I was tinkering around with plot structure and came up with this idea. I'm looking for feedback. Bob the Protagonist encounters a locked door. This can be any door: the Magic Portal of Justice or the front door to his home, it doesn't matter. Bob is determined to go through to the other side, but he does not have a key. For the moment ignore any option of going around the door. So Bob develops a plan and sets off on a series of adventures to overcome the obstacle of the locked door. Finally Bob returns and is prepared to Open the Door. I'm going to leave off the conclusion of this abstract tale for a moment to ask a question. Is it still the same door? If the setting is a consistent physical universe, then in one sense it is the same door. It's at the same 'location' in this made-up fictional universe. It looks the same. It still blocks access to something on the other side of it. But in another sense, it's not the same door. The first door that was encountered served to push Bob into a series of adventures. At the end the door serves as a climax of the tale instead. It doesn't send Bob off on another set of wacky adventures. And if the second door opens to reveal Bob's goal, but the first door doesn't, then is there anything behind the first door at all? Maybe that's a bit too strange. But what happens if Bob returns at the end of the tale and finds the door has been opened by someone else? The story becomes a comedy, sure. But does this change the answer to the question? I'm leaning towards two separate doors. There needs to be consistency so that in the mind of the reader they are the same physical object, but in at least some sense there are two distinct objects. The point of this exercise: I'm still tinkering (on paper at least) with dynamic plots. This kind of question keeps popping up. Feedback? [edited by - JSwing on December 21, 2002 8:29:36 AM]

There are two events and the same physical object(s) are involved in both events. Events are abstract, physical objects are not. I guess we're getting into symbolic associations in Bob's head here. To someone else it is likely the same door. I would say this is in the same category as the "sentimental value" of something that is relatively worthless monetarily.


[edited by - Hollower on December 21, 2002 7:25:03 PM]

quote: Original post by Waverider
It almost parallels meeting a bunch of goblins on a side road that attack you. They all have the same weapons and use the same tactics, so they are all identical. but it turns out one of them has a key to a locked chest. THAT goblin becomes "special", but only after the player realizes it.

Sort of. A better analogy would be encountering a goblin who tells the player about a magic foozle he is looking for (imparting knowledge to the player). When the player finds the foozle, the goblin shows up again to exchange it for a foozle that the player needs (exchanging plot tokens). Two separate plot functions. So is it the same goblin?

quote: Original post by Hollower
There are two events and the same physical object(s) are involved in both events. Events are abstract, physical objects are not. I guess we''re getting into symbolic associations in Bob''s head here. To someone else it is likely the same door. I would say this is in the same category as the "sentimental value" of something that is relatively worthless monetarily.

But there is no spoon. Or door, in this case. There is no real ''physical'' object. It''s words on a page, or an image on the screen.

The object(s) would need to be consistent. But the consistency only exists in the medium and the mind of the reader. I think the need for consistency might not exist in the process of creating the medium.

This implies (to me) that in writing the story, there would be N doors, where N is the number of times the door appears in the work.


JSwing

I''m not sure exactly what angle you''re looking at this from, but I think it would be clearer if it was the same door, with N states. Or more precisely, with assorted properties, which can change depending on various plot events. I guess I just don''t see <I>why</I> it needs to be two doors...

quote: Original post by Anonymous Poster
I''m not sure exactly what angle you''re looking at this from, but I think it would be clearer if it was the same door, with N states. Or more precisely, with assorted properties, which can change depending on various plot events. I guess I just don''t see why it needs to be two doors...

The short answer is that in order to create dynamic, or even algorithmically generated plots, I''m trying to get a handle on the structural elements of a story. Rather than building a physical world and tacking on story elements via some scripting, I''m starting with the story elements and building the world on top of that.

So the plot structure comes first. Or perhaps in parallel to the world. I haven''t quite figured it out yet.

The longer answer is that, according to a couple of books on writing (blame SunandShadow''s challenge from last year), stories go from beginning to end, inexorably progressing to a conclusion. Which means they don''t repeat themselves or go around in circles, which is somewhat contradictory to gaming. But sticking with this for the moment, and looking at the structure of the Bob story, I get:

One door that can not be opened by any means. It serves to push Bob into a series of adventures. It redirects Bob''s progress, pointing the story in a different direction from what the reader expects.

One door will necessarily open in order for Bob to reach the end of the story. It will never redirect Bob''s progress. It only serves as a signpost to identify the climax.

These two doors do very different things in terms of plot structure. In fact, they have almost nothing in common, except for a general description. And even that may be different (different graphics for closed vs open), depending on how the story ends up.

Following this line of thought, this removes the restriction of having a single node for multiple story elements. Which changes how the story line(s) is(are) created.

I''m still working through it all, which is why I could use the feedback.

Hmm. I see what you''re getting at, sort of...

Okay, what if we abstract it a level. The door is an obstacle, something that comes between the hero and their current goal. This particular obstacle is defined as having only one way through - the key. So now the hero has a new goal - get the key. With more obstacles before they can get it, presumably. But once they have, when they return to the door, the obstacle is overcome, and the hero gets the goal.

For another example, the hero''s goal might be... oh... "revenge." And the obstacle is the villain, and the method to overcome the obstacle is to kill them. So the hero''s goal is now "kill the villain." And the next obstacle is the villain''s invulnerability, defeatable only by the uber-sword of Truth and Light... so the hero''s new goal is "get the sword." And so on and so forth. A lot more fun with some branches (multiple ways to overcome a given obstacle) and plot twists (you only thought the uber-sword of Truth and Light was behind this door - it''s a trap! Your new goal is "survive", and your obstacles are all the traps the villain set - if you manage it, then you can worry about "find out where sword really is.")

You get the idea. So... to my mind, an obstacle should be one object, defined by where/when it occurs, what is required to overcome it, and what you get if you do. Now, there''s no reason you can''t break up a single physical "object" into multiple obstacles, if that''s the best way to represent it - if, say, you get through the door... and somebody closes it behind you. Goal: get out, obstacle: door... but the way-to-overcome isn''t "key" anymore - that little fire-spell in the lock just fused it solid. How can our hero escape? I dunno... but it''s definitely a new obstacle, and therefore a new object.

That''s how I''d approach it, anyhow... which isn''t to say that it would work, or that completely different methods wouldn''t work as well or better.