Newsgroups: rec.arts.int-fiction
Path: nntp.gmd.de!news.ruhr-uni-bochum.de!news.uni-stuttgart.de!news.belwue.de!news-stu1.dfn.de!news-kar1.dfn.de!news.nacamar.de!uunet!in3.uu.net!205.252.116.190!feed1.news.erols.com!howland.erols.net!netcom.com!erkyrath
From: erkyrath@netcom.com (Andrew Plotkin)
Subject: Tapestry (author's comments)
Message-ID: <erkyrathE2020p.C7I@netcom.com>
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL1]
Date: Fri, 6 Dec 1996 16:05:13 GMT
Lines: 232
Sender: erkyrath@netcom.netcom.com

Dan Rapavindo asked me to post this to the newsgroup. Eamil replies 
should go to RD70@LAFIBM.LAFAYETTE.EDU.

--Z

-------------------
From ravipind@linux.kirbynet.lafayette.edu Fri Dec  6 07:31:03 1996
Date: Fri, 6 Dec 1996 01:01:02 -0500 (EST)
From: DJR <ravipind@linux.kirbynet.lafayette.edu>
To: erkyrath@netcom.com
Subject: "Tapestry" discusions

So, would you mind terribly posting this e-mail?  I'd greatly appreciate 
it.

Of course, it might be sheer vanity to think that anyone would be 
INTERESTED in such a discussion but I thought "What the heck..." :)

[WARNING..."BEHIND THE SCENE" SPOILERS...SO IF THIS KIND OF THING "RUINS" 
A STORY FOR YOU, STOP READING...]






























OK...first of all, the Neil Gaiman connection. :)

I wrote the general plotline for "TAPESTRY" six months before I 
discovered Sandman comics.  When I DID read it (and the Books of 
Magic) I went **DOH!**

But I stuck with it anyway, since my interpretation of the Greek Fates 
stuck more to the original than Gaiman's and my Morningstar wasn't as 
thoroughly modern.  But I will admit that the characters are Gaiman-esque.
Can I plead a case of great minds thinking alike??? *sheepish grin*

The character was named "Tim" beforehand, after my friend Tim Evanson.  
Tim didn't have a last name, originally.

After reading the Books of Magic and deciding on that WONDERFUL quote for 
the opening, I dubbed the character "Timothy Hunter" as a bow to Gaiman.

To be honest, I didn't think anybody'd get it. ;)

Anyway...further up and further in... 

>From what I've seen, people have either really liked or really hated 
the game, for various reasons.  "Not enough interactivity" and "ponderous 
preaching" are two complaints I've heard.  I'm not here to defend 
Tapestry (Well, maybe just a LITTLE...:) so much as explain myself a 
little bit.

Although, it HAS been pointed out to me that if I have to explain myself 
after the fact, well...maybe I didn't do a very good job of explaining 
the first time.

I've noticed that people that have "gotten" the game are generally the 
ones that like it.  That's not to say the people who don't like it are 
just a bunch of morons who can't handle my high-falutin' talk.  To be 
honest, Neil pretty much got the point and he STILL hated it. :)

What I really want to know, I guess, is WHAT did you hate.  The message?  
The way I was telling it?  Neil's point was that he just didn't like the 
message.  He wouldn't like it no matter HOW I told it.

There's definitely a 'point' to Tapestry's story, and some of it 
involves unraveling some of the symbolism.  Another part of 'getting' it is 
playing it three times for the three endings.  I'm not going to sit here 
and explain every little bit, because that sort of ruins the whole thing, 
but...

1) Morningstar really IS someone.  Someone made the comment "Why are 
people coming up with these stupid 'deep' names for characters?"  Let me 
tell ya, buddy, I didn't make this one up. :)  Morningstar is definitely 
named that for a reason.  There are a lot of references to who he is in 
the prologue and I really thought everybody'd get it.  Some of the 
beta-testers even said I was knocking them over the head with the 
symbolism.  *shrug*  I'm not gonna say it here.  Maybe someone else'll 
ruin it in a follow-up.

Connected point.  There's an "homage" to TRINITY in the prologue that is
gained by typing in a very specific command that shows the game that 
you've figured out something.  Someone's comment in a review 
sounded like they found this.  I'll be pleased if someone figures out 
this little "Easter Egg" without hacking the game.

2) The preaching in the prologue is not my own.  This is connected to 
point 1 and is explained a bit in my "Author's Note" in the WALKTHRU.TXT 
file.  Trust me, I am NOT a preachy person AT ALL.  I HATE 
"holier-than-thou" types and if you thought the point of Tapestry was to 
moralize euthenasia etc...then you REALLY missed the bus.

3) The "non-interactivity" was intended.  Really.  I swear.  :)  I know 
this sounds like "Hey, it's not a bug...it's a FEATURE," but it's true.

	3a) The "non-interactive" prologue -- this was a tough decision.  In 
my VERY first drafts of the game, the prologue was open.  You started out 
in the tower, with Morningstar and he talked to you for a bit, but then 
you got to leave and walk around.  The tableaus were connected via the 
Tapestry, but they were locations that you could walk around.  
Morningstar didn't give the "game" (the fact that you're dead, your 
history, etc...) away in the first few moves.
	The original mapping was something like the Celtic Cross spread for 
Tarot (I think it's the one used in "Shade of Grey" to give you some 
idea...).  Each 'card' location was either a Tableau or a location from 
your past (in the original game, those three sections...the car, your 
house, opened after you "solved" the prologue.  You could see them, just 
not get to the them...).  You won the prologue by figuring out that 
you're dead and what you've done much like the self-discovery scene in 
"Delusions".  Then you returned to the tower and faced Morningstar's 
lambasting of your actions and then the Parcae showed up.
	My friend Tim pointed out that this was all well and good, but it'd 
take the players two hours just to solve the prologue.
	I needed SOME way to present all of this history AND Moringstar's 
character AND the Parcae's view in as tight and quick a way as possible 
so then players could get to the actual GAME.  (To be honest, a lot of 
the "non-interactivity" cries sound like they were written before the 
author finished the prologue.  The Prologue is exactly that and it 
shouldn't be taken as the main point of the game).
	Also, Morningstar's preaching worked REALLY well for setting 
him up and the symbolism tended to fly by the player rather than 
sitting there to be discovered.  For example: observant players 
will notice a connection between Morningstar and certain details 
in the tableaus...it's important.  One of the beta-testers said 
he only found it after multiple playings of the prologue.
	I'm sorry if there are those of you out there who played the 
prologue, and then stopped disgusted at what you'd just been through.  I 
admit, if the only thing to Tapestry was the prologue then it really was 
a case of "tying the player to a chair to shout the plot at him."

	3b) The "non-interacivity" of the Paths -- this was NOT a tough 
decision.  Come on, you're warned over and over that your choices are 
irrevocable.  That's the POINT.  
	I WANTED the decision to be tough and I wanted you to realize the 
implications of it.  Example -- you play Alicia (your mother's) panel 
first.  [BTW Did anyone notice you can play the Panels in any order?  Or 
that you can leave a panel area by touching the smaller panels?  That was 
another point -- I wanted you to walk around and get as much information 
as possible before you reached a decision...].  You decide to save the 
Thompson's business.  Then you play Sarah's.  Because of the choice you 
made in the first panel -- you HAVE to kill Sarah.  Sorry, but that's the 
way things work.
	Is this a lack of interactivity?  I didn't think so when I wrote it.  
I don't think so now.  If you want to save Sarah, the Thompsons have to 
lose their business.  Simple as that.  
	The fact that Andrew said he had trouble typing one particular command 
tells me that it worked for at least one person.

	Another Side Note : Did anyone notice the three quotes that show up 
when you try to leave the path?  Didn't that ameliorate ANYONE'S 
frustration at not being able to switch Paths?


3) The 'Fearscape' sequence -- well this really has nothing to do with 
anything, but I wanted to tell this story. :)  When I was originally 
setting up the sequence, I was having trouble with the symbolism and what 
I wanted to lead the character to.  I'd set up the first room 
("Fearscape") and I had my roommate Dave fiddle with it to test my code.

Dave is a gamewriter's nightmare.  Somehow things just fall to pieces at 
his touch.  Hence the fact that I use him as a betatester. :)

Well, the moon was described as a piece of scenery for the location and 
Dave, being the dork he is, decided to type "GET MOON."

I had forgotten to make the moon "static."

Hence Dave's typing:

>INVENTORY

You are carrying:
 the moon

THAT set off something with me, and the rest of the sequence grew from 
there...:)


Well, I've babbled on long enough.  I probably won't be able to respond 
to your responses via the Usenet, but if it'd REALLY dire that I give you 
a "I agree!" or "You dork!" message, I'll e-mail ya. :)

Speaking of which, I can be reached (until January break that is...) at 
RD70@LAFIBM.LAFAYETTE.EDU.  Comments, flames, and general conversation 
are welcome. :)

Last note: Keep up the incredible work, guys. (And gals...where are the 
gals?  Bonni?  :)  This is from someone who fell in love with i-f at 8 with 
WISHBRINGER and has never quite shaken the habit.  Discovering this 
newsgroup a year ago was an incredible thing and I'm hoping that if and 
when I can get better Usenet access I'll be able to become an active 
member of this little community rather than just a lurker.

Congratulations to everyone who entered the contest...you've accomplished 
something just by saying "I finished a game..." Many's a would-be author 
who's got a great idea that dies somewhere along the way.  The entries 
this year were absolutely incredible in scope and variety and I'm very 
proud to say I was a part of this.

d

--------------------------

-- 

"And Aholibamah bare Jeush, and Jaalam, and Korah: these were the
borogoves..."
