> (1) What hope is there for interesting interaction with other characters
> in a game?
One of the problems with making interaction plausible is the fact that
the player is bound to have the same interaction with some NPC several
times. We might ask the Master about Wilderspin, and he comes out with
some plausibly conversational remark. A little later, we think, `Damn,
what was it the master said about Wilderspin?' and go and ask him again.
He cheerfully repeats his earlier remark verbatim, and if we ask yet
again, he still shows no sign of impatience, but makes it clear he will
go on repeating himself all night, if we want.
We can't hope to make the Master carry on gabbing quite naturally
whatever we throw at him, but this sort of thing could be addressed.
There could be a `Haven't we had this conversation before?' line before
he repeated the information, for instance. Or if you asked the same
question twice in the one visit, he might say `Well, as I say ...' and
if you asked a third time, he would get irritable and throw you out.
Again: his stock response could be one of several selected randomly, or
he could have one response for some large subclass of the universe. If
you asked about one of the dons he doesn't `know' about, for instance,
he could say `Ah, yes, Nudd. He's completely mad', and his subsequent
response to other similar enquiries would be `Another madman, I'm
afraid.'
(I hope it's clear that my remarks are intended generally, not
specifically -- I'm choosing specific examples from Christminster
because that's what we're talking about here, and I happen to have
played it. I think it extraordinarily impressive.)
On a similar level is the way that, when you leave a location, the state
of NPCs is often preserved until you get back, even if this is highly
implausible. Wilderspin's study is an example -- you can leave him in
the cavity behind his fireplace while you go off and browse round the
library, and when you come back, he's still saying `What an interesting
place you've found! Come in and take a look.'
Gareth has already pointed a way to a solution here. For instance, if
you leave the busker in mid-trick, he calls after you and is sarcastic
when you get back. In Wilderspin's case, it would be only a little more
complicated; you're in his room and he's beckoning you into the
fireplace:
out
`It looks a bit grubby back there,' you say, apologetically; `I
think I'd rather go and take a look at the rest of the college.'
You make an undignified exit.
B Staircase
The door to B1 stands open.
enter b1
Wilderspin is sitting at his desk, and rises to greet you. `Pretty
little college, isn't it? I hope you enjoyed your walk. I'm
intrigued by this place you found behind my fire, you know. Shall we
take a look now?' He enters the space behind the fireplace.
*
On the other hand, where do you stop? One could program in infinitely
many little titbits of this kind, it is a lot of work, and there is a
diminishing return. I don't seem to be advancing a General Theory of
Interesting Characters, and that's because I don't have one.
*
Chris Goedde wrote
> I'm curious---why are so many IF characters so passive? Of course
> some of it is the difficulties of implementation, but I think this is
> one area where the puzzle aspect of IF really gets in the way of
> things like plot and characterization. For example, why doesn't
> Edward do more? For example, when the player finds the peanut, why
> doesn't Edward say "Hey, give me that peanut so I can try to lure my
> parrot down from the tree"? Even when I waved the peanut (yes, I
> tried this), Edward doesn't do anything. Of course this would
> essentially eliminate one puzzle, but is that really a problem? When
> the burden of solving the puzzles falls entirely on the player, the
> other characters are often hamstrung.
This seems to me an excellent point. It annoys me that when I try to
help a character (`help edward push door', for example) the parser so
wildly misunderstands me as to give me a help screen. Characters with
whom one could collaborate would be a different order of thing.
> I think it's interesting that Gareth listed only interactions in which
> the character is essentially a passive recipient of an order or
> information from the player. I don't see why interaction is
> "inevitably" limited in this way. What about having the player obey
> orders from the character? Follow him/her around?
Well, you can, of course. I _did_ follow Edward around (I knew I could
order him about, but hadn't thought of telling him to follow me), which
is how I got to hear most of his useful information. He led me a merry
dance out of the college and didn't fail to point out his broken window
when we were in Biblioll Street. (For an entertaining bug, try following
him into the punt.)
Mark Wainwright
-- A little learning is a dangerous thing: | markw@harlequin.co.uk Drink deep, or touch not the Pierian spring: | There shallow draughts intoxicate the brain, | http://www.cl.cam. And drinking largely sobers us again. --A Pope | ac.uk/users/maw13/