Interactive Storytelling

Sarusa writes "Video games are big business. Movies are big business. I hear that people used read a lot of things called books: it seems like there would be a lot of money to be made from a successful merger of what makes books and movies compelling with what makes video games compelling, though we've been trying that for decades with little success. Interactive Storytelling: Techniques for 21st Century Fiction by Andrew Glassner takes a look at what we know about stories, what we know about games, how they work (or don't work) together now, and how they might work together in the future." Read on for the rest of Sarusa's review. Interactive Storytelling author Andrew Glassner pages 500 publisher A. K. Peters rating 7 of 10 reviewer Sarusa ISBN 1568812213 summary A solid look at the elusive merger of movies and video games.

First, this is a book that everybody who wants to make compelling games should read. That said, however, it isn't really a book you would read for fun -- it's more of a textbook. The first half of the text is a necessarily rather dry presentation of concepts: for example, nine pages on 'Narrative Devices.' Glassner uses copious examples from movies that you've probably seen and games that you've probably played, and the text is certainly an easy read and well written, but it's still a very step-by-step presentation. You can't hide the fact that you're supposed to be learning something here. The second half of the book does open up a bit as he goes beyond just priming you on story and game theory.

He starts out by assuming you know almost nothing about storytelling. You might think that this is too obvious, but if you've played enough storytelling abominations like 'Sudeki,' you will know that game creators usually don't make very compelling storywriters. So the first quarter of the book is a crash course on the fundamentals of writing stories -- characters, plot, and techniques. The second, slightly shorter, part of the book examines the mechanisms of games in general. Not video games in specific, but all types of games. The five types of games, scoring rules, structure, and theory.

We're now ready to actually tackle merging stories and games, and at this point our cunning vision falls apart. Glassner's strongly held opinion, which he argues quite coherently, is that a great story is the product of one (or a few) expert storytellers presenting a strong, consistent vision to you, the consumer. The fabled holy grail of gaming is letting the player do whatever they want -- full interactivity. And this is to a point fundamentally incompatible with telling a great story. Conflict drives most stories -- what if the player quite reasonably minimizes conflict? But there's a lot to be learned from where they do contradict each other, and some common ground to be found. In my favorite chapter in the book, 'Common Pitfalls,' he uses specific video games that blatantly demonstrate how to not apply even the simplest rules of good storytelling and user immersion.

Many of the fundamental insights in this part are 'obvious,' yet demonstrably unobvious to most video game designers. For example, that people gravitate toward the entertainment that has the highest fun-to-work ratio. Television is hugely popular since the fun is high to very low, but the work is near zero. They will do more work if it offers a lot more fun. Which means you shouldn't force your players to do stupid, boring, unnecessary work like running through a dozen screens again and again to get between important locations. "A game should offer the fastest and easiest possible way to do everything unless there is some entertaining or informative reason to prevent it." Preach on!

The last part of the book finally deals with the 'interactive storytelling,' slowly building up ever more ambitious plans till we're in the realm of the purely experimental. Several reasonably fleshed out examples are given, and some of them seem quite plausible even with today's technology. The balance between future technology (holograms and AI) and the reality of today is considered. Glassner is quite a skeptic about AI and the holodeck from Star Trek, but explores how tricks such as emergent behavior and setting expectations low and then beating them can work for you. For instance, if your AI is driving an animal (rather than a human), the players will be much more forgiving. Or if you give the user attractive, static graphics up front, they will be projected onto the cruder in-game graphics. Because of the conflict between a great story and complete interactivity, he suggests 'participatory storytelling' is a better goal than fully interactive storytelling.

Particularly interesting is the discussion of 'living masks.' Most people don't like to act, because they know it takes skill and that bad acting is very painful. But what if you could be 'in' a character that would take what you were doing at home and then do it in character on stage, so everyone involved could act to the best of their abilities but still 'be' a good actor? You'd have some control over the gross reactions, but the details would be up to the software. Obviously, we're nowhere near that level of sophistication, but there's a lot of time left in the 21st century. It does mean that a large portion of the book deals with techniques that are right now totally impractical.

My biggest disappointment with this part of the book is that it implicitly seems to assume that all games in the future will be multiplayer, as they're the focus of all the examples. And at this point Glassner has pretty much transcended mere 'games' for his vision of the future of entertainment. But it's easy to see how they could be adapted to the single-player games which will hopefully still be available in 2099.

To summarize, I think anyone with a serious interest in telling stories via video games or interactive fiction should read Interactive Storytelling. It's well written and does a good job of teaching concepts that most people making currently making video games could use a lot of help with. Furthermore, Glassner's vision of the future of storytelling is fascinating, even if it doesn't play out that way. However, I would not recommend that you pick this book up as a casual read. If you're looking for that, you might be better off with Creating Emotion in Games by David Freeman or perhaps The Art of Interactive Design by Chris Crawford. Or, though it somewhat destroys the rigorous chain of thought, skip the first half of Interactive Storytelling, then go back and digest it piece-by-piece later.

You can purchase Interactive Storytelling from bn.com. Slashdot welcomes readers' book reviews -- to see your own review here, read the book review guidelines, then visit the submission page.

Comments

Well

[savagedome]

Interactive storytelling in common man's terms is called Grandma.

Re:Well

[dillon_rinker]

Yup. Any grandma who makes up stories is well versed in the technique of reaching a climactic moment and asking "And then what do you think happened?" The child responds, and grandma exclaims "That's exactly right!" Then grandma continues, dramatizing and expounding on the child's answer.

Re:Well

[javaxman]

My 3-year-old son has recently decided that instead of a book at bedtime, I ( or my wife ) will tell him a story. Then he tells us what the story will be about. If the story we tell him at some point doesn't include the things he thinks it should include, he tells us about it.

Sounds like interactive story-telling to me...

Re:Well

[VidEdit]

Ah, so true.

People act as if interactive story telling was some sort of new idea. In fact, it dates back as far as story telling. However, the fact is that their are two kinds of media right now (I forget who coined the terms): Lean back (where we watch passively as the story unfolds, e.g. books, tv and movies) and lean forward (where we interact, eg. computers and games).

There will always be two kinds of media. People will always want lean back media. They want a story told to them and they want the director to do the story telling, to build up the characters and the tension, to create pace. And they don't want to do his work for him.

People always will want to interact with media, so they can be involved, interact and be a part of the action. Which means the pacing and conflicts can't be perfect because the story is now being partially written by the player.

As the summary of the book points out, the idea that lean back media and lean forward media will merge completely is balderdash. The two media have different needs. Futurists be damned...

re: well

[ed.han]

and in geek terms is called role-playing games. you know, pen & paper/tabletop games. D&D, GURPS, the white wolf stuff...

ed

Re:Well

[daeley]

Dear Dr. Lundberg:

You will be happy to hear our "javaxman 2.0" project is proceeding well. Please see attached post on Slashdot by the story-telling android unit, referring to his client-child as its own -- you can't imagine how long it took our AI team to get the emotional algorhythms just right without resulting in murderous rampages every fortnight for no discernable reason! A lot of good scientists lost their lives in pursuit of this project. And yet, considering how much money such a product will bring our company, what are a few PhDs, eh?

Once again, on that other matter of concern, we have every confidence that the FBI will be able to track down the "javaxman 1.0" unit that disappeared last month. And I *do* think all the dead farm animals in Saskatchawan are a coincidence.

Sincerely,
Dr. Ackthappth
Android Product Division

Alternate title:

[Neil Blender]

"Books for Dummies"

Choose Your Own Adventure?

[FatPaulie]

Didn't we create these "interactive stories" in the early 80's?

Those Choose Your Own Adventure and Which Way books were pretty darned popular in my grade school library.

aka "Hypertext Fiction"

[useosx]

Further reading:

Hypertext 2.0

Writing Space

Eastgate Fiction

Temporality of Hypertext Fiction

Re:Interactive novel style game:

[ppz003]

How about the Myst series? OK, the first couple don't exactly let you stray very far at all, but it is kinda nice being able to spend a lot of time to work out the puzzles, and not worrying about dieing all the time.

reality modiciation environments

[dTaylorSingletary]

I've always been interested in interactive storytelling. When I was a creative writing major over at San Francisco State University I was exploring such options, I purchased the excellent StorySpace software thinking that perhaps the web or a hypertext environment was the right way to go, only to be disappointed at the limitations. (The software is excellent for what it is capable of, even if it didn't fit the bill in my aspirations).

The conclusions that I drew are financially unreachable at this time. As well as the age-old problem that I think any interactive fiction will ever have: lack of interest. What I've always wanted to do is create locations much like Disneyland rides that tell a story interactively with a participant using computer projections and robotics, possibly with the interaction of psychedelic substances to help prime the "reader" for their experience.

Alas, I will probably never feel fufilled creatively as my ideas have no possibility for ever coming into fruition. (More on these ideas here).

It's a chicken/egg problem. Those of us who are but poor artists can't realize their dreams without heavy investment, and cannot get the heavy investment without an interested public to interact with. And an interest public cannot exist until the artistry is to be seen.

Warren Spector

[kin_korn_karn]

All you have to do to learn this art is play every game that Warren Spector has ever touched. The man is the gaming world's Ridley Scott (I almost said Spielberg but that's more Will Wright).

Should they merge?

[G4from128k]

I question the premise. Although games and stories are both entertainment, that does not imply that they can be successfully merged. On the one hand, what makes a story great is the ability to hear how someone else handled a problem or situation -- learning from another person's life and NOT controlling the story line. Call it lazy, but a passive vicarious experience can be pleasurable.

On the other hand, what makes games great is the ability to take control and run your own life in the game. You get to be someone you are not or try a persona or just compete for the thrill of it. Games are pleasurable for a diametrically different reason than stories. We like stories because they let us be passive and we like games because they let us be active.

I like green olives and I like chocolate and they are both food, but that does not mean they should be merged.

Re:Should they merge?

[RsG]

Well, I've always said that games are not stories per se, but rather are just plain _games_. Most of us play games for the enjoyable challenge to our brain and reflexes, not for in depth narrative. At it's core every game boils down to pong or chess (an oversimplification to be sure, but still true).

That being said, games with a compelling story, even one that would never work as a book/movie/TV series, are generally better than games that lack story. Story in a game is a nice bonus that fleshes out the universe that you're playing in. It adds much needed substance. But it's not a prerequisite for a good game.

Doom/Quake (all of them) Half Life, UT etc have little in the way of storytelling (HL has plot, but no narrative or character), yet these are highly praises and successful games. On the opposite side, KOTOR, System Shock, Planescape, BG II and the like have very good story, strong character development, and are generally well written, yet also have solid gameplay behind them. Partly it's a genre thing (the "vicarious experience" is definitely a FPS convention), but mostly it's a matter of gameplay first, story second.

Story vs. non-story games

[Doctor Cat]

One of the things we DON'T hear in all the writings about "how to get great stories/writing" into games is a good analysis of "what percentage of games should be story-related and what percentage should be otherwise, and why?" Games like tetris, solitaire, minesweeper, chess, pinball, card games, etc. are certainly quite popular with little or no story elements, and deservedly so. More story-oriented games like Secret of Monkey Island or the Final Fantasy series have their place too - but it seems clear to me that they'll always account for a minority of the overall game market. Discussions or studies of "what should we do within that portion of the market" are fine with me, but overly broad talk of "what should games do" that imply ALL games should be striving for more story and more writing bother me a bit. Games can validly focus just on action, like robotron, asteroids, or quake 3, they can validly focus just on strategy, luck, trivia questions, relaxation, or socializing. (In studies by GameTrust, when asked "what's your main reason for playing this game", 40% answered "to win", 43% answered "to relax", and 17% answered "to socialize".) What to do with storytelling and writing in an interactive setting is an interesting and useful question for the game industry to keep exploring. But it is less central to the question of how to make games than issues like "What role do different kinds of game mechanics play in the social and heirarchical interactions between human beings, and how could they do it better?" Or "What kind of single player games can best develop inductive reasoning skills?" The Super Mario games were huge hits in large part because they develop a young person's inductive reasoning "mental muscles" in a very satisfying and very rapid way. But discussion of these other types of questions is, I feel, sadly lacking in the game industry. -- Dr. Cat

Another good book

[ErikInterlude]

Anyone intereseted in writing interactive fiction or non-fiction might be interested in "Writing For Interactive Media" by Jon Samsel and Darryl Wimberely. Here's a link.

It goes over the various techniques by which one can develop interactive media, and what one should think about when doing so (design techniques, multiple plots, characters, interactive screenwriting, and other issues). I think it provides a good foundation with which to approach most forms of interactive writing.

Re:Interactive novel style game:

[RsG]

Planescape Torment is a damn good story and a fine game. It's easily my favorite RPG.

(For those who don't know what I'm talking about, this is a Black Isle game from the late nineties, using the same engine as Baldur's Gate. Great reviews, devoted following, lousy sales).

Dammit...

[bigattichouse]

[click click.. damn intros].. slow fade in of a new world.
In the.. [click]
new cut away of astonished faces.. [click]
And.. [Click] "But I n.. [click]
.. [click]
.. [click]
.. [click]
Bashing heads!!! dodge spin duck, combo attack.. crap!!!! wheres that save-portal!! dammit!

[click click.. damn intros].. slow fade in of a new world.
In the.. [click]
new cut away of astonished faces.. [click]
And.. [Click] "But I n.. [click]
.. [click]
.. [click]
.. [click]

Even worse, intros you HAVE to watch EVERY DAMN TIME, no click thru.

Yes, I believe I've found the solution.

[korea]

It involves 20 sided die, mountain dew, cheetos, and a bag of holding.

What people dont get about books

[emtboy9]

is that until they figure out a way to make games capable of being played out in our own brains, they will never have the quality of a good book.

What makes a book special, beyond character development, sympathetic characters, great story line, plot, drama, and all the rest, is the fact that we live the book in our own minds.

If I watch the movie Timeline based on Crichton's novel, I am seeing that Fast and Furious guy adn some other people on a ride through time. Its a fun movie, I suppose, not the best, but not the worst, but its still vicarious. I am experiencing it through their lives.

When I READ Timeine, I actually got to LIVE the adventure. Since it was all in my own mind, the scenery, people, etc were all up to my own imagination. The lead character looked, in my mind, or at least personified my ideal self in that story.

Reading is a hell of a lot more mentally engaging than watchign a movie or playing a video game. So far the closest anyone has come to a game being close to the book experience is the FPS. The FPS puts YOU in the game. You arent just playing some character, directing his/her/it's life. The character you play in a FPS, esp in somehing like a MMORPG, is an extension of YOU.

When I played Resident Evil, I controlled a character. When I play Battlefield Vietnam, I AM in Vietnam fighting it out.

THAT is the difference between a book experience and a game/movie experience.

Of course, I am just holding out for the chance to jack in to interactive pr0n ;)

Lots of games tell stories

[LoudMusic]

One of my favorite games is (was) Ico. It told a great story and was tons of fun to play. Getting an entire movie audience interacting with the movie in a sort of story video game would be impressive. That's what I want to see.

And ... how did this article get posted without a single link in the preview for us to slashdot?

I once skimmed this book...

[Musenik]

But when it asserted that all interactive fiction was operated by verb/direct-objects controls, I had to put it down. There are other metaphors for controlling a branching narrative. Midnight Stranger let you control the main character's emotions, allowing him or her to react based on the player choice of emotion. Another game to break the verb/target type of adventure game is The Witch's yarn. Instead of controlling the character, the player controls the environment.

Or...

[temojen]

this, this, this, this, this, this, or many others.

A game is a place you go, not a story

[Animats]

The trouble with "storytelling" in games is that it locks the player into a canned plot. This is boring. In the game industry, such games are derisively referred to as "track rides", as in a theme park. It's also the hell game designers used to find themselves in when involved in a Big Name Licensed Title project.

Now that players expect, and developers can deliver, a big, free-play world, plot-oriented games are in decline. Those stupid canned cinematics are disappearing.

Progress is now made by figuring out how to make free-play worlds more interesting, not by locking the user down to a plot track.

Re:A game is a place you go, not a story

[zephiros]

There is a tradition, in chinese and japanese landscape painting, of telling stories by presenting a activity-rich space. While you can stand back and look at an entire painting, it's best experienced by letting the eye wander across the various little vignettes happening in different parts of the work. Here some children are playing with a dog, over there the emporer is receiving guests, etc.

I suspect the way forward with interactive storytelling is to rediscover this notion of spatial storytelling. This requires authors to abandon plot as a mechanism for communicating with the reader. Instead, the author is left with setting and characters.

Traditional authors will balk at this, but as the field matures, I think a new generation of authors will find their voice in creating rich, interactive worlds.

Those who can, do

[Doc Ruby]

Why didn't Glassner publish this content as a videogame?

Re:Of Course - you are wrong

[ajc314159]

Yes - of course I never had any REAL fun reading a book, watching a movie, solo climibing a mountain, doing archery in the back woods, doing lego as a small kid (sadly no more), torturing my linux boxes, reading slashdot, learning to juggle, doing martial arts training, tracking animals, etc. etc.

You have a pretty limited life if you can't find fun when alone...

Re:Of Course

[Shadow Wrought]

Remember playing cowboys and indians, or hide-and seek? How about adult paintball? Play is inherently with other people.
it's not really "fun" if it isn't shared.

I think you might be mixing up the conept of "play" and "fun." There are quite a few things that are "fun" which tend to be solo activities. My solo training flights were a blast, but, of neccesity, solo. Does that mean that they weren't fun? Play for the most part is with others, but nowhere is it written that the "other" must be human. Ever "play" with a dog? Or a cat? Playing with an AI is a means to for play just like anything else in the virtual world. Indeed I find the computer to be a far more satisfying opponent than the human ones most of the time!

You are certainly welcome to your beliefs, and I don't know that I would argue against you if your premise was that folks needed more human interactions (/. bias notwithstanding) but I think you have taken this a bit too far.