Today will be made from preparations for fajitas on the grill. Fresh pico de gallo and lots of grilled peppers and other vegetables. I don’t know what will happen and I look forward to the making and the eating. (I’ve learned over the years that if you don’t cook with hardwood then you shouldn’t cook outside at all. But that’s just me.)
Also, I recently finished Chris Crawford’s On Interactive Storytelling. I thought his ideas about this vein of thinking are pretty competent. His discussion of the code workings and mathematics were what I was most interested in. But as I was reading the book, my soft bias against interactive storytelling keep on rising up. I enjoy the code but I don’t buy the systems yet. (I also have a soft bias against things like community storytelling, but that’s another story.)
How do I get by falling back on this idea: we already have a system for interactive storytelling. It’s called life. The other thing that’s been taking time in my head are the references I keep reading to Facade as a “game” and to the associations of interactive storytelling to games. Here’s an example where game as model is woven into an idealistic description of interactive storytelling. It comes from Marie Laure-Ryan:
The user should participate and interact out of interest for the story, not for the sake of solving problems or beating opponents. In contrast to the standard game player, she will prefer a less efficient action over a more practical way to achieve a goal, when this action leads to more interesting narrative possibilities.
Okay. My response is: why even consider the phenomenon in the context of “game” to begin with? Maybe I need schooling on this, but what would “the standard game player” have to do with this in the first place?