Logical theory and how it relates to writing non-linear stories

A subject of great interest to me when I was younger was non linear stories. There was something magical about the unassuming interactivety that preprogrammed addaptive dialogue conveyed to me. Perhaps it's that I was listened to and had a say; perhaps it's that I was responded to regardless of being a kid spending the afternoon at home with only TV, homework and the computer for entertainment. It doesn't really matter why, but I was definately starved, and games with nonlinear dialogue in particular fed me quite well as I sunk my teeth into them.

Now, having come to understand at least part of the structural intricacies of languages, and more specifically how to translate between languages, it seems like a good idea to re-examine non-linear dialogue. It'll allow me to put my old hobby into the context of what I've learned since then; and hopefully I can boil down that which I used to like into rules which are more generally applicable than "oh yeah, they did this cool thing in this game I played ten years ago, and it was soooo awesome but I'm not quite sure why!". If I succeed, which probably won't happen in this entry, that should improve the way I think about narratives in general, and nonlinear ones specifically.

I'll try to come back to applicability for games later.

Essential to non-linear structures is a grasp of logical languages. I call them logical languages only to differentiate them from natural languages such as Englsih - which sounds moronic as English _is_ a logical language. The point would be the link of association - languages are associated with communication between people, or in the case of programming languages, the decleration of data manipulation mechanisms.

But technically speaking, anything that defines a set of legal operations and results (or meanings) of those operations can be thought of as a logical language. This is because it allows the user to express meaning through the use of the operations. In the case of natural languages, it should be obvious that there often is no set definition, and that the meanings conveyed may in fact be unlimited.

I bring up logical languages, because in order to make interesting non-linear dialogue, we need to utilize a context free language to organize the natural language expressions in a non-linear fashion. This limitation is two-fold: we cannot program a computer, which is requirred to "run" the non-linear dialogue, without utilizing context free languages (yet, at least, because computers have no grasp of language-contexts at this stage of technology), and we can't impress humans without using natural languages; and argument for the latter follows:

In simple terms, the most important aspect of any language remotely interesting for humans is context. This is in part because all natural languages are defined by their context (even their grammar, alphabet, spelling and semantics are, in the grander scheme!), and in part because the context can never be fully known, remembered, or even understood, making the reading of almost any context-based text a highly individual experience.
Even normal conversation has this element of uncertainty, which then means that every expression we make carries with it a choice in how we word the expression, and a result, how it is understood. Making things all the more intriguing is the fact that we don't know the result, the impression, our expressions have on our listeners before we have a chance to listen to some of their following expressions.
To hammer in my point agai : Our only basis for understanding those who speak to us, and coinstructing expressions for those who listen, is context. All of our decisions with regard to how we communicate comes from how well we understand the context, and how quickly we understand it.

This fairly complex work is handled by us at automatically, without conscious analysis. That isn't to say that we aren't fallible in this endeavor - we're very fallible, particularly concerning areas where no reliable and common context exists as the basis of communication - but we're very good at it, and the enjoyment that comes from conversation probably is in no small part due to how it flexes and excercises this part of us.

The idea I proposed above - arranging natural language expressions in a non-linear fashion - is not the only solution. It is also possible to generate natural language expressions utilizing context free languages, but these, while usually gramatically correct, reek of simplicity and are exceptionally mundane by natural language standards.

So, we're currently left with the organization of chunks of natural language by utility of context-free mechanisms language mechanism. Essentially, this means that the only people really qualified to design non-linear dialogue are people who understand how context free languages work, and are able to use them. This is a discipline which is not derivative of being a writer, but rather of being a programmer, which is a large problem.

Having a firm grasp of clear-cut expressions in context free languages, the programmers forte, often means having a sub par or completely ruined grasp of natural language constructs. Either direction is not exclusive, to be sure, but compared to the precision of context free languages, many programmers are likely to find natural languages imprecise and unfullfilling to deal with.

So where am I going with this?

Well, my idea is, more or less, that because you can introduce context-based values to a context free language, you can write touring-compatible languages within the confines of context free grammars and languages. This is what allows for the various branches to exist.

But because this is all touring compatible and originates in a context free language, it means it's possible to translate, or compile, the dialogue into wholly natural language based strands and examine them without the branching context.
Sortof like unfolding a tree into a number of linear paths. So, it may take a programmer to construct the strands, but a writer can edit and sharpen the strands.

While it may well be technically tricky, it is therefore perfectly possible to develop a branch revision structure that allows a multitude of writers to pour over forks in the dialogue while keeping the dialogue inherently compatible. Of course, this is what you need to develop tools for if you want to construct non-linear dialogue.

I'll get into, another entry, why exactly the tools are necessary - but this blog post should explain why the tools are possible. Also, I want to adress the problem of having several writers on a project; since the writers have different personal natural-language contexts, a certain degree of meta-management is necessary every time you add another writer. Since the number of writers means a decrease in the common denominater, so to speak, managing a common context will necessarily become paramount in such an endeavor as the team size grows.

But more on that later.