Comments on: Face to Face with Façade! 2/5 http://writerresponsetheory.org/wordpress/2005/07/11/face-to-face-with-facade/ a blog and podcast dedicated to discussing text arts forms Sat, 22 Nov 2008 06:45:27 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.0.2 en Writer Response Theory 2004-2005 wrt@writerresponsetheory.org (Writer Response Theory) wrt@writerresponsetheory.org Talk Radio Comment-cast: Face to Face with Façade! 2/5 Comment-cast: Face to Face with Façade! 2/5 Writer Response Theory Writer Response Theory wrt@writerresponsetheory.org http://writerresponsetheory.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/iTWRT.JPG WRT: Writer Response Theory http://writerresponsetheory.org/wordpress 144 144 by: andrew stern http://writerresponsetheory.org/wordpress/2005/07/11/face-to-face-with-facade/#comment-298 Tue, 19 Jul 2005 07:43:53 +0000 http://writerresponsetheory.org/wordpress/2005/07/11/face-to-face-with-facade/#comment-298 good discussion! A few thoughts: I'd suggest that any author of an interactive system that offers freeform, open-ended input would be naive to think that players will tend to cooperate or play within what one might call the "proper" or "intended" way to play. More often than not, players will want to experiment, act out of bounds, etc. It's usually more fun; authors should support and reward that player behavior. That said, it's also nice if the system rewards you for playing along. Perhaps after trying to break the f***er a few times, players will try to play in-bounds, to see what becomes possible. Facade falls short too often on not handling in-domain input well enough, so players too often end up resorting to screwing around to make something more interesting happen. I'd suggest that's a shortcoming of the particular implementation, not of the form (or this form) of interactive drama itself. good discussion! A few thoughts: I’d suggest that any author of an interactive system that offers freeform, open-ended input would be naive to think that players will tend to cooperate or play within what one might call the “proper” or “intended” way to play. More often than not, players will want to experiment, act out of bounds, etc. It’s usually more fun; authors should support and reward that player behavior.

That said, it’s also nice if the system rewards you for playing along. Perhaps after trying to break the f***er a few times, players will try to play in-bounds, to see what becomes possible. Facade falls short too often on not handling in-domain input well enough, so players too often end up resorting to screwing around to make something more interesting happen. I’d suggest that’s a shortcoming of the particular implementation, not of the form (or this form) of interactive drama itself.

]]> andrew stern good discussion! A few thoughts: I'd suggest that any author of an interactive system that offers freeform, open-ended ... good discussion! A few thoughts: I'd suggest that any author of an interactive system that offers freeform, open-ended ... by: Mark Marino http://writerresponsetheory.org/wordpress/2005/07/11/face-to-face-with-facade/#comment-297 Tue, 19 Jul 2005 06:50:34 +0000 http://writerresponsetheory.org/wordpress/2005/07/11/face-to-face-with-facade/#comment-297 &#62; Enter Devil's Advocate I agree with your main point: <blockquote>we will find salvation in an as-yet-undiscover???d, pristine and cultur???d audience of non-gamers who through their very virtue will maintain a spirit of collaboration with us, the Creators, and who will stolidly resist the temptation to twist and distort the purity of our art to satisfy their base perversions.???</blockquote> Or of course, maybe I'm just testing out the limits of conversational interface. Perhaps those folks on the internet who misquote are taking the same attitude as the player who attempts to break the interface, they are ignoring the interface. (I'm fairly certain I'm not even misquoting you the way you directed.) &#62;Exit Actually, I tend to play Façade the same way you do, Brad. But I did offer to Beta test. This exchange has made me think that one form of the debate between narratologists and ludologists can be more precisely read as the difference between "directed-poetics" and "systematic exploration." The "Directed-Poetics" approach takes Aristotle as its basis and assumes users will also follow directions, accepting the material affordances, the context of the game and how it structures interaction. The "System Exploration" approach, or maybe "Explorative Systems," holds that the work is a cybernetic system (or cybertext) that the user will approach by exploring or testing its limits and reactions in order to achieve some kind of mastery, or, knowledge of its workings (Jeremy has a term for this). > Enter Devil’s Advocate

I agree with your main point:

we will find salvation in an as-yet-undiscover???d, pristine and cultur???d audience of non-gamers who through their very virtue will maintain a spirit of collaboration with us, the Creators, and who will stolidly resist the temptation to twist and distort the purity of our art to satisfy their base perversions.???

Or of course, maybe I’m just testing out the limits of conversational interface. Perhaps those folks on the internet who misquote are taking the same attitude as the player who attempts to break the interface, they are ignoring the interface. (I’m fairly certain I’m not even misquoting you the way you directed.)

>Exit

Actually, I tend to play Façade the same way you do, Brad. But I did offer to Beta test.

This exchange has made me think that one form of the debate between narratologists and ludologists can be more precisely read as the difference between “directed-poetics” and “systematic exploration.”

The “Directed-Poetics” approach takes Aristotle as its basis and assumes users will also follow directions, accepting the material affordances, the context of the game and how it structures interaction.

The “System Exploration” approach, or maybe “Explorative Systems,” holds that the work is a cybernetic system (or cybertext) that the user will approach by exploring or testing its limits and reactions in order to achieve some kind of mastery, or, knowledge of its workings (Jeremy has a term for this).

]]> Mark Marino > Enter Devil's Advocate I agree with your main point: we will find salvation in an as-yet-undiscover???d, pristine and cultur???d audience ... > Enter Devil's Advocate I agree with your main point: we will find salvation in an as-yet-undiscover???d, pristine and cultur???d audience ... by: Brad O'Donnell http://writerresponsetheory.org/wordpress/2005/07/11/face-to-face-with-facade/#comment-295 Tue, 12 Jul 2005 08:39:49 +0000 http://writerresponsetheory.org/wordpress/2005/07/11/face-to-face-with-facade/#comment-295 The first time I played Facade, a friend who was with me asked, "So, how are you going to play first time through?" "I'm gonna break this f***er," I replied. At first this might seem a bit ungrateful, like the child flinging legos. Narratologists might very well be justified to roll their eyes at such a disregard for the intent of a work. But my initial strategy for "breaking" it was simply to take the interface's claims at face value. So I typed what I wanted to say and looked to see if Trip and Grace could tell what I was getting at. And you know what? It took quite a few plays before I gave up on full sentences entirely. That's very impressive -- my desire to interact richly with Grace and Trip atrophied out of a increasing awareness of how few nuances the system actually registered, rather than some discrete realization that the system "needed" curt input (as is the case with traditional text adventures). But either way, the eyes roll at me for not playing along, for ruining the mimesis of the generated transcript. Once I realized that I fundamentally despised Grace and (especially) Trip as people, the desire to play War with them reared its head. I tried to get them to fight physically, for my amusement. I reasoned that it's okay if this makes the story end "unsatisfactorily," because I could always try again. But alas, I could not incite them to great vengance and furious anger. This is partially because Facade is not a God Game, and as such the user is merely another player. Again, the eyes roll from my immature attempts to use of the toy I'm given in inappropriate ways. "Oh surely," cry the hopeful, "we will find salvation in an as-yet-undiscover'd, pristine and cultur'd audience of non-gamers who through their very virtue will maintain a spirit of collaboration with us, the Creators, and who will stolidly resist the temptation to twist and distort the purity of our art to satisfy their base perversions." (This is an exaggeration on my part, and as such I expect the above quote to be taken out of context and treated as if it's my main point of argument. Gotta love the Internet.) The promise of influencing the story is the hardest one to keep; the more radically I perturb the storyline, the harder it is for the simulation to keep up. Small perturbations should theoretically butterfly-effect the story to pieces. Discarding deviant input just doesn't seem like the right solution to me, at least insofar as the work's replayability (rather than its integrity) is concerned. For instance, even playing Facade totally straight, one player started suggesting to Grace and Trip that they get divorced, out of pure frustration, 'cause it just seemed like they weren't listening, and maybe divorce is their best option. This doesn't mean that I think Interactive Drama is impossible -- I just think that if the player wants to get bitched-at, outcast, or otherwise punished (while ostensibly doing something meant to entertain themselves) for "breaking character/the rules" or "exploiting the system", they can get all the eyes they want rolled at them by joining a local tabletop RPG group that takes itself too seriously. The first time I played Facade, a friend who was with me asked, “So, how are you going to play first time through?”

“I’m gonna break this f***er,” I replied.

At first this might seem a bit ungrateful, like the child flinging legos. Narratologists might very well be justified to roll their eyes at such a disregard for the intent of a work.

But my initial strategy for “breaking” it was simply to take the interface’s claims at face value. So I typed what I wanted to say and looked to see if Trip and Grace could tell what I was getting at. And you know what? It took quite a few plays before I gave up on full sentences entirely. That’s very impressive — my desire to interact richly with Grace and Trip atrophied out of a increasing awareness of how few nuances the system actually registered, rather than some discrete realization that the system “needed” curt input (as is the case with traditional text adventures).

But either way, the eyes roll at me for not playing along, for ruining the mimesis of the generated transcript.

Once I realized that I fundamentally despised Grace and (especially) Trip as people, the desire to play War with them reared its head. I tried to get them to fight physically, for my amusement. I reasoned that it’s okay if this makes the story end “unsatisfactorily,” because I could always try again. But alas, I could not incite them to great vengance and furious anger. This is partially because Facade is not a God Game, and as such the user is merely another player.

Again, the eyes roll from my immature attempts to use of the toy I’m given in inappropriate ways. “Oh surely,” cry the hopeful, “we will find salvation in an as-yet-undiscover’d, pristine and cultur’d audience of non-gamers who through their very virtue will maintain a spirit of collaboration with us, the Creators, and who will stolidly resist the temptation to twist and distort the purity of our art to satisfy their base perversions.” (This is an exaggeration on my part, and as such I expect the above quote to be taken out of context and treated as if it’s my main point of argument. Gotta love the Internet.)

The promise of influencing the story is the hardest one to keep; the more radically I perturb the storyline, the harder it is for the simulation to keep up. Small perturbations should theoretically butterfly-effect the story to pieces. Discarding deviant input just doesn’t seem like the right solution to me, at least insofar as the work’s replayability (rather than its integrity) is concerned.

For instance, even playing Facade totally straight, one player started suggesting to Grace and Trip that they get divorced, out of pure frustration, ’cause it just seemed like they weren’t listening, and maybe divorce is their best option.

This doesn’t mean that I think Interactive Drama is impossible — I just think that if the player wants to get bitched-at, outcast, or otherwise punished (while ostensibly doing something meant to entertain themselves) for “breaking character/the rules” or “exploiting the system”, they can get all the eyes they want rolled at them by joining a local tabletop RPG group that takes itself too seriously.

]]> Brad O'Donnell The first time I played Facade, a friend who was with me asked, "So, how are you going to play ... The first time I played Facade, a friend who was with me asked, "So, how are you going to play ... by: Christy Dena http://writerresponsetheory.org/wordpress/2005/07/11/face-to-face-with-facade/#comment-294 Mon, 11 Jul 2005 23:54:18 +0000 http://writerresponsetheory.org/wordpress/2005/07/11/face-to-face-with-facade/#comment-294 LOL Mark. Playing with the 'system' is fun. The biggest spin-out is if the automated program ever 'synchs' your world. I've found that at the last few user-testing talks I've been to, the research has been into capturing 'unintended use'. Although straddling the oxymoronic, the desire to forsee and plan for uses that a device is not intended for is a interesting goal. This is also what botmasters try and do: script conversations that are outside of the storyworld, that were not intended. I find I try and think of the ways that people can joke around with a bot and plan a response. But this can never be achieved. Perhaps this is a influence on why there isn't much botfiction -- bots are treated as a 'system' to be beaten and played with. But onwards with the scripts. I look forward to reading more. LOL Mark. Playing with the ’system’ is fun. The biggest spin-out is if the automated program ever ’synchs’ your world.

I’ve found that at the last few user-testing talks I’ve been to, the research has been into capturing ‘unintended use’. Although straddling the oxymoronic, the desire to forsee and plan for uses that a device is not intended for is a interesting goal. This is also what botmasters try and do: script conversations that are outside of the storyworld, that were not intended. I find I try and think of the ways that people can joke around with a bot and plan a response. But this can never be achieved. Perhaps this is a influence on why there isn’t much botfiction — bots are treated as a ’system’ to be beaten and played with.

But onwards with the scripts. I look forward to reading more.

]]> Christy Dena LOL Mark. Playing with the 'system' is fun. The biggest spin-out is if the automated program ever 'synchs' your world. ... LOL Mark. Playing with the 'system' is fun. The biggest spin-out is if the automated program ever 'synchs' your world. ... by: Mark Marino http://writerresponsetheory.org/wordpress/2005/07/11/face-to-face-with-facade/#comment-293 Mon, 11 Jul 2005 20:57:48 +0000 http://writerresponsetheory.org/wordpress/2005/07/11/face-to-face-with-facade/#comment-293 Here are some links to scripts I've made: In this one, I'm playing the improv Party game, where the guests act like people or things and the hosts have to guess. (I'm a <a href="http://www.bunkmag.com/dandg/wrt/roller_coaster.txt">roller coaster</a>. I don't think they ever guess.) Here is me as a friend of theirs who has <a href="http://www.bunkmag.com/dandg/wrt/cancer.txt">cancer</a>. Perhaps it's morbid, but I think it proves how self-absorbed they can be. Excerpt from Roller Coaster: <blockquote> MARK zoom TRIP Uh... TRIP Well come on in... TRIP Uh, it'll be just a sec while I go get Grace... MARK clickity clack TRIP (unintelligable arguing) MARK clickity clack TRIP (unintelligable arguing) MARK I am going fast MARK kind of hilly GRACE Uh... (clears throat) um... GRACE Uh... MARK I zoom really fast GRACE Oh, H-mmm (happy smile sound) GRACE And I have to say, you look great. MARK sometimes I go in loops GRACE Make yourself at home, come on in! MARK My seats are sticky GRACE So, Mark, you can help me understand where I went wrong with my new decorating, ha ha. (Trip closes the front door.) (MARK sits on the couch.) TRIP Grace, oh, no, we don't need to do that. MARK my tracks are clear. TRIP Well hold on, hold on, take a closer look, give it a chance to soak in a little. MARK are you tall enough? TRIP Well, it's funny how after a full day's work designing magazine ads, Grace finds the time to decorate... and re -decorate... GRACE Ha ha, uhh, I guess it's just the artist in me dying to get out. GRACE I bet I can return most of this, and start over again on this room... MARK I go fast in places TRIP See, Grace, everybody always loves your decorating! It's beautiful. MARK I have a lot of curves. </blockquote> Here are some links to scripts I’ve made:
In this one, I’m playing the improv Party game, where the guests act like people or things and the hosts have to guess. (I’m a roller coaster. I don’t think they ever guess.)
Here is me as a friend of theirs who has cancer. Perhaps it’s morbid, but I think it proves how self-absorbed they can be.

Excerpt from Roller Coaster:

MARK
zoom

TRIP
Uh…

TRIP
Well come on in…

TRIP
Uh, it’ll be just a sec while I go get Grace…

MARK
clickity clack

TRIP
(unintelligable arguing)

MARK
clickity clack

TRIP
(unintelligable arguing)

MARK
I am going fast

MARK
kind of hilly

GRACE
Uh… (clears throat) um…

GRACE
Uh…

MARK
I zoom really fast

GRACE
Oh, H-mmm (happy smile sound)

GRACE
And I have to say, you look great.

MARK
sometimes I go in loops

GRACE
Make yourself at home, come on in!

MARK
My seats are sticky

GRACE
So, Mark, you can help me understand where I went wrong with my new decorating, ha ha.

(Trip closes the front door.)

(MARK sits on the couch.)

TRIP
Grace, oh, no, we don’t need to do that.

MARK
my tracks are clear.

TRIP
Well hold on, hold on, take a closer look, give it a chance to soak in a little.

MARK
are you tall enough?

TRIP
Well, it’s funny how after a full day’s work designing magazine ads, Grace finds the time to decorate… and re

-decorate…

GRACE
Ha ha, uhh, I guess it’s just the artist in me dying to get out.

GRACE
I bet I can return most of this, and start over again on this room…

MARK
I go fast in places

TRIP
See, Grace, everybody always loves your decorating! It’s beautiful.

MARK
I have a lot of curves.

]]> Mark Marino Here are some links to scripts I've made: In this one, I'm playing the improv Party game, where the guests act ... Here are some links to scripts I've made: In this one, I'm playing the improv Party game, where the guests act ...