Newsgroups: rec.arts.int-fiction
Path: gmd.de!Germany.EU.net!news.dfn.de!darwin.sura.net!bogus.sura.net!howland.reston.ans.net!usc!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!ddsw1!chinet!jorn
From: jorn@chinet.chi.il.us (Jorn Barger)
Subject: Re: TADS object system, and romance extensions
Message-ID: <C49wJ0.1u5@chinet.chi.il.us>
Organization: Chinet - Public Access UNIX
References: <732681867snx@hinrg.starconn.com> <neilg.732739613@sfu.ca>
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 1993 04:30:36 GMT
Lines: 76

Mike Roberts (welcome, btw, the author of TADS!) writes:
> It might be better to start off with something less ambitious, or at
> least more abstract and constrained, than a full-blown human romance
> story.  For example, you're stranded on an alien planet populated with
> intelligent creatures.  Unlike in Star Trek, where all intelligent
> life-forms throughout the galaxy speak English, you are not able to
> communicate verbally with these creatures, so you have to find another
> way.  The goal would be to achieve an understanding of their point of
> view, so that you can communicate to them what you need.

Computer Gaming World (#103) said the new "Return to Zork" will allow you 
to 'take movies' of your experiences and show them to other characters... 
but that's not what you mean, is it?  (I'm not entirely clear what you're 
getting at...)

> Another possibility for adventure game character interaction is to use
> directed dialog, like some graphical adventure games do.

(Which ones?  Sierra?)

> [...]  The only command is TALK TO, which
> puts you in talk-to-mode, which is essentially a menu system:  you
> select what you want to say from a list of options.
> [...]
> This looks a little weird in a text adventure context, although I
> suspect that's just because it's unfamiliar, and not because it's bad.
> The disadvantage of this style of dialog is that it constrains the
> player to the set of statements that you've pre-scripted.  One might
> even complain that it destroys the illusion of real interaction.

I love it!  Simple, reasonably hot, and as deep as one has any right to 
ask for, for now...

> Furthermore, there's no reason these menu trees have to be static.
> They can easily have a memory of past conversations -- and, more
> importantly, past actions.

This starts to sound like 'the AI problem' though-- can that "memory" be 
parameterized, or do you just handle everything as a special case?  (How 
far have you thought this thru?  Can you give a simple example?)

Jamieson Norrish writes (re 'directed dialog'):
> [...]  There are two things I would do
> differently  [...:]
> having multiple, concurrent menus, and not using the actual speech in
> the menus. That is, there should be a menu for what subject you
> talk/ask about, a menu for how you say it, a menu for what you do
> while you say it, etc etc. One from each of these could be selected
> (and in the case of subject, must be), and the final combination would
> determine the actual words of what you say.

Here even more, we'll get stuck between hand-crafting every combination, 
and solving the AI problem so that any arbitrary combination can be 
'rationalized'...

(This is getting too abstract, though-- I'm not sure I believe what I'm 
saying!  Let me try an example:)

So in the pickup-bar interaction, each pair of characters will have a 
tree of conversational options, and you stumble around within that tree 
until you find the gambits that give the desired outcome, in the process 
learning about the person you're talking to.

A simple sort of 'memory' would be: "You already tried that line on me, 
you space cadet..."

Or the NPC's responses might be different depending on what *you're* 
wearing:  "You look stunning tonight" vs "Wha', did you just come from 
the gym?" ;^)

But would you ever want to *withhold* menu-choice-lines from the player, 
for any reason?  I guess if they aren't wearing the necklace (say), you 
won't be offered the chance to compliment them on it...

Jorn

