Cited by 522Artificial Intelligence in GamesAI-based Problem Solving and PlanningNarrative Theory and Analysis

Narrative Planning: Balancing Plot and Character

Open access
Riedl, M. O., Young, R. M.·2010·Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research

Abstract

Narrative, and in particular storytelling, is an important part of the human experience. Consequently, computational systems that can reason about narrative can be more effective communicators, entertainers, educators, and trainers. One of the central challenges in computational narrative reasoning is narrative generation, the automated creation of meaningful event sequences. There are many factors -- logical and aesthetic -- that contribute to the success of a narrative artifact. Central to this success is its understandability. We argue that the following two attributes of narratives are universal: (a) the logical causal progression of plot, and (b) character believability. Character believability is the perception by the audience that the actions performed by characters do not negatively impact the audience's suspension of disbelief. Specifically, characters must be perceived by the audience to be intentional agents. In this article, we explore the use of refinement search as a technique for solving the narrative generation problem -- to find a sound and believable sequence of character actions that transforms an initial world state into a world state in which goal propositions hold. We describe a novel refinement search planning algorithm -- the Intent-based Partial Order Causal Link (IPOCL) planner -- that, in addition to creating causally sound plot progression, reasons about character intentionality by identifying possible character goals that explain their actions and creating plan structures that explain why those characters commit to their goals. We present the results of an empirical evaluation that demonstrates that narrative plans generated by the IPOCL algorithm support audience comprehension of character intentions better than plans generated by conventional partial-order planners.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1613/jair.2989

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Intentionality-agents adopting and pursuing goals-is an important property of believable character behavior.

    “Several studies have established that intentionality, the tendency of agents to adopt and work toward goals, is an important property of believable character behavior (Riedl and Young 2010;Ware et al. 2014).”

    From Multiagent Narrative Experience Management as Story Graph Pruning (2023) · cites this paper as Riedl and Young 2010

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 69

  1. Mateas, M., & Sengers, P. (Eds.), Narrative Intelligence: Papers from the AAAI Fall Symposium (Technical Report FS-99-01), pp. 83-86. AAAI Press, Menlo Park.
  2. Aylett, R. (2000). Emergent narrative, social immersion and "storification". In Proceedings of the 1st International Workshop on Narrative and Interactive Learning Environ- ments.
  3. Bae, B.-C., & Young, R. M. (2008). A use of flashback and foreshadowing for surprise arousal in narrative using a plan-based approach. In Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Interactive Digital Storytelling, pp. 156-167.
  4. Bal, M. (1998). Narratology: An Introduction to the Theory of Narrative. University of Toronto Press.
  5. Bates, J. (1992). Virtual reality, art, and entertainment. Presence: The Journal of Tele- operators and Virtual Environments, 1 (1), 133-138.
  6. Bates, J. (1994). The role of emotion in believable agents. Communications of the ACM, 37 (7), 122-125.
  7. Bates, J., Loyall, A., & Reilly, W. (1992). Integrating reactivity, goals, and emotion in a broad agent. In Proceedings of the 14th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, pp. 696-706.
  8. Blair, D., & Meyer, T. (1997). Tools for an interactive virtual cinema. In Trappl, R., & Petta, P. (Eds.), Creating Personalities for Synthetic Actors: Towards Autonomous Personality Agents, pp. 83-91. Springer.
  9. Blumberg, B., & Galyean, T. (1995). Multi-level direction of autonomous creatures for real-time virtual environments. In Proceedings of the 22nd Annual Conference on Computer Graphics, pp. 47-54.
  10. Bratman, M. (1987). Intentions, Plans, and Practical Reason. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.
  11. Bruner, J. (1990). Acts of Meaning. Harvard University Press, Cambridge.
  12. Callaway, C., & Lester, J. (2002). Narrative prose generation. Artificial Intelligence, 139 (2), 213-252.
  13. Cavazza, M., Charles, F., & Mead, S. (2002). Planning characters' behaviour in interactive storytelling. Journal of Visualization and Computer Animation, 13, 121-131.
  14. Charles, F., Lozano, M., Mead, S., Bisquerra, A., & Cavazza, M. (2003). Planning for- malisms and authoring in interactive storytelling. In Proceedings of the 1st Interna- tional Conference on Technologies for Interactive Digital Storytelling and Entertain- ment.
  15. Cheong, Y.-G., & Young, R. M. (2008). Narrative generation for suspense: Modeling and evaluation. In Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Interactive Digital Storytelling, pp. 144-155.
  16. Christian, D., & Young, R. (2004). Comparing cognitive and computational models of narrative structure. In Proceedings of the 19th National Conference on Artificial In- telligence, pp. 385-390.
  17. Dehn, N. (1981). Story generation after TALE-SPIN. In Proceedings of the 7th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 16-18.
  18. Dennett, D. (1989). The Intentional Stance. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
  19. Fitzgerald, A., Kahlon, G., & Riedl, M. O. (2009). A computational model of emotional response to stories. In Proceedings of the 2nd Joint International Conference on Interactive Digital Storytelling, pp. 312-315.
  20. Gerrig, R. (1994). Narrative thought?. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 20 (6), 712-715.
  21. Gerrig, R. J. (1993). Experiencing Narrative Worlds: On the Psychological Activities of Reading. Yale University Press, New Haven.
  22. Gervás, P., Díaz-Agudo, B., Peinado, F., & Hervás, R. (2005). Story plot generation based on CBR. Journal of Knowledge-Based Systems, 18 (4-5), 235-242.
  23. Graesser, A., Lang, K. L., & Roberts, R. M. (1991). Question answering in the context of stories. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 120 (3), 254-277.
  24. Graesser, A., Singer, M., & Trabasso, T. (1994). Constructing inferences during narrative text comprehension. Psychological Review, 101 (3), 371-395.
  25. Gratch, J., & Marsella, S. (2004). A domain-independent framework for modeling emotion. Journal of Cognitive Systems Research, 5 (4), 269-306.
  26. Grosz, B., & Sidner, C. (1990). Plans for discourse. In Cohen, P., Morgan, J., & Pollack, M. (Eds.), Intentions in Communication, pp. 417-444. MIT Press.
  27. Grosz, B., & Kraus, S. (1996). Collaborative plans for complex group action. Artificial Intelligence, 86 (2), 269-357.
  28. Hayes-Roth, B., van Gent, R., & Huber, D. (1997). Acting in character. In Trappl, R., & Petta, P. (Eds.), Creating Personalities for Synthetic Characters: Towards Au- tonomous Personality Agents, pp. 92-112. Springer.
  29. Herman, D. (2002). Story Logic: Problems and Possibilities of Narrative. University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln, NE.
  30. Hoffmann, J., & Nebel, B. (2001). The FF planning system: Fast plan generation through heuristic search. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, 14, 253-302.
  31. Jhala, A. H. (2009). Cinematic Discourse Generation. Ph.D. thesis, North Carolina State University.
  32. Kelso, M., Weyhrauch, P., & Bates, J. (1993). Dramatic presence. Presence: The Journal of Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 2 (1), 1-15.
  33. Knoblock, C. (1994). Generating parallel execution plans with a partial-order planner. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Plan- ning Systems, pp. 98-103.
  34. Laurel, B. (1986). Toward the Design of a Computer-Based Interactive Fantasy System. Ph.D. thesis, Ohio State University.
  35. Lebowitz, M. (1987). Planning stories. In Proceedings of the 9th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, pp. 234-242.
  36. Lester, J., Voerman, J., Towns, S., & Callaway, C. (1999). Deictic believability: Coordinat- ing gesture, locomotion, and speech in lifelike pedagogical agents. Applied Artificial Intelligence, 13 (4-5), 383-414.
  37. Loyall, A. B. (1997). Believable Agents: Building Interactive Personalities. Ph.D. thesis, School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University.
  38. Maes, P., Darrell, T., Blumberg, B., & Pentland, A. (1995). The ALIVE system: Full- body interaction with autonomous agents. In Proceedings of the 1995 Conference on Computer Animation.
  39. Mateas, M. (1997). An Oz-centric review of interactive drama and believable agents. Techni- cal report CMU-CS-97-156, School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University.
  40. Mateas, M., & Sengers, P. (1999). Narrative intelligence. In Mateas, M., & Sengers, P. (Eds.), Narrative Intelligence: Papers from the 1999 Fall Symposium (Technical Report FS-99-01), pp. 1-10. AAAI Press, Menlo Park, CA.
  41. McKoon, G., & Ratcliff, R. (1992). Inference during reading. Psychological Review, 99, 440-466.
  42. Meehan, J. R. (1976). The Metanovel: Writing Stories by Computers. Ph.D. thesis, Yale University.
  43. Meehan, J. R. (1977). TALE-SPIN: An interactive program that writes stories. In Proceed- ings of the 5th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 91-98.
  44. Penberthy, J. S., & Weld, D. S. (1992). UCPOP: A sound, complete, partial-order planner for ADL. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Knowledge Representation and Reasoning, pp. 103-114.
  45. Pérez y Pérez, R., & Sharples, M. (2001). MEXICA: A computer model of a cognitive account of creative writing. Journal of Experimental and Theoretical Artificial Intel- ligence, 13, 119-139.
  46. Perlin, K., & Goldberg, A. (1996). Improv: A system for scripting interactive actors in virtual worlds. In Proceedings of the 23rd International Conference on Computer Graphics and Interactive Techniques, pp. 205-216.
  47. Pollack, M. (1992). The uses of plans. Artificial Intelligence, 57 (1), 43-68.
  48. Porteous, J., & Cavazza, M. (2009). Controlling narrative generation with planning trajec- tories: the role of constraints. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Interactive Digital Storytelling, pp. 234-245.
  49. Prince, G. (1987). A Dictionary of Narratology. University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln.
  50. Propp, V. (1968). Morphology of the Folktale. University of Texas Press, Austin, TX.
  51. Reilly, W. (1996). Believable Social and Emotional Agents. Ph.D. thesis, School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University.
  52. Riedl, M. O. (2004). Narrative Generation: Balancing Plot and Character. Ph.D. thesis, North Carolina State University.
  53. Louchart, S., Roberts, D., & Mehta, M. (Eds.), Intelligent Narrative Technologies II: Papers from the 2009 Spring Symposium (Technical Report SS-09-06), pp. 91-94, Palo Alto, CA. AAAI Press.
  54. Riedl, M. O., & Young, R. M. (2005). An objective character believability evaluation proce- dure for multi-agent story generation systems. In Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Intelligent Virtual Agents (IVA), pp. 278-291.
  55. Riedl, M. O., & Young, R. M. (2006). Story planning as exploratory creativity: Techniques for expanding the narrative search space. New Generation Computing, 24 (3), 303-323.
  56. Rumelhart, D. (1975). Notes on a schema for stories. In Bobrow, D., & Collins, A. (Eds.), Representation and Understanding: Studies in Cognitive Science, pp. 185-210. Aca- demic Press, New York.
  57. Sacerdoti, E. (1977). A Structure for Plans and Behavior. Elsevier, New York.
  58. Sadock, J. (1990). Comments on Vanderveken and on Cohen and Levesque. In Cohen, P., Morgan, J., & Pollack, M. (Eds.), Intentions in Communication, pp. 257-270. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
  59. Sengers, P. (2000). Schizophrenia and narrative in artificial agents. In Proceedings of the 1st International Workshop on Narrative and Interactive Learning Environments.
  60. Sharples, M. (1999). How We Write: Writing as Creative Design. Routledge, London.
  61. Smith, T., & Witten, I. (1991). A planning mechanism for generating story texts. Literary and Linguistic Computation, 6 (2), 119-126.
  62. Thomas, F., & Johnson, O. (1981). Disney Animation: The Illusion of Life. Abbeville Press, New York.
  63. Trabasso, T., & Sperry, L. (1985). Causal relatedness and importance of story events. Journal of Memory and Language, 24, 595-611.
  64. Trabasso, T., & van den Broek, P. (1985). Causal thinking and the representation of narrative events. Journal of Memory and Language, 24, 612-630.
  65. van den Broek, P. (1988). The effects of causal relations and hierarchical position on the importance of story statements. Journal of Memory and Language, 27, 1-22.
  66. Weyhrauch, P. (1997). Guiding Interactive Fiction. Ph.D. thesis, Carnegie Mellon Univer- sity.
  67. Young, R. M. (1999). Notes on the use of plan structures in the creation of interactive plot. In Mateas, M., & Sengers, P. (Eds.), Narrative Intelligence: Papers from the AAAI Fall Symposium (Technical Report FS-99-01), pp. 164-167. AAAI Press, Menlo Park.
  68. Young, R. (2006). Story and discourse: A bipartite model of narrative generation in virtual worlds. Interaction Studies, 8 (2), 177-208.
  69. Young, R., Pollack, M., & Moore, J. (1994). Decomposition and causality in partial-order planning. In Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Artificial Intelli- gence and Planning Systems, pp. 188-193.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Riedl, M. O., & Young, R. M.
Affiliations
  • Georgia Institute of Technology (US)
  • North Carolina State University (US)
Venue
Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research
Published
2010-09-29
Volume
39
Pages
217-268
ISSN
1076-9757 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2170516265
Cited by
522
References
1
Citations by year
2026: 20 · 2025: 27 · 2024: 22 · 2023: 24 · 2022: 34 · 2021: 41 · 2020: 44 · 2019: 43 · 2018: 54 · 2017: 33 · 2016: 41 · 2015: 29 · 2014: 37 · 2013: 21 · 2012: 20
FWCI
22.01
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • NCSU Libraries Repository (North Carolina State University Libraries) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Artificial Intelligence in Games
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › AI-based Problem Solving and Planning
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Literature and Literary Theory › Narrative Theory and Analysis
Keywords
narrative generation, character believability, suspension of disbelief, partial-order planning

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review