I generally agree, on both orders. It seems like the easiest way to
succeed with characterization is to not *interact* at all; the
characters should *act* where the player can see. (Or in journal
entries, or whatever. _Theatre_ was a good attempt at this, but I
think it was hindered by the out-of-order presentation of the journal
entries; the story didn't really come through.) On the other hand, the
long prose blocks of _The Legend Lives_ really jarred. So far, I like
Gareth's solutions best. Either keep the player busy during the stage
pieces, or reveal them in widely-spaced short chunks. I shouldn't have
to type "Z" several times in a row, and I'd rather not read a long
one-turn conversation.
> 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.
I'm not sure this follows. It's easiest to implement characters with
fixed responses; this includes characters that do nothing and those
that have a strong agenda. But I think that either is suitable for
creating puzzles around. Edward the sodden lump has to be manipulated
into a particular position to advance the plot, and if you don't do it
he does nothing much. A more active character has to be manipulated
into a particular position, and if you don't he does something else.
Of course the latter kind of puzzle will generally be harder, because
the player may have to act at a given time, or only get one try, or
whatever.
--Z
"And Aholibamah bare Jeush, and Jaalam, and Korah: these were the borogoves..."