Planning with applications to quests and story

  • Yun-Gyung CheongEmail author
  • Mark O. Riedl
  • Byung-Chull Bae
  • Mark J. Nelson
Part of the Computational Synthesis and Creative Systems book series (CSACS)


Most games include some form of narrative. Like other aspects of game content, stories can be generated. In this chapter, we discuss methods for generating stories, mostly using planning algorithms. Algorithms that search in plan space and those that search in state space can both be useful here. We also present a method for generating stories and corresponding game worlds together.


Goal State Planning Algorithm Space Tree Game World Hierarchical Task Network 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Aarseth, E.: From Hunt the Wumpus to EverQuest: Introduction to quest theory. In: Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Entertainment Computing, pp. 496–506 (2005)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ashmore, C., Nitsche, M.: The quest in a generated world. In: Proceedings of the 2007 Digital Games Research Association Conference, pp. 503–509 (2007)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bae, B.C., Young, R.M.: A use of flashback and foreshadowing for surprise arousal in narrative using a plan-based approach. In: Proceedings of the 1st Joint International Conference on Interactive Digital Storytelling, pp. 156–167 (2008)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Brewer,W., Lichtenstein, E.: Event schemas, story schemas, and story grammars. In: J. Long, A. Baddeley (eds.) Attention and Performance, vol. 9, pp. 363–379. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates (1981)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cheong, Y.G., Young, R.M.: Narrative generation for suspense: Modeling and evaluation. In: First Joint International Conference on Interactive Digital Storytelling (2008)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Dehn, N.: Story generation after TALE-SPIN. In: Proceedings of the 7th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 16–18 (1981)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Fikes, R.E., Nilsson, N.J.: STRIPS: A new approach to the application of theorem proving to problem solving. Tech. Rep. 43R, SRI International (1971). SRI Project 8259Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hartsook, K., Zook, A., Das, S., Riedl, M.: Toward supporting storytellers with procedurally generated game worlds. In: Proceedings of the 2011 IEEE Conference on Computational Intelligence in Games, pp. 297–304. Seoul, South Korea (2011)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Isla, D.: Handling complexity in the Halo 2 AI. Presentation at the 2005 Game Developers Conference. URL Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kambhampati, S., Knoblock, C.A., Yang, Q.: Planning as refinement search: A unified framework for evaluating the design tradeoffs in partial order planning. Artificial Intelligence 76(1-2), 167–238 (1995)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kelly, J.P., Botea, A., Koenig, S.: Offline planning with hierarchical task networks in video games. In: Proceedings of the 4th Artificial Intelligence and Interactive Digital Entertainment Conference, pp. 60–65 (2008)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lebowitz, M.: Story-telling as planning and learning. Poetics 14(6), 483–502 (1985)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Mateas, M., Stern, A.: A Behavior Language: Joint action and behavior idioms. In: H. Prendinger, M. Ishizuka (eds.) Life-like Characters: Tools, Affective Functions and Applications. Springer (2004)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Meehan, J.R.: The metanovel: Writing stories by computer. Ph.D. thesis, Department of Computer Science, Yale University (1976)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Nau, D., Ilghami, O., Kuter, U., Murdock, J.W.,Wu, D., Yaman, F.: SHOP2: An HTN planning system. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research 20, 379–404 (2003)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Pednault, E.P.D.: Formulating multi-agent dynamic-world problems in the classical planning framework. In: Reasoning About Actions and Plans: Proceedings of the 1986 Workshop, pp. 47–82. Morgan KaufmannGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Rattermann, M.J., Spector, L., Grafman, J., Levin, H., Harward, H.: Partial and total-order planning: evidence from normal and prefrontally damaged populations. Cognitive Science 25(6), 941–975 (2001)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Riedl, M.O., Stern, A., Dini, D.M., Alderman, J.M.: Dynamic experience management in virtual worlds for entertainment, education, and training. International Transactions on System Science and Applications 3(1), 23–42 (2008)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Riedl, M.O., Young, R.M.: Narrative planning: balancing plot and character. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research 39(1), 217–268 (2010)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Sacerdoti, E.D.: A Structure for Plans and Behavior. Elsevier, New York (1977)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Sullivan, A., Mateas, M., Wardrip-Fruin, N.: Making quests playable: Choices, CRPGs, and the Grail framework. Leonardo Electronic Almanac 17(2), 146–159 (2012)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Tate, A.: Generating project networks. In: Proceedings of the 1977 International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 888–893 (1977)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Tosca, S.: The quest problem in computer games. In: Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Technologies for Interactive Digital Storytelling and Entertainment, pp. 69–81 (2003)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Trabasso, T., Sperry, L.L.: Causal relatedness and importance of story events. Journal of Memory and Language 24(5), 595 – 611 (1985)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Turner, S.R.: The Creative Process: A Computer Model of Storytelling and Creativity. Psychology Press (1994)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Yun-Gyung Cheong
    • 1
    Email author
  • Mark O. Riedl
    • 2
  • Byung-Chull Bae
    • 3
  • Mark J. Nelson
    • 4
  1. 1.College of Information & Communication Engineering, Sungkyunkwan UniversitySeoulKorea
  2. 2.College of Computing, Georgia Institute of TechnologyAtlantaUSA
  3. 3.School of Games, Hongik UniversitySeoulKorea
  4. 4.The MetaMakers InstituteFalmouth UniversityPenrynUK

Personalised recommendations