>Lately I’ve been wondering how authors of non-linear interactive experiences develop their designs..
I wonder too, because the ideas just come to me, (like writing comedy) and that is not particularly rigorous! There must be some methods that minimise pesky emergence.
For prototyping, I have found only by creating 3D interactive environments can people understand interaction, storyboards are the next best option.
I used to use pseudo code, but I would also like to use icons/symbols-a combination make it quicker to read.
A hybrid graphic symbol/text pseudo story code would suit my design style because that is how I sketch ideas (text and images).
Research indicates that users accuracy in drawing sketch maps after the VE experience, relate to their engagement. It would be great to see these sketch maps incorporated into the next game/story environment for the next players.
This thread may be moving towards partially answering a project-related question of mine: imposter behavior detection by bots/agents.
Also, I am looking at creating a VE/game where real people attempt to simulate local agent behavior in order not to be spotted /pointed out /socially demoted by the bots. Suitable behavior means reacting to certain social role holders and events in appropriate ways at the right time and place. The agents, on the other hand either instruct the imposters(the players) or try to detect them. I still haven’t found a sophisticated game that uses this (although you see this a lot in Hollywoods films, like robots or aliens pretending to be good guys-hmm, a cultural face off!).
I would appreciate being referred to any ‘imposter detection’ games and AI systems that attempt this detection. Perhaps current schemas like the one in Facade are extensible this way.

I’ll respond in a few days — I just got back from a 4-day business trip, and today’s my fourth wedding anniversary, and tomorrow’s the Fourth of July, so a response will be forthcoming next week… :-)

The content of the structures vary considerably from one system to the other. With IDtension, we are not describing behavior, but “goal structures”, which are more abstract than behaviors. But in both cases, the author describes before, in an almost linear manner, what could happen in various situations.

Related to this question, I even wonder whether there is only two levels of authoring (textual specs + coding) or additional intermediate levels…