First Contact can be classed (after an ill-conceived first chapter, see below), as a friendly gauntlet: I created small “side routes” branches giving some more optional narrative details, but was constructively criticised because was too few; OTOH, the central line was non-linear. that is, in two spots, the order of the next passages depends on the player’s choice (basically, from A going to B then C or C then B then D and beyond) and this is an interesting variety of strong central line.
The core narrative issue of First Contact is being a prequel of a still-to-be-published major WIP, so dead/failure ends was out of question, and an ill-thought first chapter (a large, how to say, branches and bottleneck, the neck leading to the of entering the strong central line central line. Not precisely the best narrative design…)
I have limited time these days, so I saved your suggested activity, perhaps someday I’ll fool around it under Twine…
Curious: if you were redoing that first chapter, would you lean more into a straight Gauntlet from the start, or still keep that broader bottleneck approach?
more or less a friendly gauntlet; the branches being more details (basically, that 1st chapter is an world introduction) If you have played it, you will see that straightening that mess in the 1st chapter seems narratively easier, basically the PC is walking toward the Great Hall, looking around and thinking…
I’d be curious to see something beyond just copying Sam Kabo Ashwell’s text and diagram into your tool (without attribution or credit of any kind AFAICS). If “people learn best by doing – and it’s fun to make stuff with purpose” then (for instance) let’s see one or two of your attempts by way of example and inspiration.
To be fair, there’s a link to the originating article provided in the next sentence, which isn’t sufficient attribution in a formal academic setting but seems fine for an informal forum post. It seems to me like there was no intention to claim credit for the diagram or actively obscure its origin.
Great point — thank you. I’ve updated the first passage accordingly. I hadn’t thought about it that way, but I’ll carry this thinking forward.
This feels a bit unfair. I’m a maker of tools, and I believe StoryMate is a fun, purposeful one.
If there’s one thing I know about teachers — and I know plenty — it’s that they are time-poor and value authentic learning contexts. Giving them a template that empowers students to create interactive fiction based on real structures? That’s education Shangri-La.
This isn’t my first rodeo. I have a long background in games and education (games based learning), and I’m here to make a difference. I care deeply about the next generation of game makers and writers, and I’ll absolutely take on board what the community here has to say.
