« Thurrrsday Charcoal | Home | Movie Upload Promises »
Storyworld Responses
By Corvus | June 9, 2006
This is a long one today. I finally managed to extract the “Design for Failure” post from the Storyworld follow up post and Christy Dena provided me with some more feedback on my last Storyworld post (link) which deserved some response as well. Thanks to everyone who commented, it’s been incredibly informative!
Josh of Cathode Tan (link) responding to a Christy Dena quote in the last Storyworld post :
Herein is my prime issue with the concept of a storyworld. It’s not that I deny that emergent narratives don’t exist, it’s just that I haven’t found them to be compelling forces for a solid narrative. While the interactions in an online world might make for an interesting anecdote, most of them translate into a sort of “you had to be there” kind of experience. Refactoring that experience with AI or emotive engines, in my mind, does nothing to resolve that issue … rather it probably exacerbates it.
The central part of the reason I’m not interesting in interaction via storyworld is the emphasized text above [ed. Josh is referring to the line, "Events do not maketh the world."] . Events might not maketh a storyworld … but they do maketh a story.
Yes, yes, yes! See my comments later about the one way stream. Hopefully it addresses that concern, which I share with you. Removing a central Storyteller, a Storysource if you will, from the equation removes the vitality that a good story possesses.
Craig, of Project Perko (link) said:
Re: emergent player stories/”storysource”.
The problem is keeping direct PvP from becoming too prevalent.
It’s not a new theory (in fact, I don’t even think it needs a new coined term). I’ve run several tabletops/LARPs with that concept at their core. It makes for a very interesting game, but if handled clumsy, will drive away players who get lured into high-stakes “stories” that cost them more than they really wanted to wager.
I have forseen direct PvP can becoming a problem as well. I hope to minimize this by providing convenient outlets and big rewards for such anti-social behavior (think: organized sports). However, I recognize that there are those who will prefer to express their agency in less socially acceptable ways and we have some ideas in place which will allow them to do so without negatively impacting those who wish to stay clear of such things.
I know Storysource is not a new concept. I just felt the need, for my own writing, to come up with a term which differentiated the Primary Transmitter that didn’t sound as clinical as “Primary Transmitter.” Ideally, no individual character will ever be locked into anything they aren’t comfortable with. I have some ideas in place to handle ensuring participants don’t get roped into things which are beyond their abilities.
I have read with great interest Craig’s recent posts on Pandora’s music service (link), Amazon’s reccomendations (link), and a theory based on Perlin Noise (link) and am struck, once again, by how much of the ground I’ve covered privately has been covered more thoroughly by someone else. I wish I could dedicate all of my time to researching these issues and more actively participating with the community. Sadly, I have other drains on my time and will have to catch what I can and continue to rely on the quality responses I get here and the blogs they lead me to.
Right then, for our main act today – Christy Dena of Cross Media Entertainment (link) had a very long (and recent) comment on the post as well:
I’m so glad you continued this topic as I find it very interesting. I see that I need to clarify, however, what I mean by storyworld. I am not discussing Crawford’s notion of a storyworld specifically and I‘m not talking about emergent narratives, or the ‘where’ of a world, but a phenomenon I believe is taking place. There has been a shift in the way many creators approach a narrative creation and this I have identified as being a ‘storyworld approach’. I see it in the ‘storyworld’ approach of Crawford, in the design of virtual worlds, in the design of cross-media entertainment. But before I clarify this, I’ll bring into this conversation some definitions of a ‘storyworld’.
I see. Well, in my last few posts I’ve been specifically discussing the implementation of Storyworlds via a participatory computer environment. Even more specifically, I’ve been trying to get at the kernel of my discontent with Crawford’s approach. So, let’s pull back a bit and focus on the bigger picture.
Narratologist David Herman describes a ‘storyworld’ as part of the process of narrative comprehension, where ‘narrative comprehension is a process of (re)constructing storyworlds on the basis of textual cues and the inferences that they make possible’ [source] In this sense, Herman’s storyworlds are design principles that are inferred from textual clues, that guide the reader’s expectations.
In other words, fabula. According to Umberto Eco’s Role of the Reader, Russian folklorists use the term fabula to refer to the details a reader fills in. Any element not specified by the text, but inferred by the reader is fabula. I’m not sure how I feel about replacing the term fabula with the term Storyworld, as it seems unnecessary to me.
This relates to Lizbeth Klastrup and Susana Tosca’s notion of ‘transmedial worlds’. They posit that transmedial worlds ‘are abstract content systems from which a repertoire of fictional stories and characters can be actualized or derived across a variety of media forms’. [pdf] Like Herman, a transmedial world has three categories of rules that enable us to identify and duplicate a world: mythos: which is everything you need to know in order to interact with or interpret events in the world successfully; topos: knowing what is to be expected from the physics of and navigation in the world; ethos: knowing how to behave in the world.
Now that term, transmedial world, I like. In fact, I feel a bit of inspiration coming on. Give me a second and I’ll elucidate.
In their careful academic speak, Herman, Klastrup and Tosca are putting forward the idea that a reader/player constructs in their head a whole world that guides their imagination. As a design guideline, K & T are also saying that the three core features need to be consistent in order to participant within the same world (this has relevance in licensed entertainment etc.).
The reader, yes, but also the author(s). I do particularly like the specification of mythos, topos, and ethos being key elements needed to successfully create such a world. A few such transmedial worlds spring immediately to mind. For example – Star Trek, obviously. Even before there was a Star Trek RPG, encyclopedic books of Star Trek data were published and from this, more fan fiction has been created than official canon works. All this amassed data came in quite handy, no doubt, when the Star Trek universe split out into umpteen different television series. The Thieves World series was very overtly designed as a transmedial world, or “shared world” as its creator, Robert Asprin coined it. The Theives World series of anthologies spawned comics and an RPG as well. Star Wars is another major transmedial world with more narrative tentacles than any mythological kraken.
The thing all three of these transmedial worlds have in common is that they are mostly a one-way channel. Although George Lucas has incorporated an idea or two into his movies from down the creative stream (the brief appearance of Aurra Sing in the Ep 1) and Star Trek has aired a few viewer written scripts over the years (during the last season of Next Gen), they are intended to be inaccessible brands/franchises. Splash around down stream if you must, but don’t you dare travel to the head waters, they belong to us.
Chris Crawford describes a storyworld as ‘a universe of dramatic possibilities, revolving around a central theme and exploring all the variations of that theme’ (56). In this sense I see Crawford talking about how in an interactive work the user goes through experiencing a range of storylines. For interactive designers, this means creating a range of possible storylines or creating the rules for a user to create them within. Either way, there isn’t one storyline, one story that is envisioned, but many.
Except, Crawford stressed over and over in your interview with him that there was no provision for writing stories, or including plots, with his engine. He is, in essence, creating a dramatic narrative sandbox. Now, as I’ve said before, I feel story aligns more closely with fabula than with plot or narrative. A narrator has a story to tell, a point to get across. To accomplish this, she comes up with a plot that will (hopefully) best imply the story and communicates it via a narrative. So plot is the structure and the narrative is the media, but the story, ah, the story is the purpose. A well thought out plot, coupled with a well crafted narrative will inspire in the receiver a story very similar to the one intended.
With Crawford’s engine, I could endlessly tweak every nuance of character reaction and scene mood and hope,hope, that 1% of my audience experienced a story even remotely close to what I intended to inspire. And that’d be a pretty optimistic hope. That isn’t to say that the audience wouldn’t find and enjoy their own stories within the structure provided, but I don’t know that I will find that sort of tool to be of value to me.
Then, there’s also the issue that once the author is finished with the narrative, it’s finished. It is then placed before the audience to make of it what they will. Much like the transmedia examples I listed above, the use of Crawford’s engine creates a one way stream.
The same applies in cross-media entertainment. Though not interactive or player defined, there are multiple storylines. A creator starts with a world, like The Matrix, and decides what storyline will be explored in what media and format at what time, or distributed over many. The creator starts with a bundle of storylines and designs across the various media according to the rules of the storyworld.
I am, for the moment, ready to describe a Storyworld as a transmedial world which is designed specifically to engender audience participation. Worlds, after all, are living, growing, organisms. A world which cannot react to the actions of its inhabitants is a sterile world indeed. The Storyworld may need to contain some one way streams, or even rivers, but for it to be a true world, it must be continuously reactive to the participants. For this reaction to be meaningful and productive to the Storyworld, it must be guided by the Storysource(s). We have numerous ideas as to how we’re going to implement this in the Honeycomb Engine, one of which is the Radial Narrative tool I’ve discussed in the past.
So, for me, a storyworld doesn’t just mean the where. A storyworld is all of the stories, all of how, all of the where, when and who. There is no story, no singular event anymore, whether you’re creating linear, interactive or emergent narratives. A storyworld perspective says that you create a world first and the player experiences it one story at a time.
I never intended to imply that a Storyworld was merely a Where. In fact, I’d say that the Storyworld is the Why. The Storytellers, both the transmitter(s) and receiver(s), are the Who, the Plot is the What, the Narrative is the How and the Where. The Story, which is the emotional experience of the narrative, the Story, which is the participant supplied details, the Story, yes, that is most certainly the Why.
June 9th, 2006 at 9:37 am
Gosh darn it, I waited all that time for you to agree with me? Where’s the fun in that?
Seriously though, good read. I think I’m becoming overly sensitive to the gaming development notion that in order for games to become a powerful story medium, the entire notion of storytelling must be re-examined, re-invented and re-delivered. This is why Half-Life’s 2 “tabula rasa” protaganist gets my dander up, just the same as the notion that to tell a story, one must force the player to be the storyteller.
Both cases, in my opinion, are ways of trying to bridge not actually having to tell a story in the first place. Not, I’ll repeat again, that both don’t have value and merits in their own rights. It’s just that telling stories is as old as campfires … and sometimes you don’t need to fix what isn’t broken.
June 9th, 2006 at 6:15 pm
It takes a lot of chewing to get through this essay, but I think I agree with much of your opinions… with the caveat that I disagree with which you think is better.
There is a lot to be said for a “one way stream”. Most importantly, someone with a clue and a good view can design the next episode, instead of the mish-mash that results from giving random players too much control.
Ex: Eve Online. Much of the plot is by the players, for the players. It’s intriguing… if you’re in the middle of it. Not so interesting for newbies or outsides, except in very rare situations.
But a world with a central stream can be interesting right from the get-go, especially if your central stream story allows players to dive in at any point on any side. Although all PART of the same story, they are not all EXPERIENCING the same story.
Cohesion is important. Thieves World did marginally okay without much central cohesion because everyone involved was a solid pro writer. Your players won’t be.
You can write your headwaters using stuff your dabblers have come up with – even put them in a major role. But you can’t just let them splash around.
June 9th, 2006 at 11:24 pm
Its fun to pick on Crawford because his voice is particularly nasally and he exudes a sense of purported supremacy. But the objective they pursue is to provide a very literary sort of experience, one which focuses on pure interactivity over agency. Their discussions of presentation suggest that the system is best served by a minimal presentation, with the prospect of encouraging fabula in the users. How succesful this will be is still open to speculation, but that system has its strengths and weaknesses.
Slight tangent, you should read up on the “Drama Princess” blog and assess their approach. Its clear that theres plenty of room in the design space for all kinds of systems.
I think a nice way of looking at the design space is in terms of what sort of perspective the player is offered within the system. While Storytron purports to offer a 3rd person, character centered experience, its seems like its actually closer to the story equivilant of tetris, with direct 1st person interaction through a fairly impersonal interface. I’d say your system is more of a 2nd person deal, letting the players bring their own characterization to the table. I’m interested in the single-player and limited multiplayer potential or the 3rd person, “blind captain” approach, where the player is given a character to operate through, and that character both contextualizes the experience and provides cues to ease the interaction.
As far as “storyworld” as a term goes, I think its really a matter of marketing tastes, the execution of which tends to speak volumes louder than any academic settlement.
Remember, design space is always vaster than you imagine it to be.
June 9th, 2006 at 11:38 pm
I see there is still confusion here. But this is good, because there are alot of terms that are polysemous, and we’re all coming from transdisciplinary approaches. While I find your discussion about the differences between story, plot and narrative fascinating that isn’t what I’m talking about. I see now that you’re associating “storyworld” with “fabulaworld” and I can see why. [And I don't think Herman's "storyworld" replaces "fabula". Herman is talking specifically about the mental construction that occurs, how a person evaluates textual cues and their expectations. It moves beyond what is known into the perceived rule-set that governs that world as incited by the elements in the text. Fabula is the story, the chronology of the events, as they are defined by the text (but not necessarily the order they were relayed) -- nothing more. Tell me if you think I've got the distinction wrong.]
A storyworld is everything that exists in media (whether by one-way or two-way means; and whether invited or not) and every possible creation (unrealised narratives as they exist in potential states in a program). It is basically a term to bundle all the events that exist/can exist within a world. ‘Story’ is used because it implies fiction, it implies a creation; but it isn’t meant to imply a storyline. Star Wars is a storyworld, The Matrix is a storyworld, Lord of the Rings is a storyworld. A storyworld approach stands back and sees the whole narrative universe rather than each instantiation at a time.
A storyworld approach to writing assumes that characters and events take place beyond the each storyline and so parallel events are also created, possible events are created, contradictory events are also created, or at least the potential for them is. A storyworld isn’t governed by the same laws as our world (or as we know it to be!). All possibilites exist, it is a quantum world that allows the observer to experience each bit at a time but has alternates running simultaneously. A storyworld approach also acknowledges that people like to experience a world in different ways at different times. Sometimes they want to see it through this character, sometimes another, sometimes they want to sit back and be told bits, sometimes they want to collaborate, sometimes they want to be the sole creator or a part of their beloved universe; sometimes they want a snippet, sometimes a week-long frenzy; sometimes they want to read it in a book in bed, sometimes weave through code and sometimes squeeze a toy nose…They’re all part of it though. I’m talking nothing less than the creation of entire world, a world that is accessed/experienced/created through books, computers, theatres, plays, poems, pictures…a storyworld.