Transformation Mutability – of our character, of our setting, of our actions, etc. McLuhan’s mosaic media Mosaic + transformation = kaleidoscopic Challenge of how to limit and signal opportunities for transformation “Part of the charm of each play is not letting the viewer know things, from showing us effects before we see the causes.” Example of changing points of view

Morphing Story Environments Where interactors enact or construct their own stories. – Examples today? The Bronte family (Charlotte, Branwell, Emily, and Anne) – A written world playing out issues in their lives – Once issues are worked out the world changes or is left behind Closure – “The experience of closure here … in the completeness of engagement with the whole range of story possibilities.”

Transformational Experience Enactment in VR as therapy – “the virtual experience worked because it was enough like the real one to raise the same anxieties but safe enough to allow for imaginative rehearsal” Escapist vs. progressive environments – Goal is not to exclude antisocial behavior – Need ability to engage, remodel, and work through

Refused Closure Closure in changing worlds is often held back – Contradicting viewpoints – Lack of central information Motivation of continued engagement Reader decides on closure – “closure occurs when a work’s structure, though not its plot, is understood” – Different and less pleasurable than traditional closure Fear of closure

Interactive Tragedy Mind as Labyrinth – Moving among the thoughts Web of Mourning – Moving among those affected Simulation and Destiny – Manipulation of world

Multipositional View Alternative to traditional closure Replay from a different viewpoint Learn about other effects and motivations after the story has played out Understand higher-level constructs

Authoring Multiform Stories Challenge of authoring kaleidoscopic content Need to specify – The alternative perspectives – The actions of interactor – Events and rules of event occurrence Potential for authoring based on patterns – Joseph Campbell’s “monomyth” – Tobias’s “master plots” But not too formulaic

Lessons of the Oral Bard Oral story composition includes features aimed to aid memory and recall No single canonical version – varies based on audience and particular telling Templates and replaceable names

Early Computer-based Literature Verbal substitution a la Mad Libs Icon palettes or action lists as alternatives The difficulty of interactor language – Freedom – lose control of plot – Limit – remind them of fourth wall Using alternatives to language – Gestures, moods, tones Composing themes into plots

Fairytale Composition as a Model Propp analyzed 450 fairytales – 25 plot elements – Common pairs of elements – Common order of elements Similar structures in today’s media – Star trek episode structure Lesson: algorithms and representations to aid authors or generate stories can be based on existing media

Computer as Storyteller Limitations of current games – Stories are linear but potentially many – Represent alternative details rather than structure Winston’s summary of Macbeth – sledgehammer causality Generation is still tricky – Joe Bear is hungry … Lebowitz’s Universe (goals -> plot fragments) Interactivity is missing here Oz group lesson – “plot satisfaction in an interactive environment is very different from plot satisfaction in an audience situation”

Supporting Human Authors “A story is an act of interpretation of the world, rooted in the particular perceptions and feelings of the writer” Support – Primitives of participation – Segmentation of story into themes – Rules for assembling plot – Control over particulars Reference to known stories and worlds – Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead (play in a play, from about 1 minute point to 2 minute point in clip) (meeting with Hamlet)