9. storytelling, games, and play - 京都大学 · storytelling, game, and play • storytelling...

Copyright © 2016, Toyoaki Nishida, Atsushi Nakazawa, Yoshimasa Ohmoto, Yasser Mohammad, At ,Inc. All Rights Reserved.

9. Storytelling, Games, and Play

Toyoaki NishidaKyoto University

Conversational Informatics, January 18, 2017

Story

Physical world

Story organizes experiences

Goffman’s Frame Analysis: keying, fabricating, …

Storytelling, Game, and Play

• Storytelling [Schank 1975-1982]• Second Person [Harrigan et al 2010]• Synthetic Evidential Study [Nishida 2015]• Conversation Quantization [Nishida 2005]• Story [McKee 1997]• Frame Analysis [Goffman 1974]• Homo Ludens [Huizinga 1938]• Man, Play and Games [Caillois 1958]

"Mary socked John."

"Mary punched John."

"Mary hit John with her fist."

"John was socked by Mary."

"Marie a donne un coup de poing a Jean."

"Maria pego a Juan."

Story understanding and generation

[Schank 1975]

Action: PROPELActor: MaryObject: FistFrom: MaryTo: John

Margie


SAM (Script Applier Mechanism)[Cullingford 1981] Cullingford, Richard E: SAM and Micro SAM. In Roger C. Schank, & Christopher K. Riesbeck (Eds.), Inside computer understanding. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, 1981

FRUMP [Dejong 1979] DeJong, Gerald F.: Skimming stories in real time: An experiment in integrated understanding (Technical Report YALE/DCS/tr158). New Haven, CT: Computer Science Department, Yale University, 1979

Script-based understanding


SAM (Script Applier Mechanism)[Cullingford 1981] Cullingford, Richard E: SAM and Micro SAM. In Roger C. Schank, & Christopher K. Riesbeck(Eds.), Inside computer understanding. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, 1981

FRUMP [Dejong 1979] DeJong, Gerald F.: Skimming stories in real time: An experiment in integrated understanding (Technical Report YALE/DCS/tr158). New Haven, CT: Computer Science Department, Yale University, 1979


Plan-based understandingPAM[Wilensky 1978] Wilensky, Robert: Understanding goal-based stories (Technical Report YALE/DCS/tr140). New Haven, CT: Computer Science Department, Yale University, 1978.

POLITICS[Carbonell 1978] Carbonell, Jaime: Subjective understanding: Computer models of belief systems (Technical Report YALE/DCS/tr150). New Haven, CT: Computer Science Department, Yale University, 1978.

Dynamic MemoryIPP [Lebowitz 1980] Lebowitz, Michael : \Generalization and memory in an integrated understanding system (Technical Report YALE/DCS/tr186). New Haven, CT: Computer Science Department, Yale University, 1980.

BORIS[Lehnert 1983] Lehnert, Wendy G., Dyer, Michael G., Johnson, Peter N., Yang, C. J., Harley, Steve: BORIS -- An experiment in in-depth understanding of narratives. Artificial Intelligence, 20(1), 15-62., 1983.

CYRUS[Kolodner 1984] Kolodner, Janet L.: Retrieval and organizational strategies in conceptual memory: A computer model. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, 1984.

Story tellingTALE-SPIN[Meehan 1981] Meehan, James: TALE-SPIN and Micro TALE-SPIN. In Roger C. Schank, & Christopher K. Riesbeck (Eds.), Inside computer understanding. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, 1981.

Writing Façade: A Case Study in Procedural Authorship

How can a story be structured to incorporate interaction, yet retain a satisfying, well-formed plot when experienced by the reader/player?

Recast player interactions within a story in terms of abstract social games.

[Mateas 2010, p. 183-207]


Approach

• Divide the narrative into multiple fronts of progression, often causally independent, only occasionally interdependent.

• build a variety of narrative sequencers to sequence these multiple narrative progressions.

• A reactive-planning language called "A Behavior language" (ABL) manages both parallel and sequential behaviors interrelations such as sub-goal success and failure, priority, conflict, preconditions, and context conditions.

• Facade's primary narrative sequencing occurs within a beat: a group of behaviors organized around a particular topic.

• The drama manager (the highest-level narrative sequencer) sequences dramatic beats according to specifications written in a custom drama management language.

[Mateas 2010, p. 183-207]


• DiPlayerArrives

• TripGreetsPlayer

• PlayerEntersTripGetsGrace

• GraceGreetsPlayer

• ArgueOverRedecorating

• ExplainDatingAnniversary

• ArgueOverItalyVacation

• FightOverFixingDrinks

• PhoneCallFromParents

• TransitionToTension2

• GraceStormsToKitchen

• PlayerFollowsGraceToKitchen

• GraceReturnsFromKitchen[Mateas 2010, p. 183-207]

• TripStormsToKitchen

• PlayerFollowsTripToKitchen

• TripReturnsFromKitchen

• TripReenactsProposal

• BlowupCrisis

• PostCrisisTherapyGame

• RevelationsBuildup

• Revelations

• EndingNoRevelations

• EndingSelfRevelationsOnly

• EndingRelationshipRevelationsOnly

• EndingBothNotFullySelfAware

• EndingBothSelfAware

Façade’s 27 beats.


• Each beat itself is a narrative sequencer, responsible for sequencing a subset of its joint discourse behaviors (JDBs) in response to player interaction.

• Only one beat is active at any time.

• There are two typical uses of JDBs within beats: as beat goals and beat mix-ins. A beat consists of a canonical sequence of narrative goals called beat goals.

• In addition, to the beat goals, there is a set of meta-behaviors, called handlers, which wait for specific interpretations of player dialogue (discourse acts), and modify the canonical sequence in response, typically using beat mix-ins.

[Mateas 2010, p. 183-207]

McKee’s theory on Scenario writing

• Event: means change. A story event creates meaningful change in the life situation of a character that is expressed and experienced in terms of a value. [p. 33]

• Scene: is an action through conflict in more or less continuous time and space that turns the value-charged condition of a character's life on at least one value with a degree of perceptible significance. Ideally, every scene is a story event. [p. 35]

• Beat: is an exchange of behavior in action/reaction. Beat by Beat these changing behaviors shape shape the turning of a scene. [p. 37]

• Sequence : is a series of scenes—generally two to five—that culminates with greater impact than any previous scene. [p. 38]

• Act: is a series of sequences that peaks in a climactic scene which causes a major reversal of values, more powerful in its impact than any previous sequence or scene. [p. 39]

• Story: is a series of acts that build to a last act climax or story climax which brings about absolute and irreversible change. [p. 42]

[McKee 1997]

Evolving stories underlying conversation

Our approach: Shared Virtual Space

Synthetic evidential study

Synthetic evidential study (SES) combines dramatic role play and group discussion to help people spin stories by bringing together partial thoughts and evidence.

Componentize

Reuse

SES session Interpretation archive

Structured collection of {story, background, critique}Agent Play

Dramatic role play

Group discussions

[Nishida et al 2015]

At the beginning of the 18th century, a feudal lord named Asano Takumi-no-kami

Naganori was in charge of a reception for envoys from the Imperial Court in Kyoto.

Another feudal lord, Kira Kozuke-no-suke Yoshinaka, was appointed to instruct

Asano in the ceremonies. On the day of the reception, while Kira was talking with

Yoriteru Kajikawa, a lesser official, at “Matsu no Roka” (“Hallway of Pine Trees”) in

Edo Castle, Asano came up to them screaming “This is for revenge!!” and slashed

Kira twice with a short sword. Soon after the incident, Kajikawa restrained Asano,

who was then imprisoned. The reason for the attack was not known, though it was

widely believed that Kira had somehow humiliated Asano. Ultimately Asano was

sentenced to commit seppuku, a ritual suicide, but Kira went without punishment.

Hallway of Pine Trees (from Chushingura)

Kira Kozuke-no-suke Yoshinaka

Asano Takumi-no-kami Naganori

Yoriteru KajikawaWhy was it possible?

How did it happen?

What did each think?

Dramatic Role Play

Group play capture

Agent play

Discussion phase

T. Ookaki, M. Abe, M. Yoshino, Y. Ohmoto and T. Nishida. Synthetic Evidential Study for Deepening

Inside Their Heart. IEA/AIE 2015.

Asano

Kira

Kajikawa

Third person view First person view

Discussions

Observed communicative behaviors

The observed behavior of participants

• Acting behavior—what the participants do when they are actually acting.

• Commenting behavior—a critique of the incidents and the acting, including reasoning, discussion and thinking aloud.

• Oral editing behavior—suggested revisions to the acting.

• Idling behavior—all actions that are not classified above.

The role play phase

• Twelve detailed behaviors were observed in the role play phase: (1) acting, (2) commenting, (3) oral editing, (4) idling, (5) speaking his/her role, (6) acting + thinking aloud, (7) acting + commenting, (8) acting + oral editing, (9) acting + speaking his/her role, (10) idling + commenting, (11) idling + oral editing, and (12) idling + speaking his/her role.

• Roughly classified into the rehearsal acting scene and production acting scene. Transitions between the rehearsal acting scene and production acting scene can be clearly identified by eye. For example, just before the production acting scene, explicit signaling behavior such as giving-a-cue was observed. [Ookaki et al 2015]

Contrasting objective and subjective views

After contrasting the objective and subjective views on the action of Kira falling prone, one participant remarked that “Falling prone seems strange in the objective viewpoint. However, when I experience the subjective viewpoint of Kira, it looks like a natural movement”, and everyone agreed.

Subjective view transfer

When experienced with Kajikawa’s viewpoint, the Kira player said

“(Kajikawa was too slow to) restrain Asano after having been slashed,” which is considered to reflect the Kira player’s view that Kajikawa should have helped Kira earlier.

After a while, however, the Kira player said, “When Asano swung his sword for the first time, Kajikawa might have been farther away from Asano,” suggesting that he considered that it prevented Kajikawa from restraining Asano earlier.

“In the Woods” by Ryunosuke Akutagawa

Major Characters:

- Tajomaru, the robber

- Takehiro Kanazawa, a samurai working in Wakasa

- Masago, Takehiro’s wife

Plot

- “The same incident in the woods” is told from four witnesses and three actors

- Stories told by three actors contradict with each other.

Scene Abstract

[WC] The Woodcutter's Story The woodcutter found the body of Takehiro.

[TM] The Traveling Monk's Story

The traveling monk saw Takehiro and Masago yesterday on the Yamashina road.

[BT] The Bounty Hunter's Story

The bounty hunter caught Tajomaru who was thrown out of his horse and moaning in pain at the bridge of Awataguchi.

[TJ] Tajomaru’s Story Takehiro was killed as a result of duel between Tajomaru and Takehiro.

[Ma1] Masago’s Story - 1 Masago was kicked to the ground by Tajomaru. Masago was dispised by Takehiro. Masago was fainted.

[Ma2] Masago’s Story - 2 Masago stabbed him hard in the chest.

[TK] Takehiro’s Story through a Medium

Masago asked Tajomaru to kill Takehiro. Tajomaru kicked Masago to the ground. Masago ran toward the deep part of the woods, while Tajomaru was asking Takehiro if he wanted Tajomaru to kill Masago or let her go.

Multiple lines of story

Tajomaru met Takehiro and Masago

Tajomaru tied Takehiro to a cedar tree

Tajomaru and Takehiro went into the woods

Tajomaru took Masago into the woods

Tajomaru took his way with Masago

Tajomaru killed Takehiro

Masago killed Takehiro

Takehiro killed himself

Masago asked Tajomaru to kill Takehiro

Masago said that she would go with either one of them and the other one must die

Takehiro despised Masago

Tajomaru asked Masago to come along

Tajomaru kicked Masago to the ground

Duel between Tajomaru and Takehiro

Masagoescaped

Masagoleft

Tajomaruwas caught

Masago cared for Takehiro

Tajomaru found Masago with Takehiro

“In the wood” by Ryunosuke Akutagawa

Takehiro Tajomaru Masago

Multi-layered Multi-view Interpretation

Representing story and its interpretations

Participant’s interpretation

A’s interpretation

B’ interpretation

Actors’ interpretation

Tajomaru’s

Wife’s

Husband’s

Dramatic Scene

Third Person Tajomaru Wife Husband

{Spatial, Temporal} X {Locality, Influence}

Experiment

Purpose- Verify that SES will help participants deepen the interpretation

- Study the multiple application of SES cycles

Task in three stages- We asked participants to annotate each scene in three stages.

Stages

Tajomaru’s Story (First person view)The Bounty Hunter's Story (Third person view)

Stage 1 (Condition 1)5 participants



Phase 1: comments presented to each participant

None 5 comments obtained atStage 1

9 comments obtained at Stage 1 and 2

Phase 2: networked comments presented to each participant

None 5 network comments obtained at Stage 1

9 networked comments obtained at Stage 1 and 2

Annotation subsystem

• Displays previous comments

• Allows the participant to add new comments

• Each comment has one of the following types:[Confirmation], [Empathy], [Confirmation], [Conjecture], [Doubt], [Question], [Surprise]

Interpretation archive

• An edge from Node x to Node y, if Node x represents a presupposition of Node y.

• Each node consists of a number of attribute-value pairs:

The [Scene], [View], [Scene_time]attributes specify the behavior of corresponding

ID Scene View Scene_time Time Comment Attribute participant

100 Masago 2 3Psn 16.5647 3909.791 Masago stabbed Takehiro Confirmation D

Networked annotations

Nodes are colored differently according to their type, so the user can grasp the structure of the network easily: orange for Clarification, green for Empathy, blue for Confirmation, red for Doubt, sky blue for Conjecture, purple for Question, and pink for Surprise.

108: There was a rope near the tree. And there was also a comb.

101: Masagostabbed Takehirohard in the chest.

115: Takehiro was dead because Masago stabbed.

105: No duel between Tajomaru and Takehiro

106: Who pulled the dagger from Takehiro’s chest?

102: Masago told Tajomaru to kill Takehiro.

104: Takehiroheard that Masago told Tajomaru to kill Takehiro.

118: Takehiro’s eyes showed that he despised Masago.

113: Takehirowas shocked by the betrialof Masago.

114: Msagotried to run to where Takehiro was.

111: Tajomaru had a set of arrows.

116: Tajomarukilled Takehiro.

109:The bamboo leaves all around had blood on them.

117: Tajomaruasked Takehirowhat to do with Masago.

107: The body was on its back, looking up.

103: Finally, he twenty-third thrust of Tajomaru’s sword went through Takehiro’s chest.

110:Taromaru carried both a sword and a set of arrows.

112: A deep sorrow of having been defeated in the duel.

Some results

We asked participants to write their own interpretation for “In the Wood”.

Before experiment: “Not clear” or no answer (6 out of 14 participants)

After experiment: Almost all participants were able to write their own short interpretations.

・The number of comments decreased at Stage 2, while it significantly increased at Stage 3.

・Conjecture-type comments are increasing ⇒ More new interpretation at later stages

・Confirmation-type comments are decreasing ⇒ Less confirmation is necessary at later stages.

Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3 Subtotal

Clarification 55 19 93 167

Empathy 17 6 41 64

Confirmation 23 9 12 44

Doubt 15 5 20 40

Conjecture 17 15 58 90

Question 12 11 18 41

Surprise 2 2 5 9

Subtotal 141 67 247 4550

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

STA GE 1 STA GE 2 STA GE 3

R AT IO O F C O M M ENTS O F EAC H T Y P E

Clarification Empathy ConfirmationDoubt Conjecture QuestionSurprise

Correlation between comment-type and depth of understanding

・Based on the questionnaire, we calculated Spearman's rank correlation coefficient

⁻ between the number of comments of that type and the depth of understanding from third person view

⁻ between the number of comments of that type and the depth of understanding from first person view

for each comment-type at each stage.

-1

-0.8

-0.6

-0.4

-0.2

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

S T A G E 1 S T A G E 2 S T A G E 3

C O R R EL A T I O N B ET W EEN C O M M EN T - T Y P E A N D D EP T H O F U N D ER S T A N D I N G F R O M T H I R D

P ER S O N V I EW

Clarification Empathy Confirmation Doubt

Conjecture Question Surprise

-1

-0.8

-0.6

-0.4

-0.2

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1


C O R R EL A T I O N B ET W EEN C O M M EN T - T Y P E A N D D EP T H O F U N D ER S T A N D I N G F R O M F I R S T P ER S O N V I EW

Clarification Empathy Confirmation Doubt

Conjecture Question Surprise

Correlation between conjecture, question and the depth of understanding

• Conjecture hinders precise understanding the situation

• Questions and conjectures promote new conjecture⇒The more conjecture, the less questions

⇒It may cause the deepening of interpretation and change of opinion.Rationale 1: Correlation between conjecture and the depth of understanding is positive

at Stage 3.

Rationale 2: In the questionnaire after the experiment, none of four participants reported that their opinion changed at stage 2, while all the five participants reported so at Stage 3.

-1

-0.5

0

0.5

1


C O R R E L A T I O N B E T W E E N T H E F R E Q U E N C Y O F C O M M E N T - T Y P E A N D

T H E D E P T H O F U N D E R S T A N D I N G F R O M T H I R D P E R S O N V I E W

Clarification Empathy Confirmation

Doubt Conjecture Question

Surprise

-1

-0.5

0

0.5

1


C O R R E L A T I O N B E T W E E N T H E F R E Q U E N C Y O F C O M M E N T - T Y P E A N D

T H E D E P T H O F U N D E R S T A N D I N G F R O M F I R S T P E R S O N V I E W

Clarification Empathy Confirmation

Doubt Conjecture Question

Surprise

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.3

0.35

0.4

0.45

Frequency of comment-type

Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3

Multistage SES contributes to the depth of understanding

Network analysis for interpretation archive

Centrality (undirected): related to many other nodes ⇒ deemed the most critical in interpretation

・One participant wrote that the node with the highest centrality changed my opinion. ⇒ It is suggested that critical comments can be identified based on the degree centrality (the degree of a node).

・Dense connection among nodes with high rank (1→3, 2→1, 2→3, 1→4, 1→5, 2→5,3→5)

⇒ critical comments are clustered in the interpretation network

Rank Comment Type Scene Viewpoint Commentator degree

1 Masago did not much love Takahiro. Masagomight have wanted to kill her husband for some reason

Conjecture Masago2 3rd person G (Stage 2) 15

2 Tajomaru had relationship with Masago Confirmation Takehiro Takehiro I (Stage 2) 10

3 Masago was I panic Conjecture Masago2 Takehiro B (Stage 1) 9

4 Did Takehiro really said “Kill me”? Why was Masago able to kill her husband so quickly.

Question Takehiro Takehiro I (Stage 2) 9

5 Double shock caused by being made way with and being despised by husband

Empathy Masago 1 Masago L (Stage 3) 7

Summary of insights

1. Presenting interpretations based on the situation and goal of the user.

=> Solicit interpretation from a given angle by presenting only comments of a certain type.

2. Identifying critical comments based on the structure of interpretation network.

(a) Understanding from the third person view

(b) Understanding from the first person view

(c) New conjecture

Comments Clarification Clarification, Empathy Question, Conjecture

Multistage comments Doubt Clarification, Empathy Question, Conjecture

Rank Comment Type Scene Viewpoint Commentator degree

1 Masago did not much love Takahiro. Masagomight have wanted to kill her husband for some reason

Conjecture Masago2 3rd person G (Stage 2) 15

2 Tajomaru had relationship with Masago Confirmation Takehiro Takehiro I (Stage 2) 10

3 Masago was in panic as she never thought that would happen.

Conjecture Masago2 Takehiro B (Stage 1) 9

4 Did Takehiro really said “Kill me”? Why was Masago able to kill her husband so quickly.

Question Takehiro Takehiro I (Stage 2) 9

5 Double shock caused by being made way with and being despised by husband

Empathy Masago 1 Masago L (Stage 3) 7

Potential applications of SES

• Academic research

– Social sciences, History and archaeology, Literature study

• Evidence-based methodologies

– Criminal investigation, profiling

– Onsite investigation

• Planning

– Strategy formation

– Disaster planning

• Training

– Social skills training, language training

– Dramatic problem solving

Conversation Quantization

acquisition

Conversational situation

Other conversational situations

Collective Dynamic Memory

presentation

Conversational quanta

In order to detach

the front wheel ...

Conversational quanta

[Nishida-Nakazawa-Ohmoto-Mohammad 2014]

Conversation Quantization


Ground

Interaction

A: <pointing M>That’s Diamond Head

B: <nod> I know. That’s is a volcano.

C: <gaze at M>I wend there with my family in 1985

A: participant

C: participantB: participant

M: mountain

Discourse

Preceding / Succeeding / Related

(b) Conversation quantum(a) Conversation scene

(c) (Hypothetical) observer

Schema

Conversation quantum

Schemata dictionary

Segmentation and transcription

A: That’s Diamond Head.

C: I went there with my family in 1985.

B: I know. That is a volcano.

Interaction

A: <pointing M>That’s Diamond HeadB: <nod> I know. That’s is a volcano.C: <gaze at M>I wend there with my family in 1985

Discourse


A: participant


M: mountain

Ground

Schemata-based recognition

Schema-based production of conversation quantum


P: That’s Diamond Head.

Q: I know. That is a volcano.

Conversation quantum

Schemata-based recognition

Schemata dictionary

Agent controller

Dialogue manager

Schema

Interaction

A: <pointing M>That’s Diamond HeadB: <nod> I know. That’s is a volcano.C: <gaze at M>I wend there with my family in 1985

Discourse


A: participant


M: mountain

Ground

P: That’s Diamond Head.

Schema-based production of conversation


Introduction < Second Person

[Harrigan 2010]

What is a game?

“a system in which players engage in an artificial conflict, defined by rules, that results in a quantifiable outcome” [Salen and Zimmerman 2003, 80]

“A game is a rule-based formal system with a variable and quantifiable outcome, where different outcomes are assigned different values, the player exerts effort in order to influence the outcome, the player feels attached to the outcome, and the consequences of the activity are optional and negotiable.” (Juul 2003)

Second Person

[Harrigan 2010, p. xiv]

Tabletop systems

Fictions playable on a tabletop or in a easy chair, without aid of nonhuman calculation. Many of these, such as the tabletop role-playing games (RPGs) under discussion, have an explicit social component.

Computational fictions

Computer-based playable structure. Interactive fictions and interactive drama. Designed to be interacted with by one person: the singular, not plural, “you”.

Real worlds

Massively multiplayer online role-playing games (MMORPGs, or MMOs). Digital media inform political discourse.

Tabletop Systems

[Harrigan 2010, p. 1-2]

Types of RPG publications

• Core rule books: books central to the understanding of the system, which contain specific rules and mechanics of the game, and which provide at least an overview of the game world.

• Sourcebooks: provide further elaboration of the game world. This elaboration can take virtually any form, from books discussing advanced rules to ones providing new areas of the game world for explanation and new characters for potential encounters, to books that provide new classes of characters that can be played.

• Scenario books: contain one or pre-designed adventures or storylines for a gamemaster to play with his or her players. It is not uncommon for sourcebooks to contain scenarios in addition to their other content.

Tabletop Systems

[Harrigan 2010, p. 2-3]

Terminology

• LARP (Live-Action Role Playing game) in which players physically, and socially, act out their characters’ roles (e.g., at a convention, or at a weekly gathering at a friend’s house).

• A PC (Player Character), an in-game character played by one of the players.

• An NPC (Non-Player Character). In tabletop RPGs, NPCs are played by the gamemaster. In video RPGs, NPCs are designed by the programmers and their actions executed by the game system.

• Gamemaster, a player designated to administrate the rules, and run the game world and NPCs.

• Tabletop dice come in more varieties than the usual six-sided.

Games, Storytelling, and Breaking the String

[Costikyan 2010, p. 6]

A story is linear. The events of a story occur in the same order, and in the same way, each time you read (or watch or listen to) it. A story is a controlled experience; the author consciously crafts it, choosing precisely these events, in this order, to create a story with the maximum impact. If the events occurred in some other fashion, the impact of the story would be diminished – or if that isn’t true, the author isn’t doing a good job.

A game is nonlinear. Games must provide at least the illusion of free will to the player; player must feel that they have freedom of action – not absolute freedom, but freedom within the structure of the system. The structure constrains what they can do, but they must feel they have options; if not, they are not actively engaged. Rather, they are merely passive recipients of the experience. If they are constrained to a linear path of events, unchangeable in order, they’ll feel they’re being railroaded through the game, that nothing they do has any impact, that they are not playing any meaningful sense.

It’s not merely that games aren’t stories, and vise versa; rather they are, in a sense, opposite.

Games, Storytelling, and Breaking the String

[Costikyan 2010, p. 6]

Stories to Games

Cortazar’s Hopscotch

Hypertext Fiction

Game Books

Paragraph-System Board Games and Solitaire RPG Adventures

Dragon’s Lair

Adventure Games

Computer and Console RPGs

MMOs

Tabletop RPGs

From Hopscotch to tabletop role-playing, we’ve moved along the spectrum I talked about: from a narrative with a single branch to the branching structure of hypertext, game books, solitaire role-playing adventures, and Dragon’s Lair; to the beads-on-a-string of adventure games; to the slightly open-ended structures of digital RPGs; to the more free-form nature of tabletop. And in the process we’ve moved from stories with minor game elements to games that still have an attachment to story.

Storytelling Games as a Creative Medium

[Hindmarch 2010, p. 47-55]

[S]torytelling games don't refine the core ideas of RPG gameplay—they expand on them. A storytelling game is a collaborative narrative game built around an RPG. (p. 48)

The goal of a storytelling game isn't to produce a good story; it's to participate in good storytelling. Storytelling games are about the challenge of conceiving and telling stories, not the enjoyment of having a story or reading one. The process is the point, not the output. (p. 52)

During play, the Storyteller simultaneously manages three interconnected tasks1. Contextualizing, adjudicating and narrating the circumstances and

outcomes of every die roll.2. Maintaining a constant (but not necessarily steady) increase in dynamic

tension as rising action climbs towards climax.3. Subtly but firmly guiding the course of the story from each decision point

toward a satisfying conclusion to the story.(p. 54)

Storytelling Games as a Creative Medium

[Hindmarch 2010, p. 47-55]

The trick lies, I think, in providing a simulation for whatever aspect of the world the player uses to express his choices. This is impossible, if the player is expressing choice via an option list. It is possible with a world model and [text] parser, though, to give the player several ways to achieve the same outcome, and even (with a sufficient simulation under the surface) for that list of ways to include some unexpected by the author. (p. 54)

A human Storyteller is still the machine best suited to the job of understanding, reacting to and influencing the dramatic choices of human players. The role-playing game is merely an interface, connecting players across psychic distances like Xbox Live connects us cross miles. (p. 55)

The number of Storytellers who can raise fear like fog with nothing but dialogue, blot out the sun with improvised narration, and hatch whole characters from dice is smaller still. (p. 55)

Frame Analysis

[Goffman 1974]

And of course much use will be made of Bateson's use of the term "frame." I assume that definition of a situation are built up in accordance with principles of organization which govern events--at least social ones--and our subjective involvement in them: frame is the word I use to refer to such of these basic elements as I am able to identify. This is my definition of frame. My phrase "frame analysis" is a slogan to refer to the examination in these terms of the organization of experience. (p. 11)

Keying: a process of transforming a given activity which is already meaningful in terms of some primary framework into something patterned on this activity but seen by the participants to be something quite else.

Frame Analysis

[Goffman 1974]

Since Bateson's discussions of animals at play, considerable work has been done on the subject, allowing one to attempt to state in some detail the rules to follow and the premises to sustain in order to transform serious, real action into something playful.a. The playful act is so performed that its ordinary function is not realized. The stronger and more

competent participant restrains himself sufficiently to be a match for the weaker and less competent.

b. There is an exaggeration of the expansiveness of some acts.c. The sequence of activity that serves as a pattern is neither followed faithfully nor completed

fully, but is subject to starting and stopping, to redoing, to discontinuation for a brief period of time, and to mixing with sequences from other routines.

d. A great deal of repetitiveness occurs.e. When more than one participant is to be involved, all must be freely willing to play, and anyone

has the power to refuse an invitation to play or (if he is a participant) to terminate the play once it has begun.

f. Frequent role switching occurs during play, resulting in a mixing up of the dominance order found among the players during occasions of literal activity.

g. The play seems to be independent of any external needs of the participants, often continuing longer than would the actual behavior it is patterned after.

h. Although playfulness can certainly be sustained by a solitary individual toward a surrogate of some kind, solitary playfulness will give way to sociable playfulness when a usable other appears, which, in many cases, can be a member of another species.

i. Signs presumably are available to mark the beginning and termination of playfulness.(p. 41-43)

Frame Analysis

[Goffman 1974]

A full definition of keying can now be suggested:a. A systematic transformation is involved across materials already meaningful in accordance

with a schema of interpretation, and without which the keying would be meaningless.b. Participants in the activity are meant to know and to openly acknowledge that a systematic

alteration is involved, one that will radically reconstitute what it is for them that is going on.c. Cues will be available for establishing when the transformation is to begin and when it is to

end, namely, brackets in time, within which and to which the transformation is to be restricted. Similarly, spatial brackets will commonly indicate everywhere within which and nowhere outside of which the keying applies on that occasion.

d. keying is not restricted to events perceived within any particular class of perspectives. Just as it is possible to play at quite instrumentally oriented activities, such as carpentry, so it is also possible to play at rituals such as marriage ceremonies, or even, in the snow, to play at being a natural schema seem less susceptible to keying than do those perceived within a social one.

e. [T]he systematic transformation that a particular keying introduces may alter only slightly the activity thus transformed, but it utterly changes what it is a particular would say was going on. In this case, fighting and checker playing would appear to be going on, but really, all along, the participants might say, the only thing really going on is play. A keying, then, when there is one, performs a crucial role in determining what it is we think is really going on.

(p. 45)

Frame Analysis

[Goffman 1974]

Keying provides one basic way in which a strip of activity can be transformed, that is, serve as an item-by-item model for something else. Differently put, keyings represent a basic way in which activity is vulnerable. A second transformational vulnerability is now considered: fabrication. I refer to the intentional effort of one or more individuals to manage activity so that a party of one or more others will be induced to have a false belief about what it is that is going on. A nefarious design is involved, a plot or treacherous plan leading--when realized--to a falsification of some part of the world. So it would appear that a strip of activity can litter the world in two ways, can serve as a model from whose design two types or reworking can be produced: a keying or a fabrication.

(p. 83)

Homo Ludens

Homo Sapiens: Man the Wise

Homo Faber: Man the Maker

Homo Ludens: Man the Player

The play element of Culture … [It was my object] to ascertain how far culture itself bears the character of play … [P]lay is to be understood here not as a biological phenomenon but as a cultural phenomenon. It is approached historically, not scientifically.

[Huizinga 1938, Foreword]

Free, Separate, Uncertain, Unproductive, Governed by rules, Make-belief [Caillois 1961; pp. 9-10]

Man, Play and Games

[Caillois 1958, p. 36]

Agon

(Competition)

Alea

(Chance)

Mimicry

(Simulation)

Ilinx

(Vertigo)

Paidia

TumultAgitationImmoderate laughter

Kite-flying

Solitaire

Patience

Crossword puzzles

Ludus

Racing, Wrestling (not regulated),

Athletics

Counting-outrhymes

Heads or tails

Children’s initiations

Games of illusion

Tag, Arms

Masks, Disguises

Children “whirling”

Horseback riding

Swinging

Waltzing

Boxing, Billiards

Fencing, Checkers

Football, Chess

Betting

Roulette

Volador

Traveling carnivals

Skiing

Mountain climbing

Tightrope walkingContests, Sports in general

Simple, complex, and continuing lotteries

Theater

Spectacles in general

Paidia, unstructured and spontaneous activities (playfulness)Ludus, structured activities with explicit rules (games)

Man, Play and Games

[Caillois 1958, p. 54]

Agon

(Competition)

Alea

(Chance)

Mimicry

(Simulation)

Ilinx

(Vertigo)

Cultural forms

found at the

margins of the

social order

Sports

Lotteries

Casinos

Hippodromes

Pari-mutuels

Carnival

Theater

Cinema

Hero-worship

Mountain climbing

Skiing

Tightrope walking

Speed

Institutional forms

integrated into

social life

Economic competition

Competitive examinations

Speculation on stock market

Uniforms

Ceremonial

etiquette

Professions requiring control of vertigo

Corruption

Violence

Will to power

Trickery

Superstition

Astrology, etc.Alienation

Split personality

Alcoholism and

drugs

Summary

1. “Culture arises in the form of play”; “it is played from the very beginning” [Huizinga, 1938]

2. “I am proposing a division into four main rubrics … agôn, alea, mimicry, and ilinx” [Caillois 1958]

3. “My phrase ‘frame analysis’ is a slogan to refer to the examination in these terms of the organization of experience.” [Goffman 1974]

4. Keying: a process of transforming a given activity which is already meaningful in terms of some primary framework into something patterned on this activity but seen by the participants to be something quite else. [Goffman 1974]

5. Game: a system in which players engage in an artificial conflict, defined by rules, that results in a quantifiable outcome [Salen and Zimmerman 2003]

6. Stories and Games antitheses [Costikyan 2010] or storytelling game as a collaborative narrative game built around an RPG. [Hindmarch 2010]

7. In Façade, the narrative is divided into multiple fronts of progression, often causally independent, only occasionally interdependent. Second, a variety of narrative sequencers are built to sequence these multiple narrative progressions. [Mateas 2010]

References

[Caillois 1958] Roger Caillois. Les jeux et les hommes: Le masque et le vertige. Gallimard, 1958. (translated by Meyer Barash and printed from The Free Press of Glencoe, Inc. in 1961).

[Costikyan 2010] Greg Costikyan. Games, Storytelling, and Breaking the String, in [Harrigan 2010], pp. 5-14.

[Goffman 1974] Erving Goffman. Frame Analysis: An Essay on the Organization of Experience. New York: Harper and Row, 1974.

[Harrigan 2010] Harrigan, P., Wardrip-Fruin, N.: Second Person: Role-Playing and Story in Games and Playable Media, MIT Press, 2010.

[Harrigan 2010] Will Hindmarch. Storytelling Games as a Creative Medium. in [Harrigan 2010], pp. 47-55.

[Huizinga 1938] Johan Huizinga. Homo Ludens: A Study of the Play Element in Culture. Beacon Press, New York, 1955. (Originally published in 1938).

[Mateas 2010] Michael Mateas and Andrew Stern. Writing Façade: A Case Study in Procedural Authorship. In [Harrigan 2010], pp. 183-207.

[McKee 1997] Robert McKee. Story: Substance, Structure, Style, and the Principles of Screenwriting. HarperCollins Publishers, 1997.

[Ookaki et al 2015] Ookaki T et al. Synthetic evidential study for deepening inside their heart. In: IEA/AIE 2015; p. 161–170.

[Ookaki 2016] Ookaki, T. Building a Support System for Story Interpretation from Multiple Perspectives, Unpublished Master Thesis, Graduate School of Informatics, Kyoto University, 2016.

[Salen and Zimmerman 2003] Katie Salen and Eric Zimmerman. Rules of Play: Game Design Fundamentals. MIT Press, 2003.

9. storytelling, games, and play - 京都大学 · storytelling, game, and play • storytelling...

Documents