More actions
No edit summary |
|||
| Line 71: | Line 71: | ||
=[On the matter of Narrative Tunneling]= | =[On the matter of Narrative Tunneling]= | ||
There are three key phrase in event chains, each playing a distinct role -- | |||
#"''and then''" | |||
#"''therefore''" | |||
#"''but''" | |||
Structurally, state machines as a basis for constructing narratives has obvious upsides for carefully iterating through story beats. The pitfalls are a potential narrowing of diverse outcomes to a given scenario. As a network of intertwined factors grows it becomes increasingly difficult to stray from the web of priorities. This is what I colloquially refer to as narrative tunneling - the failure to consider events '''may not resolve to expected outcomes, even if proper order is held to'''. | |||
:One of the defining factors of a theory is that it must be tested and proven by supporting data. Sometimes the world doesn't provide the results we expect. | |||
:The Holy Nation takes of the desert. The Cannibals overrun it all. Is this forced? Or is this unexpected? Was the logic to arrive their sound? ''Should'' the actors involved be operating logically? Is a logical outcome necessarily always desirable? Let's be blatant here - of course not. Rational, logical, sane results are interpretive attempts to make sense of a chaotic system -- human relationships. | |||
=[On the matter of Gameplay Priority]= | =[On the matter of Gameplay Priority]= | ||