Emergence and Game Design in general, .We all know about the basics of storytelling, introduction exposition rising action climax decending action resolution protagonist antagonist blah. What's important to remember is that these are not the basics of storytelling, they are the basics of literary critiques. Critique to me is lovely people who just wanted to read books tricked into/paid to wrap words around what an author already brilliantly described by
writing the book.
The point is the descriptive words are not and should never be a checklist for a good story despite what Joesph Campbell blathered (I prefer John over Joe anyday for a good story). Fitting a story to a formula is not only boring but ingenuine and perpetuates stereotypes for characters as you force people into certain roles.
It is supremely important to consider how characters and events interact in your story for a game because you are dropping a free agent in with what are usually flat rigid characters and something will always break.The characters and structures of your story have connotations (the emotional and imaginative association surrounding a word) that should be considered when writing. Things like Hero, Villain, Princess, Barkeep, Wizard can be used as descriptions but never as the entirety of who the characters are. With emergent design for writing,
always use adjectives and verbs over nouns.
A brilliant example of this in action is Shakespeare. Most of us read him in school instead of seeing the play so we see again and again "Fool" (usually the fool has a name, which is better but anyway). Our connotations with that word end up shaping (pre-judging) how he will act and respond. In a play it may be done with costume. But the character was not written as a "fool" but as human person reacting under the job description fool,
which makes all the difference.
So, that's what I think is wrong with the way people think about writing stories. Too much structure, not enough character depth. So, without a plot structure how does one go about writing a story? Put characters in an environment and videotape them.
It's that simple. It's like an ant farm. All of my favorite writers talk about writing as if the characters are real people interacting inside their head. Characters are driven by personal motivations and interact with each other, sometimes changing or not changing depending on the author's understanding of each character as a person. As with any emergent system, the interactions between characters become more and more complex to the point where even the best writer could never have predicted them. Stories become interesting as the characters change and react differently to new people or new situations. As for conflicts, without planning it out you will see them develop as the characters pursue their simple desires even against those who you would originally put as allies.
One last note on emergent storytelling is that along with no set structure of events there should not be an end in mind. I figured this was the case with the director of Breaking Bad and I was right. When writing it seems most people plot out the whole story first and just have the characters (and the player) go on the rails of a theme park until they reach the end. By removing the track and the end what drives the story is only the interactions of the characters and their environment. The actions become realistic and the story can end when you feel the characters have run their course, either after the climax, ten years after the climax, or with their sons or whatever.
Letting go and giving your characters and the player freedom will almost guarantee a unique and brilliant story, as long as the characters have personal motivation (history, values, etc.) and the environment (politics, economy, health) are realistic.
Community
