Gamasutra - Features - "Agitating for Dramatic Change"

Forms of computer-based interactive entertainment are heavily controlled by the idea that they are "games", which are produced for a narrow (but profitable) market of "gamers". Thus, fast, fun arcade-like experiences, artificial puzzle-solving, gaining points and "winning" have been the main emphasis in interactive design, even while the graphic and sound environments have become more and more realistic -- even as NPCs have become embedded with so-called "AI".

The idea of story is largely used to set the stage for first person shooters and role-playing games. Once the game begins, story elements become simplistic, linear or at least pre-defined, and "underwhelming" -- if they exist at all. Character development is something left behind after opening movies and seldom-read documents that come with the game, which outline who's who, and why they're doing what. It is rare indeed to find good character development and multi-layered, gradually unfolding stories in computer games - to say nothing of good, emotionally moving drama. I have heard the justification that computer animated NPCs are simply not sophisticated enough to pull off a dramatic performance - and yet poorly animated Saturday morning cartoons can be emotionally involving (if rarely, but the point is that they are indeed sometimes moving). The NPCs in Half-Life 2 are more life-like and have more ability to communicate a range of emotions than perhaps in any game before, except for the days of live-action games. Nevertheless, judging only from the E3 demo, Half-Life 2 still seems to be basically a "shooter", rather than an interactive drama, albeit in a more realistic universe than usual.

No, it's not that NPCs can't emote. Instead, I think that given the emphasis of "game-think", and a market of "gamers", it's clear that the ideas of story and drama are simply a low priority.

And there's nothing at all wrong with this. Computer games serve a lucrative market. If it's not broken, don't fix it. It's just that I think a far bigger market is being left untapped.

In addition, I've found that people who are not professional writers or professional storytellers, but who may be "designers", "level-designers" or "producers" hash out a story premise for a game, or will decide on a setting populated by a certain kind of characters and monsters, who live in a matrix of certain rules. Sometimes a professional writer will be brought in to take what has already been decided upon and flesh it out. The professional writer may write a background story that sets the stage for the action and/or will write up biographies for the main characters. Much of this will never been seen in the game itself, beyond opening movies and cinematics. Sometimes professional writers will even get in on dialogue writing. But in terms of actual game design, my experience has been that in general, there's little attempt or little interest in interweaving non-linear story elements, strong character development and the principles of drama into interactive designs. This hampers appealing to a mass audience as much as the insistence on developing interactive entertainments by game-think alone.

Other kinds of interactive entertainment, based on good storytelling, good character development and an adaptation of the principles of drama, targeted to consumers with computers, but who are not avid gamers -- are waiting to be designed - and profited from. I think that the masses are ready to spend money for an interactive drama that leaves the trappings of computer 'games' behind. Whoever builds this groundbreaking system is going to get rich.

This article is a follow-up to an earlier Gamasutra article I wrote, "Adapting the Tools of Drama to Interactive Storytelling". That article has much more to say about the nature of drama. I suggest reading it first before continuing with this article. For the purpose of this article, drama is not a genre of entertainment. It is a toolset of principles developed over hundreds, if not thousands, of years to rigorously enhance communication. To quote Martin Esslin in An Anatomy of Drama, "For the expression of the imponderable mood, the hidden tensions and sympathies, the subtleties of human relationships and interaction, drama is by the most economical means of expression."

I'm agitating for the creation of a new kind of interactive experience that is comfortable and compelling for the masses. This new art form would immerse the experiencer inside a reality very much like what he or she is already familiar with: film and television.
This is a search for a method of "interactive dramatic narrative presentation" and packaging.

What I see is an interactive drama for the masses who have computers, but who are not "gamers". The masses will be drawn to this experience because of three things: it's familiar like TV and film, the interface is simple and intuitive, and because the characters are emotionally evocative and their plight is understandable and just. There are no brainteasers laid artificially and superficially into the design. If there are to be puzzles, they are puzzles that evolve out of the dramatic backbone of the experience. In fact, everything that can be considered a trapping of 'game thinking' would be absent from this new kind of interactive dramatic experience. Though the designer knows that the experience will have a beginning that sets up the narrative, a middle with evolving conflict, and an end with a good resolution -- no one knows how the dramatic experience will evolve. In my vision, advancing from A to B to C will be a non-linear, yet also emotionally powerful, dramatic experience. So far experiments with interactive storytelling have failed to take into account the need to adapt the principles of drama to interactivity, and thus these experiments have been merely interesting, instead of truly emotionally involving.

In my imagined design, the moment-to-moment experience is not pre-defined. Nevertheless, a satisfactory dramatic experience demands there to be a definite beginning, middle, and end, which will support a rising level of tension until the dramatic climax and resolution is achieved. I see a system in which the dramatic and narrative principles and support elements are managed at the macro-level, in order to achieve drama, but in which these elements are active in a non-linear, non-branching way at the micro-level.

It will take a design team to create such a groundbreaking entertainment -- not just a designer. The team will be composed of a dramatist/storyteller/writer, a programming lead, an art lead, and a sound/music lead. There will be no talk of "levels" and such. There will be no talk of whether the experience will be a shooter, a role-playing game, or a massively multi-player on-line game. There will be no mention of the word "game". Instead there will be talk of "narrative environments", synthespians, synthespian directors, motivations, subtext and goals, emotional environments, and real-time adaptive music. There will be talk of the macro-level "drama engine", which provides for a three-act structure, like an umbrella, over non-linear narrative development. There will be development of interactive tools for dramatists who are not necessarily programmers.

In a nutshell I want to encourage a dramatic story-environment in which the experiencer and truly AI-smart NPCs, each with their own goals, biases, and methodologies, co-create the narrative at the micro-level, in real time, as their actions trigger the results of dramatic situations that are pre-defined at the invisible macro level by an interactive writer/ dramatist.

I have long believed that combining a story/drama world-authoring engine, perhaps something like Chris Crawford's "Erasmatron" project, with a front end something like Haptek's "People Putty", represents the major animation, management, and creator interface software components of such a project. At one time the People Putty engine was being considered for an adventure game at Sierra. I was present for long demos and was able to talk at length with the founder of Haptek, Chris Shaw. So I am very familiar with what they've done, and I'm impressed. I'm also impressed and fascinated by Chris Crawford's Erasmatron efforts, which I've been following for several years now. Yet, since his is a largely single person's effort, and since his development platform is only available for Mac users, I fear his efforts may take a very long time to pay off. Nevertheless, I encourage readers to check the Haptek and Crawford URLs.

I see rich, unplowed fields waiting for a new paradigm for the masses, a paradigm that leaves game-thought behind. Central to this new paradigm is the creation of a "drama engine" to be placed at the heart of a system.

Computer technology is advancing at an incredible rate, but few people outside of academia seem to be thinking about how to evolve the tools of drama so that they can work in a computerized, non-linear, interactive environment. Drama has always depended upon the control of audience perspective in a linear series of events. So drama must evolve now. That's my interest. But this interest needs a test bed.

I look out there and see that all of the components for a test bed are now available (though dispersed in various computer game development tools and non-entertainment projects). If combined, these elements could lead to a new kind of interactive entertainment - call it interactive drama - or interactive drama worlds - call it working towards an evolution of drama towards preparation for a real Star Trek Holodeck experience.

I envision a system combining interacting modules into a system to support life-like NPC's with the ability to "act" - call them "synthespians", as some have. The list of modules would include at least the following: Adaptive Learning, Pattern Recognition, Expert Systems, Speech Processing, and Text Parsing. But I do not envision creating autonomous agents that are truly "aware", of course. (If you are reading this in a way that does not allow the use of the above hyperlinks, see the section "Parts and Pieces").

As a metaphor for what I see, let me give an example: stage sets are only designed to the degree that they will be used. If a door in a flat is to be used, it is built strongly enough so that actors can repeatedly open and close a door and move through the doorway without the prop falling apart or shaking the flat in which it's embedded. However, if the door will never be used, there doesn't even have to be an opening in the flat - just a door painted on the surface.

Drama is smoke and mirrors - its elements only need to seem real. Bringing the metaphor back to AI, there doesn't need to be "real" understanding by the machine, or any "real" communication to make interactive drama work. It must only appear to the experiencer that NPCs are capable of real intelligence, understanding, needs, goals, emotion and communication.

I envision an interactive entertainment in which synthespians and the experiencer interact in a "drama-world" made of theatrically atmospheric environments saturated with exposition (story elements), dramatic potential and events orchestrated by a "drama-engine". I see a dramatic work arising from an environment where, given certain starting criteria, there can be an emergent and yet dramatic story involving believable, likable characters and characters who can be loathed, and yet be three-dimensional.

I am especially interested in the potential of an autonomous "sidekick" or "partner", who would inspire empathy in the experiencer, and who would help instigate an adventure/ quest. I envision a human stranger in a strange land, with the sidekick being the liaison, as well as potential friend, helper, and fighting partner. This sidekick would be an AI-smart synthespian who can learn and apparently reason, and who is obviously afflicted with needs and desires, as we all are, and who is motivated by a strong, just and dramatic goal that is in conflict with the state of the drama-world. These abilities are important if we are to empathize with the character. We must empathize before we care. We must care before we are emotionally involved. We must be emotionally involved if we are to experience the emotional roller coaster and payoff of good drama. We must care about our friend and his or her just cause. We must worry when our friend is threatened, or when the cause is threatened.

Invisible in all of this is the "dramatist" in the background - behind the curtain, who uses a new kind of tool to "direct" the theatrical potential of the unfolding experience by inputting narrative elements, inherent conflict, characters (with wants, needs, goals, schedules and action abilities that will collide in conflict) and dramatically "soaked" environments.

This new kind of production tool would be designed for a dramatist who is not necessarily a programmer. To program well takes years of dedication. To become an excellent composer takes years of dedication. To become a talented animator takes years of work. And to become a writer-dramatist takes years of dedicated work too. It makes sense to let each talent area work at what they do best. It is unrealistic to think that a single person can be a talented AI programmer, a compelling writer AND an insightful dramatist. I'm sure that somewhere such a renaissance person exists, but can we realistically expect one of these rare people at each interactive company?

This new development tool for the non-programmer writer-dramatist would allow for the development of at least characters and interactive story elements. The tool would need to plug into world-creation tools, such as existing level editors.

This is what I mean by synthespians: I'd like to explore the potential of creating autonomous agents with believable "dramatic character". In other words, I'd like to see autonomous agents with goals, biases, and abilities who carry out apparent "intent" - all inspired by the principals of drama.

Synthespians within the drama world would be designed to a) do certain things on a certain schedule b) unless they are interfered with c) are tied to "communication libraries" and d) are autonomous in that they have goals and biases and abilities which allow actions to be taken towards their goals.

Like a real person, a synthespian may need to get up at a certain time, travel to work, stay at work for a certain period of time, stop by the store, come home, and stay at home for a certain period of time. But, because the agent has various goals (which may conflict) and is autonomous, the agent may try to work other actions into the overall schedule. If internal needs are strong enough, the agent may even violate the daily schedule in order to get something else done. But there would be a price to be paid for violating the overall schedule -- getting fired -- pissing off the mate, etc. I'm speaking here in mundane terms to illustrate the point. The "price that is paid" is part of the dramatist's pre-defined setup.

If a normal daily schedule is a goal, a synthespian may run up against other agents with goals that are in conflict with his or her or its goals, which initiates a change of goal priorities. In addition, if two or more synthespians have conflicting goals, then you have drama. As Babylon 5 creator J. Michael Straczynski illustrated so succinctly in his The Complete Book of Scriptwriting, CHARACTERIZATION + DESIRE = GOAL. GOAL + CONFLICT = STORY -- in this case, emergent story based on broad dramatic principles. That synthespians would have conflicting goals is part of the dramatist's pre-defined setup.

Synthespians may suffer conflicting wants and needs, which would lead to conflicting goals. This creates character. These inner conflicts are a part of the dramatist's pre-defined setup.

The sidekick could guide by helping to steer the character toward interesting places and away from areas that are boring or the player is not ready for. Sure, the player could ignore the advice, and the sidekick would still try to bail them out; but always trying to lead them back onto the path of the conflict that is at the heart of the drama world status quo, and thus towards emergent story and drama. The conflict at the heart of the drama world status quo is part of the dramatist's pre-defined setup.

Synthespians could interact with the experiencer by employing the tactics used in Commedia del Arte. Commedia del'Arte performances and techniques spread throughout Europe during the 16th and 17th centuries, with offshoots in France, Spain and England. In this form of performance the players follow the outline of a well-known story with well-known archetypal characters. But neither the audience nor the players know exactly how the story will be told until they begin to perform. Each player has a well-rehearsed repertoire of "tricks", or "skit pieces". The players will throw these tricks back and forth at each other at whim - each will react to the other's tricks by pulling out their own tricks to throw back. It's like jazz musicians following a chart, but not knowing who will play or what notes will happen in what order until they get there, and in the process they inspire and challenge each other. As the players do this, they are very aware of the audience. If the audience doesn't seem to be interested in one set of tricks, they'll try others, and in this way attempt to keep the audience entertained until the conclusion of the story. It's loosely scripted improvisation.

How is that applied to interactive drama and synthespians? Each of the characters the experiencer can potentially interact with can have a library of various things that they can do or say - a library of tricks. We don't know the course of the emergent drama/story because we don't know where the experiencer will explore first, second and third, and we don't know who the player will communicate with first, second and third. And in those communications we don't know how the experiencer will react. But (as the directors behind the curtain) we can make sure that in "Act I" all of the synthespians can be attached to their Act I libraries. In Act 2 they will all be attached to their Act II libraries and so forth, so that we get the growing dramatic tension of moving through acts, like in a play or movie. They could each have three libraries of activities and schedules, so that they are always doing appropriate things for each sequential act. Further, the major goals and biases for the main synthespian could be in libraries too. While we don't know how the story/drama will emerge, the dramatist will know essentially what story/drama will emerge, and will have content control of synthespians at the motivational level, and control of the dramatic structure at the act level.

It is necessary for synthespians to be like improvisational performers, in that they will develop ways of getting out of conversations, or leading conversations that are consistent without breaking character. If a synthespian doesn't have the information required by the experiencer, or isn't willing to share the information that it has, then there should be a method within its database which allows for dealing with this situation while staying in character.

I do not mean that the libraries attached to synthespians would include pre-written scripts. I am pretty sure that the stories in both Diablo and Blade Runner were implemented with a methodology similar to what I have described. But in those games it was painfully obvious that agents only knew a few things to talk about until the next level was triggered; where everyone suddenly had new stuff to talk about. Instead, more sophisticated options are necessary. We may need to look outside of the game/ entertainment industries for the tools we'll need. More on this below.

The idea of having Synthespians attached to libraries that are broken up into dramatic acts can work with story as well. In a linear story you can think of a string of pearls, where each pearl is a scene and the thread is the through-line of action. In an interactive drama world, think of a broken string of pearls, where the experiencer can explore and discoverer each pearl, like an ant discovering the pearls from a broken necklace on a tabletop. Each pearl can be seen as a location or an event that has embedded in it dramatic story elements. But what if the pearl, which contains the "end" information, could be found first, rendering the rest of the pearls a moot point?

To solve this problem, the pearls could be put into three groups. There would be "gates" between each group. Now our 'ant', the experiencer, can wonder at will through group "A" pearls, which include Act I information. Act I is designed to fulfill the exposition needs of the following acts, and work as a benchmark dramatic tension level. Group "B" pearls continue with the following story elements and up the ante in dramatic tension, and so forth. This way the experiencer has a non-linear trip at the micro level (finding the pearls within a group), and yet is lead to greater and greater heights of dramatic tension in an organized way, because of the macro level structuring of the pearls into three groups, each with its own dramatic purpose. I'm assuming here that the gating mechanism would be invisible, or at least not obvious. The content that is embedded in each "pearl" is part of the dramatist's pre-defined setup.

______________________________________________________

Drama-O-Rama