Newsgroups: rec.arts.int-fiction
Path: gmd.de!ira.uka.de!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!usc!cs.utexas.edu!torn!nott!cunews!freenet.carleton.ca!Freenet.carleton.ca!aa382
From: aa382@Freenet.carleton.ca (Marc Sira)
Subject: Re: How do you write Romantic I-F ?
Message-ID: <1993Feb12.214934.13353@freenet.carleton.ca>
Sender: news@freenet.carleton.ca (News Administrator)
Reply-To: aa382@Freenet.carleton.ca (Marc Sira)
Organization: The National Capital Freenet
References: <10671600@MVB.SAIC.COM> <10640430@MVB.SAIC.COM> <1993Feb11.095808.11529@nuscc.nus.sg>
Date: Fri, 12 Feb 1993 21:49:34 GMT
Lines: 36


In a previous article, Whitten@Fwva.Saic.Com (David Whitten) says:

>Theory:
> 
>I think it is possible to do more than either of these attempts, perhaps with
>invisible objects that represent plot goals, with the traditional 'keep you
>from doing something' approach to various encounters - treating certain kinds
>of encounters as rooms - but not actually being visible as rooms.

I think you're basically talking about Zork, etc, with the objects, obstacles
and goals renamed. You can call "the key that unlocks the door to get the
gold", "the affection that unlocks the hearts to get the true love" - you're
still playing the same game.

Plundered Hearts was this sort of thing - the treasure was the romance itself,
although the game was more story-oriented and less freewill-oriented (the
usual tradeoff). I don't see anything fundamentally different in what you
suggest (so far, but I'm interested enough to keep reading :).

>This means you have to view 'movement' as within a two dimensional space rather
>than a one dimensional space as is currently provided by programs...

Hmm?
I think you'll have to define your dimensions before this will make sense to
me.

-- 
Marc Sira                    |
toh@micor.ocunix.on.ca       |  "Your god drinks...p-p-peach nectar!"
aa382@freenet.carleton.ca    '
