on your antagonistim. ;-)
Jim Aikin made the comparison to conventional fiction with regard to
plot, but the same basic issues apply to character development. In CF,
you make a specific plot with specific characters.
In IF, on the other hand, you develop parameters in which the player has
a certain degree of apparent freedom. They don't have absolute freedom,
and any freedom they do have is only apparent, since you (the author)
have accounted for every possible twist on the character and plot they
can take.
Does that mean you have to account for every possible twist the player
can *dream of*? Not in the least. Did Laura Knauth have to account for
the player wanting to run through "Winter Wonderland" with a chainsaw?
Does "Curses" let you strangle your aunt (grandmother?)?
It's necessary for the author to draw a line somewhere and say "No, you
can't do that" or works will never be completed. An author can
thoroughly account for a great many things that might be tried in the
sense of providing a snarky comment or subtle push toward the right
solution or what-have-you, but disallow it all the same if it would take
the story a direction it shouldn't go.
So, that's your answer: Account for where you want the story to go,
gently but firmly push the player back from choices that aren't
acceptable to you.
Mary J Mcmenomy
: MFischer5 wrote:
: > We're talking GENRE romances
: In which, to use C. S. Lewis's terminology (in "An Experiment in
: Criticism", one of the three or four most valuable works _ever_ on the
: nature of art), the reader "uses", rather than "receives" the work?
: Is that even _possible_ in I.F., at least below a "Star Trek" "holodeck"
: level of technology (at which point Scott "Dilbert" Adams' criticism
: comes into play)?
Assuming that I understand your question -- it's been a few years since I
read "Experiment in Criticism" -- I don't see why not. Art needn't be
completely natural and mimetic for us to make use of it. The popularity
of (to pick an example not quite at random) "Dilbert" makes that clear.
The situation of an IF game can inspire interest and usefully reflect
things about real life, even if the details are sketchy.
As for the other problems people have been working over here:
I think the IF author needs to assume that the player will be playing in
good faith: ie, that he will either a) not try to do things seriously
counter to the purposes of the protagonist or b) not mind being smacked on
the wrist for trying. The relationship between player and character may
look something like the relationship between one's imagination and one's
conscience: I'm constantly thinking of things I'd like to do or say, but
which my inner censor vetoes. So it doesn't bother me when the computer
tells me, eg., that I'm too proper a young lady to strip in public, or
that I'm too nice to kill poor old Mrs. Fuddles. (Sometimes I get
frustrated with the stock "Violence isn't the answer..." responses,
especially when the violence in question would be self-defense.
[Delusions comes to mind here.] But for the most part, this sort of thing
seems acceptable to me. The computer is emulating the effects of the
protagonist's instincts and ingrained morality.)
I also think it's possible to control the player by directing his
attention towards certain things and away from others. What we see can be
as great an indicator of our character as what we do; conveniently, that
part of a work of IF remains under the control of the author, since the
player has no way to say, "No, what I really want to know about this room
is the color of the carpeting!" In that respect, the restrictions of text
become an asset. If you insistently turn the player's attention to the
valuables in the room, if you cause him to perform mental estimates on the
worth of the Countess' tennis bracelet, if you describe the exterior
windows in terms of their lack of a security system -- well, at that
point, he is probably not only aware of his vocation in the game, but more
inevitably absorbed in it than if you'd simply instructed him, at the
beginning, to be a thief. If, again, you've got an NPC who is always
doing provocative things and who is persistently the center of attention,
the player will be led to investigate that character. Once the NPC
becomes the central "puzzle" of the story, the player will probably regard
him (or her) with intense interest -- which may not be the same thing as
attraction, but which will probably serve as an adequate proxy within the
game.
In real life, where everything is interactive, it's difficult to tell what
sort of story one is in the middle of; the sweeping romantic plots tend to
get entangled with the low-comedy farces about car repair. The fact that
IF offers a more restricted range of options isn't a flaw -- it's simply the
nature of art.
-- Mary McMenomy