• Advertisement
Sign in to follow this  

Plot As Thematic Argument, Characters As Thematic Vectors

This topic is 4339 days old which is more than the 365 day threshold we allow for new replies. Please post a new topic.

If you intended to correct an error in the post then please contact us.

Recommended Posts

I wrote a new little piece of my how-to-write book today, thought you all might like to see it. :) This builds on my journal entry Plot III where I talk about characters' goals and methodologies. Plot As Thematic Argument, Characters As Thematic Vectors (In geometrical terms, plot is the time or X-axis of a story, and the other axes should be Y=possession/political alignment and Z=theme, with characters being the vectors that move through this space.) The thematic vector value of the character is found by multiplying the character's goal by the character's method. There must also exist a character with either an opposing goal or an opposing method; there may exist one character with an opposing goal and another character with an opposing method. There may additionally exist a character with both an opposing goal and an opposing method (although this would be a bit redundant). Finally, if the goal and/or method are not binary choices, there may exist multiple characters with goals and/or methods which oppose the first characters and each others'. For example, let us imagine a world with 3 types of magic: black, white, and gray. These are philosophies or methods of doing magic. Thematically, there are three possible conflicts we could choose to explore: black vs. white, black vs. gray, or white vs. gray. If we want to explore all three conflicts in the same book this gives us a nice conflict triangle: black vs. white vs. gray (vs. black again). To illustrate this conflict we need at least one character to represent each faction. (Although, keep in mind that a character does not have to be a person, and even if they are a person they might only exist off-screen, in the other characters' thoughts and dialogue.) There are lots of ways this set-up could be developed, but I'll pick one particular way to illustrate: Let's suppose the author wants to convey that extremes are dangerous and the correct method is balance. Therefore, the gray mage is the 'good guy' and the white and black mages are the 'bad guys'. But, the gray mage is not necessarily the viewpoint character; if he started out already having the right method, what would there be for him to learn during the story? - Perhaps the viewpoint character is a student mage who has not picked his color yet, and the gray mage is his positive mentor or guardian. - Or perhaps the viewpoint character is the white mage who is friends with the gray mage and enemies with the black mage. The white mage would always be arguing with his friend about whether white magic or gray magic was better, and at the end of the story the white mage might decide gray magic is better and change his color to match that of his friend. - Or, perhaps the viewpoint character is the gray mage. He is in love with the black mage, but cannot marry her because they belong to opposing factions. So they argue throughout the story and at the end the black mage realizes grayness is better and changes to become a gray mage and they live happily ever after. - Or perhaps the viewpoint character gray mage is torn between being in love with twins, one of whom is a black mage and one of whom is a white mage, and who are always fighting with each other. The twins have a climactic fight and accidentally get magically merged into one body, averaging their blackness and whiteness into grayness. - Or perhaps there is no gray mage; the black mage and the white mage start out as enemies, fall in love, and relize that when they work together their magic averages out to gray. So there are many possibilities, but the point is that the author picks a theme (black/white/grayness) and a moral argument to make within this theme (i.e. grayness is correct and blackness and whiteness are both incorrect), creates characters to represent the various sides of the argument, argues the point through the conflict between the characters, and shows the superiority of one side by neutralizing the characters representing the other sides. A character can be neutralized by being killed, by being shown to be incompetent and thus harmless, by being permanently locked in a struggle with an equal and opposite character such that they have no time to bother anyone else, or by being convinced to change and join the 'correct' side. [Edited by - sunandshadow on March 31, 2006 5:04:35 PM]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Advertisement
Very interesting, although I think I might need some more sleep before my mind is in the right state to fully understand it [smile].

When you use mathematical terminology such as coordinate systems and vectors, are you using this purely as an allegory, or to describe how theme and changing character traits could be abstracted to a form that could be represented by mathematics (and therefore also by a computer program)?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lol, I just spent half an hour trying to answer that question for my roommate. I guess my primary goal is to find a way to represent the structure of stories visually; I would really like it if this also gave computers a mathematical way to 'understand' and generate/manipulate stories, but I'm not sure I'm at that point yet. The problem is that vector physics is deterministic, whereas character interactions are somewhat arbitrary. If two billiard balls with known mass, direction, and velocity crash into each other, anyone can predict exactly what will happen, but if two characters with known traits have a fight there are several reasonable outcomes, and the author can pick whichever makes the rest of the story work.

So, spacifically I am using the word vector here to mean "an object with known traits, the 'inner urge' to move in a thematic 'direction', and the propensity to interact with other vectors and be affected by environmental conditions." But a character does not necessarily have the same number of dimensions as a regular vector, does not necessarily have a steady velocity, and does not obey Newtonian physics but instead behaves according to a sort of 'dream logic' or 'social calculus' which I am still trying to understand.

Do let me know what you think about the idea when you are more awake. [smile]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"Y=possession/political alignment"

Possession? What about ownership? indentity? affinity?
political alignment? What about group affiliation?

"character interactions are somewhat arbitrary"

Smacks of probabilities and metaverses, perhaps some fuzzy math and weighted graphs, a nueral network or a terrain explorer - social terrain.

'dream logic' or 'social calculus'

There are different approaches to understanding these. One approach that might lend itself well to virtualization and "gamification" is "Constitutive Rules". Here are a few links:

Constitutive Rules and Institutions
Coordinated Management of Meaning
The new role of the constitutive rule
The social ontology of virtual environments
Articles in Jan 2003 issue of American Journal of Economics and Sociology
The construction of social reality

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It sounds a bit analogous to some of the robotic control systems I've seen in my research, actually. If you send a robot a command to move forward two metres, you don't know if it will go 1.9m, 2.1m, or a wheel will stick on the carpet and it will careen into the wall [smile]. While there are mathematical models to deal with this kind of situation, they're more for when you want to combine a whole bunch of measurements with a level of error, which isn't really the case when you have complete control over the system.

However some sort of probabilistic approach might be worth considering. You might estimate for a particular confrontation there's a 75% chance of outcome X, a 20% chance of outcome Y, or a 5% chance of outcome Z. Of course, since the author is completely in control of the whims of Lady Luck, maybe calling it something like thematic desirability would be better than probability...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Perhaps it's possible to model arbitrary interactions in a manner similar to modeling the collision of billiard balls, except the various forces, masses, velocities and so forth acting on the collision aren't physical properties but descriptive approximations of aspects of the social terrain. For example, a set of cultural rules guiding interactions. An agent or a player behaves in accordance with his/her group affiliation, an agent aligned with a "good" group would be more likely to abide by the rules, an agent aligned with a "bad" group would be more likely not to abide by the rules. An agents position in the social hierarchy could be used to determine the ability of that agent to get away with bending the rules, possibly crafting new rules. In a conflict between two agents, their relative social positions might be used to limit outcomes of the interaction - superiors, peers, inferiors - verticle and horizontal distances. At least it seems to me that reducing the field of possibilities to a manageable set would make it easier to randomly select a plausible outcome from a range of possibilities. Ultimately, it seems to me that the calculus of such interactions would have to be constructed by the author of the story - along with story setting and themes. It might be possible to conceive of this as a construction project of sorts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote:
Original post by LessBread
"Y=possession/political alignment"

Possession? What about ownership? indentity? affinity?
political alignment? What about group affiliation?


Ooh, interesting responses! I will have to carefully read through these and investigate the links (my turn to be too sleepy to think about hard stuff at the moment), but I figured I would answer this first point since it was a simple matter of cutting and pasting. I described the concept of this Y axis in the Did anyone ever make any progress with Interactive Storytelling? thread:

Quote:
A protagonist by definition is a character who is driven by a motivation to try to accomplish a goal. An antagonist (a very common but not universally necessary ingredient in a story) is also a character who is driven by a motivation to accomplish a goal, and this goal is one in opposition to the protagonist's. The protagonist and antagonist thus represent opposing thematic vectors.) Every goal that every character can have in a story is to affect the alliance/ownership state of an object (where the object could possibly be another character.

What do I mean by the alliance/ownership state of an object? Well, here are a bunch of examples: The protagonist wants to acquire the treasure. The antagonist wants to own the protagonist. The protagonist wants to stop being enemies (the negative version of being allied) with the antagonist, either by removing the antagonist's ownership of threatening weapons or by removing the antagonist's existence as an enemy by killing him. The protagonist and antagonist struggle over the ownership of a powerful foozle, or the rulership (ownership) of the kingdom, or the love of (alliance with) the princess.

So, the essential quality of every character and other object in our game is its relationships of ownership/alliance with any of the other objects in the game. And the plot of our game's story is the pattern of change in these relationships of ownership/alliance. A pattern of plot is like a sentence structure with different grammatical slots where you plug in nouns and verbs and things. Thus we can generate the characters and objects with which to initially populate the level of our game by analyzing our plot pattern to find out what slots we need to fill, and analyzing the theme we desire to convey to find out what details each object filling each slot should have.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
To embellish what I wrote earlier: There are a lot of "maps" in games, that is the concept of mapping is applied in many places and many different ways - height maps, light maps, shadow maps. Perhaps social maps could be applied in a manner similar to light related maps as it could be said that reality is "bathed" in the social in a manner similar to the way that light "bathes" reality. Perhaps the social map would be crafted to change dynamically rather than remain static, but this change would be gradual rather than rapidly, perhaps like a slow moving wave.

I'll have to take some time to consider your response and the content of that link before responding to it. It just seems to me that "political" describes an allegiance to a larger group rather than say the family (not necessarily a nuclear family) and that these more intimate bonds have the potential to produce more powerful stories, stories that resonate somewhat organically. On the other hand, allegiances to larger groups, in so far as it requires an effort to construct them, might be considered more vulnerable to disruption and thus more fruitful for story telling.

Also, in case you missed it, I added some remarks to Plot III too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm taking a look at these links and they are tangentially relevant to what I mean by 'dream logic' or 'social calculus'. In the last link in that list, it says:
Quote:
[Searle's] ontology of social reality thus rests on four components:
1. certain physical objects

2. certain cognitive acts or states in virtue of which such physical objects acquire certain special sorts of functions

3. these functions themselves

4. contexts in which the given cognitive acts or states are effective.


What I am interested in here is point two, or more specifically the logic according to which functions are evaluated as 'appropriate' to be assigned to particular objects. Or to phrase it a different way, our subconscious evaluation of what behavior is 'appropriately' expected from a particular object. What I am looking for is a theory of psychology/sociology, not ontology.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote:
Original post by Trapper Zoid
...since the author is completely in control of the whims of Lady Luck, maybe calling it something like thematic desirability would be better than probability...


Oooh, nice pharase! I'm gonna steal that, hope you don't mind. [wink]

That makes things nice and orderly: 'dream logic/social calculus' tells us what results are possible in any interaction between two vectors, then thematic desireability is a calculation of which of these results is preferable in that it will contribute the most to the soud construction of the story and clear, efficient conveyance of the story's meme. [smile]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
i've.....understand very little of it. however, the fact that you wrote all that must have a very deep meaning to how one could write a story. so i'll do what i can to understand this...alien language.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote:
Original post by G-Irregular
i've.....understand very little of it. however, the fact that you wrote all that must have a very deep meaning to how one could write a story. so i'll do what i can to understand this...alien language.


Well, this essay builds on a bunch of other ones I've written, so to understand it you might have to read those. You might want to try shatrting here, my first few chapters of a book on how to design games including their stories.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, I did finally get to reading this. And now I will take pot-shots at it, based on some extra knowledge that others do not have, but missing what may have come from earlier things written. I do not intend to be nasty, but few things survive the peer-review process - at least I don't review like a cryptographer.

In spite of that you did in fact spend a great deal of time last night explaining the approximate level of mathematical rigor in this system to me (so much so as to make pizza-eating difficult for us both), I still find it misleading. Especially, you make reference to "multiplying" goal and method. Given that you are not using arithmetical methods here, I think you must define such terms for this context, before this can be useful to others. How can we apply your methods if we do not know what they mean?

Your example of the wizards (apart from reminding me of L. E. Modesitt) makes the system look much more trivial than it appears from its description. I hope that it's the example that's at fault - otherwise the method contributes nothing particularly surprising, but instead takes an almost subconscious mental process belonging to the narrative instinct, and makes it more difficult than otherwise.

And I would be wary of accepting anything that comes from John Searle. He is the one who created the "Chinese Room" argument, which D. R. Hofstadter destroyed so nicely. (I do have Searle's essay on my shelf - it is in the book "The Mind's I" by Hofstadter and Dennett. Pull it down if you want - though I am sure you don't want.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Taking the subconscious narrative instinct, identifying the particular mental processes made out of them, and bringing them to a conscious level is precisely what I want to do. Instead of going "Wow that's surprising." the audience of my theory including this esay should hopefully be going, "Wow that's so true." Like that Meme book by Blackwell or whatever her name is. (Remind me to look for another copy of that next time we're at the used book store.)

As for the multiplying, I meant that in the sense that any two dimensions multiplied by each other will give you an array or graph. Like a Punnett square which shows how dominant and recessive genes are inherited, or how an independent and a dependent variable will give you a graph of a science experiment, or the way all the possible Kiersy temperament types make a quad of quads, and Dramatica also has quads of quads (not that they make any particular sense).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote:
Original post by sunandshadow
I'm taking a look at these links and they are tangentially relevant to what I mean by 'dream logic' or 'social calculus'. In the last link in that list, it says:
Quote:
[Searle's] ontology of social reality thus rests on four components:
1. certain physical objects

2. certain cognitive acts or states in virtue of which such physical objects acquire certain special sorts of functions

3. these functions themselves

4. contexts in which the given cognitive acts or states are effective.


What I am interested in here is point two, or more specifically the logic according to which functions are evaluated as 'appropriate' to be assigned to particular objects. Or to phrase it a different way, our subconscious evaluation of what behavior is 'appropriately' expected from a particular object. What I am looking for is a theory of psychology/sociology, not ontology.


Well, it seems to me that the ontology can't be divorced from the sociology. For example, point #2 requires the physical objects from point #1. I presented that approach to describing the construction of social reality because it seems to me that the social calculus it describes lends itself well to computer modeling and games. For example, it seems typical of those articles to discuss constitutive rules in the context of the rules of chess. At any rate, I would agree that those papers focus too much on Searle and that they are tangential to your project. They were the best discussions of constitutive rules that I could find on short notice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote:
Original post by Kallisti
And I would be wary of accepting anything that comes from John Searle. He is the one who created the "Chinese Room" argument, which D. R. Hofstadter destroyed so nicely. (I do have Searle's essay on my shelf - it is in the book "The Mind's I" by Hofstadter and Dennett. Pull it down if you want - though I am sure you don't want.)


I think it's extreme to dismiss everything that comes from an intelletual simply because one of his arguments was supposedly destroyed by someone else. Dennett has critics too, but that doesn't automatically invalidate everything he writes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote:
Original post by LessBread
Quote:
Original post by sunandshadow
I'm taking a look at these links and they are tangentially relevant to what I mean by 'dream logic' or 'social calculus'. In the last link in that list, it says:
Quote:
[Searle's] ontology of social reality thus rests on four components:
1. certain physical objects

2. certain cognitive acts or states in virtue of which such physical objects acquire certain special sorts of functions

3. these functions themselves

4. contexts in which the given cognitive acts or states are effective.


What I am interested in here is point two, or more specifically the logic according to which functions are evaluated as 'appropriate' to be assigned to particular objects. Or to phrase it a different way, our subconscious evaluation of what behavior is 'appropriately' expected from a particular object. What I am looking for is a theory of psychology/sociology, not ontology.


Well, it seems to me that the ontology can't be divorced from the sociology. For example, point #2 requires the physical objects from point #1. I presented that approach to describing the construction of social reality because it seems to me that the social calculus it describes lends itself well to computer modeling and games. For example, it seems typical of those articles to discuss constitutive rules in the context of the rules of chess. At any rate, I would agree that those papers focus too much on Searle and that they are tangential to your project. They were the best discussions of constitutive rules that I could find on short notice.

Hmm. I suppose I usually think of them as separate because I think of the dream logic/social calculus to be a fundamental property of the human mind, kind of like the platonic idea of possible types of objects and their behavior, and not dependent on any actual objects to exist. But you're right, it would be hard to talk about rules of object behavior without having some objects to talk about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote:
Original post by sunandshadow
Hmm. I suppose I usually think of them as separate because I think of the dream logic/social calculus to be a fundamental property of the human mind, kind of like the platonic idea of possible types of objects and their behavior, and not dependent on any actual objects to exist. But you're right, it would be hard to talk about rules of object behavior without having some objects to talk about.


And I don't think of them as seperable. For example, the very idea of social calculus presumes a pre-existing society. I think there is something about the human mind that produces various dream logics/social calculii, but I don't think particular dream logics/social calculii can be divorced from the environment particular people live in. For example, Inuits aren't very likely to dream about lions and zebras, they are very likely to dream about walrus and caribou.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote:
Original post by LessBread
I don't think particular dream logics/social calculii can be divorced from the environment particular people live in. For example, Inuits aren't very likely to dream about lions and zebras, they are very likely to dream about walrus and caribou.


I strongly disagree - the basic tenet of structuralism is that people everywhere think the same. That there is a universal human language instinct, a universal human narrative instinct (as Kallisti mentioned), a universal underlying structure to all fiction froduced by all humans in all places and times since we gained the basic ability to tell a story. For example, it doesn't matter whether the big predator tribespeople are scared of is a lion, a jaguar, a wolf, a coyote, or a bear, unrelated cultures all over the world fear the archetypal predator in the same way and tell the same myths about is (such as that of the man-beast, e.g. the werewolf).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote:
Original post by sunandshadow
Quote:
Original post by LessBread
I don't think particular dream logics/social calculii can be divorced from the environment particular people live in. For example, Inuits aren't very likely to dream about lions and zebras, they are very likely to dream about walrus and caribou.


I strongly disagree - the basic tenet of structuralism is that people everywhere think the same. That there is a universal human language instinct, a universal human narrative instinct (as Kallisti mentioned), a universal underlying structure to all fiction froduced by all humans in all places and times since we gained the basic ability to tell a story. For example, it doesn't matter whether the big predator tribespeople are scared of is a lion, a jaguar, a wolf, a coyote, or a bear, unrelated cultures all over the world fear the archetypal predator in the same way and tell the same myths about is (such as that of the man-beast, e.g. the werewolf).


And that's why structuralism is often criticized as Eurocentric. I don't think people everywhere think the same, I think people everywhere have the same capacity for language, narrative and so forth, but clearly people from different parts of the world think differently, their languages have different grammars and different words for describing the various objects in our world. And for that matter, some objects can only be distinquished in a particular language. The typical example of that are the 50+ something words that eskimos have for snow and ice.

Now, I recognize that there are archetypes, for example, the predator archetype that you mention, and also that for the differences I mention above people everywhere share some of the same primal fears (eg. crossing the divide back into animality), but I think the different details of the predator do make a difference as far as story telling goes. A story about a polar bear on an ice flow wouldn't make sense to a Masai warrior and a story about a giraffe wouldn't make sense to an Inuit. This doesn't mean that they couldn't tell each other stories that would make sense to each other, but simply that they both have different stories to tell, stories that depend on a familiarity with a particular natural environment in order for certain aspects of those stories to make sense. And from those aspects different cultures develop, a lion cult here, a bird cult there - each with different myths, each with different understandings of what it means to be a human being, an adult, a productive member of society and so forth. This doesn't mean that we couldn't look at the various myths and identify which are coming of age stories and which aren't, which is to say that coming of age stories are ubiquitous, but different cultures are going to define the transformation differently.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Examples of the man-beast myth are found among africans, japanese, and native north and south americans, not just europeans. And I read an article which argued convincingly that 'lots of eskimo words for snow' isn't true - if you talk to say, an american skiier who knows lots of words for kinds of snow, and an american meteorologist who know a different set of words for snow, you would get about as many as the eskimos have. It's hard to know who's right without studying eskimo. But I have studied comparative mythology, and it is my belief that all myths are fundamentally similar. A polar bear on an iceflow could be easily substituted for a leopard on an island in a river. A giraffe is not that different from a moose. I believe that there is no inherent meaning in specific animals or geography, all meaning is imposed on the world by the human mind, and all human minds impose meaning in fundamentally similar ways.

Consider the concept 'magic'. It is directly relevant here, since magic, having no existence in reality, can only operate according to the same 'dream logic' we have been discussing. Magic is not real, yet there must be some reason every culture has an idea of magic, and even agrees that it operates on the principles of sympathy and mysterious words or glyphs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote:
Original post by sunandshadow
Examples of the man-beast myth are found among africans, japanese, and native north and south americans, not just europeans. And I read an article which argued convincingly that 'lots of eskimo words for snow' isn't true - if you talk to say, an american skiier who knows lots of words for kinds of snow, and an american meteorologist who know a different set of words for snow, you would get about as many as the eskimos have. It's hard to know who's right without studying eskimo. But I have studied comparative mythology, and it is my belief that all myths are fundamentally similar. A polar bear on an iceflow could be easily substituted for a leopard on an island in a river. A giraffe is not that different from a moose. I believe that there is no inherent meaning in specific animals or geography, all meaning is imposed on the world by the human mind, and all human minds impose meaning in fundamentally similar ways.

Consider the concept 'magic'. It is directly relevant here, since magic, having no existence in reality, can only operate according to the same 'dream logic' we have been discussing. Magic is not real, yet there must be some reason every culture has an idea of magic, and even agrees that it operates on the principles of sympathy and mysterious words or glyphs.


I'd be interested in reading that article about the eskimos. It seems to me, however, that comparing words that everyone in a language group knows (eskimos) and words that only a few people with specialized skills (skiiers, meteorologists) in a language group knows isn't enough to disprove the basic assertion.

I don't agree that all myths are fundamentally similar, but I would acknowledge that many of them are. We do after all have much in common physically and emotionally. However, I think that comparative mythology tends to overlook the differences in favor of the commonality, which can produce mis-understanding. I agree that meaning is imposed on the world by human beings and that the meanings assigned to particular animals or geographic locations flows from the human mind, but I'm hesitant to agree with the notion that meaning is imposed in fundamentally similar ways. Perhaps it was at one time in the far distant past, but I think meaning piles up in ways that change how it's imposed. The simliarities of magic and man-beasts aside, a sun culture is going to construct a different social reality than a snow culture, a sea culture, an industrial culture. Meaning isn't static, culture isn't static. Things get dropped and things get added in the transmission of meaning from generation to generation. Anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yeah, anyway. It is necessary to understand this 'dream logic', to pull it from the subconscious into the light of day and encode it in algorythms if we ever hope to be able to generate fiction, because these are the rules by which the details of plot are generated. And it doesn't really matter whether all people have exactly the same logic, because any one person's will do - it only takes one human author to write a book, so a program which emulate only one human author could also conceivably write a book. So the question is, how do I identify the principles of 'dream logic', where and by what method can I research them?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Interesting discussion so far, although it's strayed far into areas such as cultural psychology in which I'm too uneducated in to add anything meaningful!

If by "dream logic" you mean something similar to "story logic" - the set of logic rules that define the likely progression of a story - then that's pretty much my opinion of how to go about creating a computer story generation system. Each rule set will be different for a certain story type, so I don't expect the rules to be the same for a fairy tale, a detective novel or an action movie script.

Of course, the problem is that for most story types the "story rules" deeply codify a large part of the human condition, and this is very, very hard to express in terms of logic rules, because many of the rules are so ingrained it's hard to realise they are rules until you write some of them up and notice the computer making boneheaded assumptions.

That's why some of the best computer generated story systems I've seen have deliberately chosen domains that have a simlpe set of rigidly codifed story rules, such as fairy-tales. Luckilly, I also this is the one boon we have if we aim to create a "computer game" story generator, because many computer game story types get by with a similar set of rigid story rules (such as bad guy wants to destroy the world, kidnaps girl, hero fights a series of enemies and mini-bosses, obligitory plot twist two-thirds in, hero kills bad guy and rescues girl. Or even the internet lists of amusing RPG cliches). I'm sure this aspect of having a cliched series of storylines probably doesn't appeal to you as a writer, but it does make things easier for a computer program [grin].

Of course, if you do find a good way to encode logic for the human condition (or even a good smoke-and-mirrors way to fake it), then I'd really like to know myself!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

  • Advertisement