tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11758224.post114557747295111537..comments2023-09-28T07:23:51.376-07:00Comments on ProjectPerko: Plot BlockingCraig Perkohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13173752470581218239noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11758224.post-1145842866971333292006-04-23T18:41:00.000-07:002006-04-23T18:41:00.000-07:00I think its solid, and I'm glad you included nonph...I think its solid, and I'm glad you included nonphysical level designs, like causal bubbles in a storyworld. <BR/><BR/>I would use the term "metaplot" instead of "plot", in the sense you use the word, since a plot is a single instance of causally linked events, and a metaplot is a framework within a constrained dynamic of different plots can happen. Just a hair split. <BR/><BR/>To address Mory's point about on-the-fly reactions, I think Storytron actually does this, but only in an illusory sense, the reactions are part of the scripts, which involve the verb being used, the boolean role of the reactor, and the formulas that weigh their choice of options, so that believable reactions happen consistently. I'd like to hear Craig's approach to this in his engine, as well as what the content demands would be (a.k.a. the abstracted "level" design) once a framework has been constructed. <BR/><BR/>I think a data medium for describing both constraints and the "writing" would be memes, where the non-constraints are meta-memes which are semantically valid only in relation to the hard materials. <BR/><BR/>Its a good start, I'll send you your paycheck in like, eighteen months.Patrickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13614962832390315553noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11758224.post-1145750037234633222006-04-22T16:53:00.000-07:002006-04-22T16:53:00.000-07:00Teamonkey: the idea is that there are pieces that ...Teamonkey: the idea is that there are pieces that can be applied without too much trouble, and pieces that are more advanced. Sort of like learning enough French to get to your hotel, as opposed to learning enough to date a girl.<BR/><BR/>Mory: I think we have a deep misunderstanding. I'll make a post on it in the fairly near future - maybe tomorrow or Monday.<BR/><BR/>Short answer: I'm not using "constraint" in the way you think I am. A constraint is merely something which defines the rules of the game system within a given scope.<BR/><BR/>So "John likes apples" is not a constraint <I>unless</I> there is a social system (which is totally optional and in no way integral to the concept). If the social system allows you to make friends with people by bringing them their favorite things (like, say, DOAXBV) then "John likes apples" is a constraint. It defines a piece of how the game works.<BR/><BR/>John doing something for you is a <I>challenge marker</I>, not a constraint. The constraint might be "you must bring John apples". When fulfilled, it would allow you to reach the challenge marker.<BR/><BR/>The idea that a challenge marker is the same even if you make it easier/more difficult to reach is, unfortunately, inherent. Because the system does not understand the deep magic of emotional appeals, changing the plot result is something that only a writer can do.<BR/><BR/>He can, of course, write in several scenarios, like classic tree structure. In this case, the only real use Plerkot or Perkplot would have is in allowing them to clearly write out what the <I>game dynamic</I> behind the plot at any given time is. Oh, and some difficulty adaptation.Craig Perkohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13173752470581218239noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11758224.post-1145729656416432032006-04-22T11:14:00.000-07:002006-04-22T11:14:00.000-07:00Either you or I don't quite understand what you're...Either you or I don't quite understand what you're talking about- I'm not sure which.<BR/><BR/>"Peoples' relationships can be defined as a set of constraints. People's positions can be constraints. People's beliefs can be constraints. What weapon can affect someone is a constraint. How much damage they can take is a constraint."<BR/><BR/>Let's imagine character Bob. He likes apples. He is friends with Tom. He is a Zen Buddhist. He is vulnerable to gun shots. He is very sensitive to social pressure. If I've understood you at all, then none of these are constraints. No, they're either concepts the writer has given himself in order to decide how to write the character, or properties plugged into your magical "pretty solid social engine", which incidentally you glossed over.<BR/><BR/>Tell me if I've got this right: You've described a constraint as some sort of challenge which must be overcome by the player. (Not really much more than a glorified <I>if</I> statement.) Bob liking apples is not a constraint. If he won't talk to you until you give him an apple, <I>that's</I> a constraint. And that's not a plot- it's a puzzle.<BR/><BR/>Granted, Plerkot (Can I call it Plerkot?) is a good idea for certain types of RPGs and the like. (Not all, or even many; I'll get back to that later.) But with all due respect to your strip poker game, no one has yet succeeded at making a social simulator which is capable of coming up with plausible reactions on the fly as part of a larger story. That's the hurdle interactive storytelling must overcome, and I don't see how Plerkot can get around it.<BR/><BR/>If the character in the elevator with Gerard is random, how is the program going to figure out how he'll respond? Obviously, the writer needs to put that in, which means that he still has a large number of branching paths to look after and Plerkot doesn't change anything. Whatever happens in that elevator is going to affect the relationships of the two characters, which pushes the story in a completely different direction- Where is Plerkot making this any easier?<BR/><BR/>"Imagine a level from a game like, say, Doom. Each corridor and room can be thought of as a constraint: once acheived, new constraints are made available. The room off to the side. The collapsed rubble pile. The elevator."<BR/>Now this I'm even more confused about. How is a room a constraint? I can see how the things <I>in</I> the room could be seen as constraints, but the room itself? What, are we supposed to see any walking at all as hunt constraints? Position is not a constraint, it's simply a variable the programming needs to take into account. But you go on:<BR/>"So, if you're standing in your room, the only constraint it might lead to is the hallway constraint. From there, you might take the elevator constraint to the lobby constraint and out into one of the campus constraints. We'll stick to our dorm for now."<BR/>Does this actually mean anything at all?<BR/><BR/>Getting back to the difference between a puzzle and a plot, as I mentioned before: You say that Plerkot "in theory, can handle any kind of plot and allow a computer to change the plot slightly to account for player capability." I can accept this to a certain degree, but it puzzles me how <B>you</B> can.<BR/><BR/>Let's go back to our new friend Bob. He won't talk to us unless we bring him an apple. So bringing the apple will cause him to push the story forward with the next scripted segment. But what if, earlier in our story, we ate the apple? The game will see that the progression is too difficult, and allow us to ask him to continue anyway. In both branches of the story, the continuation will be identical; it's just how you get there that's different.<BR/><BR/>In my perspective, the two branches, on the whole, are slightly different from one another, and one will certainly be <B>better told than the other</B> (taking into account pacing, long-term payoff of plot threads, etc.). But from your perspective, these two branches should be seen as <B>exactly</B> the same! After all, have you not said that "there is a fundamental difference between experiencing a story - even an interactive one - and experiencing a game"? What the program is changing is not the plot (as you see it), but the gameplay which leads to it. The puzzle.<BR/><BR/>Another point which puzzles me:<BR/>"These constraints would allow us to modify the level to change over time. If the level is too easy from point A to point B, one of the constraints fails. A hallway collapses. A door needs to be unlocked with a widget from point C. Etc."<BR/>What do you mean by "too easy"? The player has some gun he wasn't supposed to have yet? The level has shifted in a way not planned? These thoughts worry me. They paint the picture of a game thrown together randomly, with no thought given to emotional impact, difficulty curve, pacing, proper training, or anything else but the movement from A to B. I have seen certain games like this, particularly from America, in which there is very little thought placed behind any of these things, but it is a poor game which relies on such a messy design job- cheaply produced RPGs and the like.<BR/><BR/><B>A nonlinear game is <I>never</I> as good as a linear game.</B> If the program needs to figure out to correct the difficulty, then the difficulty hasn't been designed well to begin with. And it should have been, because the computer-corrected version of the game is not going to be anywhere near as compelling as a solid, straightforward level designed by a good level designer.<BR/><BR/>So here's how I see Plerkot (until you post to correct me and explain what you <I>really</I> meant): Not very useful for plots, an interesting idea for RPGs and puzzle games -but ill-advised for both.Moryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00811255096467614445noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11758224.post-1145727636679478762006-04-22T10:40:00.000-07:002006-04-22T10:40:00.000-07:00This looks good and very workable.The way you desc...This looks good and very workable.<BR/><BR/>The way you describe Challenge Markers sounds almost exactly how I usually script missions - a "switch" statement where each "case" is a different stage of the mission. A challenge marker seems to be describing the point at which I alter the value of the variable on which the switch is operating.<BR/><BR/>I know that's the least interesting bit of your post, but as a result I can see your system being applied as a very useful way of planning out a quest or mission, complete with complex interactions and dynamic restraints (which is a bit mind-bending at the moment). A formal visual representation certainly wouldn't go amiss.teamonkeyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04258136580607405464noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11758224.post-1145633218017698112006-04-21T08:26:00.000-07:002006-04-21T08:26:00.000-07:00I think so, too. :)I think so, too. :)Craig Perkohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13173752470581218239noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11758224.post-1145632809886629252006-04-21T08:20:00.000-07:002006-04-21T08:20:00.000-07:00This sounds much more workable than what I thought...This sounds much more workable than what I thought you were proposing earlier. I like the idea that, in a multi-pathed environment, if you're doing well already, some of the easier paths will be blocked off. I think that's an easy first-step to this idea, and I think it's within reach to do that well.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11758224.post-1145591264810641472006-04-20T20:47:00.000-07:002006-04-20T20:47:00.000-07:00The language doesn't tell you what to do: it just ...The language doesn't tell you what to do: it just lets you do things you might not have been able to before. So, you would have to decide for yourself what you want the boss to do to someone with a pointy stick. If you want it to not appear, it can stay away. If you want it to kill you, it can kill. So on, so forth.<BR/><BR/>These are the things which automated systems cannot decide. That is why this system doesn't try. It simply gives you the tools.<BR/><BR/>Any system can be broken: this one is not invulnerable. But it does allow for <I>better</I> simulation, and that's, well, better.<BR/><BR/>Also, it can adapt to player breakage. If the player is not having the difficulty he should be having, it can adjust what it views as difficult.Craig Perkohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13173752470581218239noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11758224.post-1145589094494525912006-04-20T20:11:00.000-07:002006-04-20T20:11:00.000-07:00Cool. Not only is this an interesting system, The ...Cool. Not only is this an interesting system, The terminology you use is a great vocabulary for talking about level design.<BR/><BR/>How far would an adaptive constraint system go? If I go challenge the boss with just my pointy stick, should I be able to beat him? Ideally, IMO, the boss should defeat me until I have improved myself enough to win. But then we are getting into a sort of branching plot.<BR/><BR/>Oh! or would the boss simply not appear until the time is right? I'm not sure whether I should consider the boss a node or just a kind of constraint. It could probably be used either way.<BR/><BR/>If you really can anticipate the wide range playstyles the players will try (and maybe you can, but I'm a firm believer in the ability of players to break any system), this sounds like a great way to keep a plot on track and to keep it somewhat interesting to the player.Textual Harassmenthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04620030154228411039noreply@blogger.com