enjoyed Ragnar Tornquist's comments on embedded vs. emergent story. I applaud his goals of focusing on embedded story for the gratification of the individual, particularly since it seems at odds with where so many games are heading, with a focus on creating dynamic storylines. But, I feel that most PSWs should take advantage of both embedded and emergent story. A game that incorporates both forms can benefit from the strengths each has to offer.

Storytelling efforts, just as any other development effort, should be evaluated in terms of how it impacts the player experience. I like the metrics that Gordon Walton put forth. What amazing things does a player see and experience? Does the natural sequence of events help [the player] craft a story? Strongly embedded story presented through a system of quests provides a sequence of positive experiences for individuals as well as small groups from which players can craft their own stories. Strongly embedded story will also provide more player guidance, which is notably lacking in this genre ('Ok I'm here. What is this place about and what do I do now?'). So improvements in the embedded story should be in the future of PSWs.

Emergent story seems to be the current focus of PSW development and with good reason. Players are craving dynamic universes in which the community they participate in makes a difference. In tackling this challenge, I feel priority should be placed on allowing more players to affect change in small and personal ways so that the typical player is able to sense his impact on the game. Players should be actors in smaller theatres, and control local events. The typical player's story should be one of contribution rather than mere spectator. The typical player should have a hand in creating local histories and game mechanisms should allow for this. With regard to emergent story on a grand scale, however, I am unconvinced aggregating all player participation into a global storyline is worthwhile. We'll see.