Transmedia Storytelling Berlin

[box type=“info“] Dieser Artikel ist ein Crossposting von Zur Zeit wird an der Seite jedoch noch fleissig gearbeitet, sodass sie vorraussichtlich ab dem kommenden Montag (29.08.2011) mit all ihren Informationen öffentlich zugänglich sein wird.[/box]

Jeder von uns trägt ein kleines Universum in sich, das manchmal auf den richtigen Auslöser wartet. Hin und wieder reicht schon ein bisschen Kometen-Staub aus, an anderen Tagen müssen erst zwei Sterne aufeinander treffen um sich zu vereinen und die Geschichte des Universums freizugeben.

"Gebrüder Grimm" - gemalt von Elisabeth Jerichau-Baumann (gemeinfrei)

So gibt es seit der Entwicklung der Sprache Menschen, die es schaffen, ihr kleines Geschichten-Universum anderen zugänglich zu machen. Die Gebrüder Jacob und Wilhelm Grimm forschten schon um 1806 auf dem Gebiet des Geschichten-Erzählens. Sie zogen dafür durch das Land, ließen sich die verschiedensten Geschichten erzählen und fassten diese in ihrem Werk „Märchen und Sagen“ zusammen.

Die auf das Papier gedruckten Worte verzückten bereits damals den einen oder anderen Leser. Seitdem hat sich die Tradition und die Berufung des Geschichten-Erzählers weiter entwickelt. Heute wird eine Geschichte nicht mehr nur über ein Medium erzählt sondern über mehrere. Die Medien sind dabei eine Art Vehikel, die ihrerseits die Bühne der Geschichte bereiten. Sie werden zum Teil des Universums, in dem die Geschichte erfahren werden kann.

Transmedia Storytelling Definitionen

Henry Jenkins fasst das bereits im Jahr 2007 in einem Artikel seines Blogs „Confessions of an ACA-Fan“ wie folgt zusammen:

[learn_more caption=“Transmedia Storytelling 101″ state=“open“] „Transmedia storytelling represents a process where integral elements of a fiction get dispersed systematically across multiple delivery channels for the purpose of creating a unified and coordinated entertainment experience. Ideally, each medium makes it own unique contribution to the unfolding of the story.“

Henry Jenkins[/learn_more]

Der Begriff Transmedia Storytelling wurde bereits zum Ende des alten Jahrtausends geprägt, aber damals wurde die Diskussion nie öffentlich weitergeführt. Erst als Henry Jenkins 2003 seinen gleichnamigen Artikel in der Technology Review veröffentlichte, änderte sich dieser „Schwebezustand“ des Begriffes. Trotzdem dauerte es fast ein weiteres Jahrzehnt, bis der Begriff als feste Größe zum Beispiel auch von der Producers Guild of America anerkannt wurde. An diesem Durchbruch ist neben vielen anderen auch Jeff Gomez (Starlight Runner) beteiligt gewesen.

Trotzdem sind wir hier noch lange nicht am Ende der Definition und damit der Diskussion über Transmedia Storytelling angekommen. Es gibt noch viele offene Fragen und natürlich muss die Definition einer großen, angesehenen Organisation wie der PGA nicht unbedingt das glänzende Gold sein, nach dem alle streben.

Brian Clark von den GMD-Studios fasst in einem ausführlichen Facebook-Artikel und nach vielen Diskussionen seine Eindrücke der Definition der PGA und ihre Auswirkungen so zusammen:

[learn_more caption=“Reclaiming Transmedia Storyteller“]In any field, practitioners develop a specialized jargon that conveys either the complex nuance or razor specificity necessary for people to talk about what they do with each other. It is good for everyone to be involved in the debates about those kinds of terms of art on at least some level, as the dialog advances new ways of thinking about the work you should also be buried in.

At this phase in my career, I’m less interested in the Platonic ideas of what the labels should be, and far more interested in discussing why we’re suddenly having a hard time having a discussion as a community of practitioners and creators. We need to be able to discuss this without people taking that as a rebuke of their work or, conversely, worrying more about their own promotional positioning than the health of the movement.

That’s also why I decided to publish this on Facebook of all places: to remind us that we’re friends and peers who know each other: that’s why the discussion is worth having and why we should be capable of having it. Tag the people you talk about and reference to remind yourself of that: discover some new people in your community you didn’t know from those tags. Embrace that we’re not faceless board handles, we’re flesh and blood and full of passion and complex ideas and clumsy words.

Because not everyone is entering the conversation with the same personal experiences, I feel the need to set the stage and explain how I think this tension has emerged over the last few years


The seeds of this gulf were sown by Henry Jenkins, who was largely responsible for the current popularity of the term „transmedia“: many of us have been friendly critics of the term since the beginning, but as an academian Henry has always encouraged that debate and been clear that the definition was an emerging thing. At Futures of Entertainment 4 at M.I.T. I was on a panel right after Henry where they asked us to react to his presentation, and I remember saying that it seemed like I was interested in optimizing exactly the opposite factors as Henry. The tensions of ideas advanced discussions.

My community of creative peers and I found something fascinating about the discourse around the term (a discourse we were dragged into by having our work labeled posthumously as transmedia). Transmedia instead of multimedia implied a distinction of creation that we also tried to highlight, and Henry’s focus on „it isn’t just adaptation“ and „it is an adjective that describes something else“ were appealing new distinctions that added to the conversation.


The tone of that conversation began to sour after Jeff Gomez worked to establish a „transmedia producers credit“ at the Producer’s Guild of America, which cemented a definition of qualifying work that is confusing at best and exclusionary at worst. One of its core flaws (IMHO) is that it abandons Jenkin’s distinction of „it isn’t just adaptation“ – in fact, the credit definition talks about „3 or more storylines“ because in the Hollywood system, the transmedia is almost always a bolt-on adaptation of a primary IP that the producers don’t get to influence. I understand why it is what it is, and in general don’t find it massively relevant (it’s the requirements to get into PGA, not to be a transmedia producer), but it has sparked passions.

More worrisome to me is that the proponents of the PGA credit haven’t reacted to the criticism the way Henry did: they have intertwined their professional ambitions with the PGA definitions in a way that treats that discourse as inappropriate criticism, which turns friendly criticism into something less friendly. After mentioning the growing issue on this in passing in the comedic setup of my presentation at Power to Pixel, I was shocked by how defensive the tone of PGA credit defenders were – I was literally asked, „So, do you not want transmedia producers to have health insurance?“


Of course, that doesn’t stop the community of discourse. Steve Peters started the trend of mocking the label on Twitter with the #antitransmedia hashtag and the simple reminders like „bacon is the new transmedia.“ It became a template for criticism of speeches and blog posts about the topic that gained steam. As that dialog broadened, though, I began to realize that many of us were using that meme for totally different reasons.

Steve wanted to kill the label transmedia, in part because he feels that PGA credit definition is too restrictive. I, on the other hand, was really attacking the self-proclaimed gurus to point out how the phrase might have already become the new „viral“ (and if you asked my personal opinion on the PGA credit I’d either describe it as irrelevant or not restrictive enough.) Others were probably just in it for the lulz. It was perceived, though, as a „backlash from veteran transmedia creators“.

It eventually became just that when Brooke Thompson published a series of blog posts that sharpened the knife to the conversation provoked by the PGA credit definition. Comments became emails, emails became phone calls and the cross-fertilizing of ideas that always emerges from a good community of discourse started to happen.


At the same time, I’d been spending a lot of time thinking about this division through the lens of my long relationship with the independent film community and saw many similarities. In conversations, I started calling it East Coast and West Coast and pointing out that maybe transmedia was salvageable if it was a big enough bucket to include two radically different visions of what it was about instead of all agreeing to do it just one way.

The West Coast transmedia tradition is largely what Jenkins was studying, and that style might be best personified by people like Elan Lee, Jordan Weisman and Jeff Gomez. It thinks more in terms of franchises, it has struggles with the relationships with the owners of the industry, and starts from the perspective that creators won’t own the IP they are creating. They want to fix the studio system, or recreate a new kind of studio.

The East Coast transmedia tradition is quite different and emerges far more from the independent traditions of media through people like Lance Weiler, Michael Monello, and I. It thinks in terms of one story told across platforms, it has struggles with monetizing and financing, and starts from the perspective that creators own the IP they are creating. They want to extend an existing community into transmedia, or recreate a new kind of community.

Neither is wrong. Few practitioners or creators work exclusively in one sphere or the other. One is not more noble or pure or profitable than the other. But we’re all guilty of conflating the two together in ways that lead to moments where it might sound like the community is, for example, telling documentary filmmakers that they need to think more like franchisers if they want to get on the transmedia bandwagon and not be left behind as „storytelling changes forever.“

As much as I would have loved to be the Biggie to someone else’s Tupac, conversations with Monello in the wake of Brooke’s blog posts put a finer knife on our argument if we didn’t want to just recreate the indie / Hollywood divide all over again. So the two of us hatched a potentially meaningful new way to talk about these issues … a way that also leads to some really controversial debates we hope to spark.


The indie / Hollywood and divisions are just two potential configurations of the relationship between creating something and owning something – there are dozens others for just a handful of industries off the top of my head. When we as practitioners assume that everyone else is caught in or aspires to that same model of creation/owning we hit dangerous soggy ground that creates divisions.

Mike and I talked about all the different configurations suggested just by our own two resumes of work. As creators and entrepreneurs, we understand that there’s a difference in our entire approach when we’re one of the primary storytellers of the IP like „Blair Witch“ or „Nothing So Strange“ — we’re shaping our own stories to live through multiple ways of interacting with them. When we’re not the primary storytellers, when we’re given a smaller bucket that we’re allowed to work in and charged with some other goal like marketing, we might use the same production strategies but definitely not the same storytelling strategies.

It is a re-emphasis on what many of us thought the „trans“ in transmedia was trying to convey, based upon the dialogs that Henry Jenkins had sparked – that the act of telling a story through multiple media (especially with the addition of interactive media) was inherently different than the old models of thinking about storytelling like adaptation and extension.


Mike and I found it useful to start talking about „transmedia storytelling“ as the label for when you’re creating a story as the primary storytellers and intending to tell your story across multiple channels. In the same way people might come to Mike or I because we have experience in some particular discipline (like publishing or filmmaking), they might also come to us to tap our experience as transmedia storytellers. When they do, but we’re not among the primary storytellers, then we’re showing them how to utilize the methods of transmedia storytelling (in the same way we might show them the methods of filmmaking or the methods of publishing.)

Here’s what gets me excited about this distinction: it illuminates what we have in common by looking at the different ways we work by separating the issue of creative control from the issue of ownership. Mike didn’t cease to be the transmedia storyteller of „Blair Witch“ when the sold the rights to Artisan, because he was still among the primary storytellers with creative control. Conversely, Gregg Hale and David Goyer were definitely transmedia storytellers of „Freakylinks“ even though it was a Fox Television production … up until the moment they lost control of the television show (then they were just using the methods.)

Sometimes that knife also cuts in surprising ways that we think raise interesting debates that we haven’t fully explored yet. For example: if you’re working for an entertainment IP you’ll tend to have less creative control than if you work for a non-IP brand. Mike and I think, for example, that „The Art of the Heist“ represents transmedia storytelling and not just its methods, even though it was a work-for-hire creation at an ad agency’s request. Audi didn’t have an existing IP that it was asking to have adapted or extended, it was asking for a new story utilizing multiple channels and we were among the central group of storytellers creating that.

We aren’t just inventing this from whole cloth, either: those of you that have had any art theory will recognize the same distinction as „art versus craft,“ which has been deeply useful for creators in every other form for discussing the act of creation.


Mike and I realized that this debate got even more interesting if we started it by pointing at our own work that we could say, „this is not transmedia storytelling,“ because you could then say, „and by extension it means all these other things I didn’t make also aren’t transmedia storytelling“. Mike and I can both point to huge chunks of our resumes that are „marketing utilizing transmedia methods“ (as an example) that we’re quite proud of even though we weren’t „transmedia storytellers“, so we don’t propose these labels as value judgments, just as an important distinction that can be added to the debate.

One example from Mike: Campfire’s campaign for HBO’s „Game of Thrones“ is not transmedia storytelling, it is marketing utilizing transmedia methods. The original storyteller of the book that HBO is adapting has strict limits on what that adaptation can do: the IP restrictions mean you can’t just tell new stories set in that universe, because you’re not part of the primary storytelling team (or if you can, the stories are „non-canon“ in the context of the main story.) Not your story, you’re not the storyteller. So by extension, „Why So Serious?“ is also not transmedia storytelling, it is marketing utilizing transmedia methods for a film adaptation of the original storyteller’s IP (a comic book). Similarly, you can argue that „Star Wars“ is not transmedia storytelling; it is franchising utilizing transmedia methods (since the „canon“ of the six films cannot be violated by the extended universe, but the extended universe might conflict with each other or be rewritten by future canon.)

The construct is also useful for asking, „Who was the storyteller, and were they a transmedia storyteller?“ From the above examples, could you call David Goyer and Chris Nolan the transmedia storytellers of „The Dark Knight“ that „Why So Serious?“ is one part of? Did George Lucas become a transmedia storyteller with „Star Wars“ or is a better label something like „transmedia franchiser“? Is Steve Coulson a transmedia storyteller on „Game of Thrones,“ or is he a „transmedia marketer“?


Whether you’re practicing East Coast or West Coast transmedia, the issue is about creative control: if you don’t have control over the design of the story and its distribution channels, you’re simply not able to reach that higher bar of telling that one story across numerous channels and you’re back to extending or adapting. You’re not a transmedia storyteller, you’re doing something else while utilizing the methods of transmedia. This is a common dilemma for creative professionals, and there’s all kinds of strategies for maximizing creative control in different industries that are adopting parts of the palate that was created by transmedia storytellers. Both the spread of adoption and the innovation of multiple valid paths for cultivating creative control are desired outcomes for everyone involved in this debate.

If creative control is the unifying goal, then we should reserve the phrases „transmedia story“ and „transmedia storyteller“ to when it passes some tipping point towards having an important creative voice in the core story rather than just when someone has helped adapt or extend someone else’s story onto a new platform. And I say that as someone who frequently is adapting or extending someone else’s story … or whispering in the ear of the primary storytellers about the things they could do as storytellers beyond just extending and adapting.


This piece is already too long, but I feel like I’ve only just scratched the surface of the conversations I’ve been a part of recently and would like to have more broadly. So Mike and I have made the commitment to push this debate forward, not just informally and in the digital space, but as the thrust of a crystalizing debate in our conference presentations. It provokes the right questions that lurk beneath the surface of the divide growing among us, re-hinges it against Henry Jenkin’s original provocations, and (frankly) makes the usefulness of transmedia methods much easier to understand for our friends and collaborators focused on the beautiful expressions of some other medium with a long tradition behind it.

What we don’t need, though, is the navel gazing of inventing some new label or abstract definition. We should test our debate against the goal of, „Does this enable new ways for us to talk to each other about our work?“ Transmedia might still be an imperfect term, but my mischievous tweets of #antitransmedia don’t fix that or improve the way we use it, and neither does the definition of the PGA credit. Instead we could provoke a debate about something we actually all care about: creative control. If we’re actually a sustainable community, that means we’ll get to have that debate together forever … but it will get richer and more nuanced with time, and split off into multiple different camps of interpretation, and all the other wonderful things that go with a vibrant art form.

That’s what I’d really like, wouldn’t you?

Brian Clark[/learn_more]

Wie Brian Clark in seinem Artikel herausstellt, geht es also eigentlich bei all den Transmedia-Diskussionen und -Definitionen doch eher um die Frage des „Wer hat die Kontrolle und Rechte über das Kreative?“ wodurch die Diskussionen in ein anderes Licht gelenkt werden.

Transmedia Storytelling Berlin

Doch was hat das nun alles mit Transmedia Storytelling Berlin zu tun?

Wir möchten gemeinsam mit Euch ein neues, großes Universum eröffnen. Im Mittelpunkt unseres Universums sehen wir Diskussionen und Vorträge, Wissens- sowie Kontakt-Austausch und ihr könnt uns auf unserer Reise in die Tiefen dieses Universums begleiten. Wir werden uns dazu einmal im Monat in einer Location in Berlin treffen und dort nach einem Impulsvortrag von etwa 15-20 Minuten über das entsprechende Thema austauschen. Dabei besteht für jeden Mitreisenden die Möglichkeit, viele neue  Leute so wie ihre eigenen Universen kennen zu lernen. Wir freuen uns auf einen regen Austausch.

Embrace the Chaos

Das Chaos ist ein Zustand vollständiger Unordnung oder Verwirrung. Damit ist es das Gegenteil des griechischen Begriffs Kosmos, der für die Ordnung steht. Und obwohl diese zwei Begriffe grundsätzlich gegensätzlich sind, so brachte Albert Einstein sie bereits in einen gemeinsamen Zusammenhang, indem er feststellte: Nichts kann existieren ohne Ordnung – nichts kann entstehen ohne Chaos.

Am 2. November findet ein eintägiges Seminar in New York statt, das versucht die Teilnehmer ans Chaos heranzuführen und sich darauf einzulassen. Es richtet sich in erster Linie an ARM Produzenten, Kreative und Theoretiker auf dem Gebiet des Advertising, der Medien und des Game Designs. Durch die verschiedenen Teile des Seminars führen zum Beispiel Brian Clark (GMD Studios), Rachel Clarke (Buzz Marketing), Ken Eklund (Writerguy), Brian Enigma (ARG Security), Adrian Hon (Six to Start), Evan Jones (Stitch Media), Mike Monello (Campfire Media), Mark Ostrick (Ostrick Productions), Dave Szulborski (Immersive Gaming), Sean C. Stacey (Unfiction), Brooke Thompson (Giant Mice) und Lance Weiler (Head Trauma).

Neben der Einführung in die Thematik eines ARGs erfahren die Teilnehmer hier auch über den Nutzen eines Alternate Reality Games im Marketing-Bereich. Und für viele Verantwortliche wird sicher auch das Thema der Erfolgsmessung interessant sein, genauso wie der Aspekt, wie man mit Risiken umgeht.

Das Seminar folgt also ganz seinem Namen „Embrace The Chaos“ und wird zudem von den UnForums präsentiert, der größten ARG-Community im englischsprachigen Raum.


Eldritch > Schmeldritch | Puppetmaster-Chat

Anfang April trat ein Medium in das Leben einiger Menschen und veränderte es grundlegend. Es handelte sich dabei um B.A. Saint Feline, die auf ihrer eigenen Homepage B Seeing U ihre medialen Fähigkeiten anbot. Doch die Kontaktaufnahme mit den Auserwählten verlief anders. B.A. Saint Feline schickte ihnen Umschläge mit unterschiedlichem Inhalt: eine Münze auf der das Abbild einer schwarzen Katze zu sehen ist, ein persönliches Anschreiben, aus einem Buch von H.P. Lovecraft herausgetrennte Seiten, Bilder und verschiedene andere Sachen.

Nach dieser Kontaktaufnahme stellte es sich heraus, dass B.A. Saint Feline ihre Visionen immer wieder über die Craigslistveröffentlichte und sich daraus ein roter Faden ergab. Hinzu kamen einige Hinweise, durch die auch die Webseite der Eldritch Errors gefunden wurde, die ebenfalls ein zentrales Element dieses Alternate Reality Games darstellen würde.

Nun ist das ARG zu einem vorläufigen, von den Puppetmastern beabsichtigtem Ende gelangt, das seinen Höhepunkt in einem Live Event in Atlanta fand. Direkt vor Ort entdeckten die Teilnehmer in einem öffentlichen Raum eine Festplatte, ein Ticket sowie drei verhüllte Statuen. Neben diesem Event gab es zudem weitere Craigslist Beiträge, die dem Geschehen als Epilog dienten.

Was sonst noch so alles in den letzten 6 Monaten geschah, kann man auf der Story-So-Far Seite der Eldritch Errors nachlesen. Und auch das BSUWiki ist sehr guter Anlaufpunkt, um weitere Informationen zu diesem ARG zu erhalten.

Mit diesem vorläufigen aber nicht finalen Ende haben auch die Puppetmaster den Vorhang ein wenig geöffnet. Zum einen kann man im sich Puppetmaster Blog Schmeldritch einen sehr guten Eindruck von der anderen Seite des Vorhangs machen. Zum anderen fand vor kurzem der Puppetmaster Chat im IRC-Channel#stfeline statt. Die anwesenden Puppetmaster Brooke ThompsonBrooke Thompson – Giant MiceJackie KerrNicko Demetero und Brian ClarkBrian Clark – GMD Studios plauderten dabei auch ein wenig aus dem Nähkästchen und gingen auf die Fragen der Spieler ein.

Das erste Buch ist damit abgeschlossen.



ARG! The Attack of the Alternate Reality Games

Wie auf ARGNet zu lesen ist, hat Dan Hon von der ARG Panel Diskussion des diesjährigen SXSWDas South by Southwest Festivalwird bereits seit 1987 veranstaltet. Es beinhaltet Konferenzen und Veranstaltungen und ist vor allem im Bereich Musik und Medien zu einem festen Bestandteil im Jahresablauf geworden.

Das South by Southwest Festival wird dabei mit SXSW abgekürzt. Festivals mit dem Thema „ARG! The Attack of the Alternate Reality Games“ eine Abschrift in seinem Blog Extenuating Circumstances veröffentlicht. Alice Taylor, Vice President des Bereichs Digital Content von der BBC, moderierte die Diskussionsrunde, bei der unter anderem auch Hon (COO von Mind Candy), Brian Clark (Gründer/CEO der GMD Studios/Indiewire), Evan Jones (Creative Director/Producer at Stitch Media) und Brooke Thompson (Giant Mice and ARGNet) teilnahmen.

Bei der Diskussion wurde über eine ganze Menge besprochen. Von der immer noch voranschreitenden Verbreitung der Alternate Reality Games bis hin zur Vertiefung, wie Budgets geschaffen werden gibt es in der Abschrift viel Informatives nachzulesen. Herzlichen Dank an Dan, der die Abschrift in seinem Blog zur Verfügung gestellt hat.


15 Fragen an Brian Clark

Rumors say: This isn't Brian Clark

Den Auftakt unserer neuen Interview-Serie macht Brian Clark.

Er ist Gründer und CEO der GMD Studios im sonnigen Orlando, Florida und beschäftigt sich seit 1994 mit seltsamen Experimenten – wovon man sich auch auf der Seite der GMD Studios überzeugen kann.

In den späten 60er geboren, taucht er immer mal wieder als FLMutant in den Foren und anderswo auf, genauso wie heute…

… denn heute stellt er sich den 15 Fragen der ARGReporter:

1) About when and how did you get in touch with ARGs?

I’ve been practicing interactive narrative for quite awhile, so I aware of ARGs. I didn’t really become intensely interested in the community until they started showing up in a narrative about puzzle solvers we were doing for Sharp (“The Legend of the Sacred Urns”) and calling us “puppetmasters”. So in a way, since we had never had such obvert gameplay in our narratives, we’d never been branded as ARG developers before, but the similarities in perspective were incredible.

2) Did you take part in some ARGs as a player, too? Which?

You could say I was a casual lurker of Bees. Long before that, my staff and I got mildly addicted to an early interactive piece called “The Rift” that Vivid Studios produced for Silicon Graphics in the mid 1990s and ended up being the poster children for “those crazy Internet people” after we started building bots to watch for puzzle updates.

3) In which ARGs have you been Puppetmaster/BHTS and what was your job in those?

I was one of the concept developers and creative leads for “The Legend of the Sacred Urns” for Sharp, “The Art of the Heist” for Audi and “Who Is Benjamin Stove?” for General Motors. I was also part of a collaboration last year called “The Voice” that was decidedly ARG-like but turns that metaphor on its head.

4) Which ARG do you like best and why?

I’m not big on picking bests. I don’t think “the perfect ARG” has been made yet, my own work included. So, honestly, when I think about the canon of work in the space title by title, the first thing that comes to mind about each one is some fascinating aspect of the work – Bees for loose collaboration, Regenesis for cross-media integration, Perplex City for productizing, Heist for real-world immersion, etc.

5) Which was the funniest/nicest happening while doing/playing an ARG?

Lou will always be infamous for hiding in a porta-potty (will German’s even know what that is?) from Nisha during a Heist live event.

6) Are there any memories to happenings that you wanted to forget about?

Must … forget … evil … cube … from … Heist.

7) How do you explain ARGs to your family / friends / relatives and how do they react?

I tend to keep it pretty brief in order to avoid confusion, something like, “they are interactive stories that the audience participates in together that unfold in real time”. In general, most of my family and friends already think of me as a “mad scientist” so the reactions aren’t that different than normal.

8) Which 3 things does an ARG really need to have, to be a good ARG in your opinion?

It all really starts with a deep immersive narrative. Assuming you can muster that, then to be a really great ARG it needs to be a narrative that the audience influences and leaves their fingerprints all over … and needs to accomplish that by giving the audience something to do together. Flexible storytelling with meaningful activity.

9) Do you have a favourite character from an ARG?

My answer is pretty obscure! In “Who Is Benjamin Stove”, the main character (Tucker Darby) has to deal with, among other things, his technologically-impared but socially-precocious mother. “Tucker’s Mom” was a recurring character in the community boards penned by Brooke Thompson with deliciously ironic … and then later heartbreakingly sincere … complexity.

10) What are you currently working on? (if you may tell us/are allowed to tell us 😉

Mad scientists tend to be a little tight lipped! We have a couple of projects in the pipeline that roll out this winter that I can talk about abstractly. The first is really an experiment in changing the way sponsors work with large corporate games in the U.S. by creating a persistent ARG platform that has regularly occurring episodes: rather than the ARG ending after a few months, instead there is always another episode just around the corner. The second involves a new approach to structuring ARGs that we’ve been playing around with that adopts some of the principles of object oriented storytelling with all that entails: objects and locations driving the storytelling framework, one where you grow to understand the owner of the objects and the locations they personalize. The two are quite different in texture and goals, but share the desire to stretch the fabric of traditional ARGs.

11) Which puzzle from past ARGs do you like best/was real fun? Can you tell us why?

Surprisingly, I’m not a huge puzzle geek. What I tend to remember are the meta-narratives of the audience’s experience solving those puzzles.

12) Do you have something like a „phrase“/“objective“ which you follow while organizing and running an ARG?

We have a few mantras we’ve developed over the years. One of them is “how do we create more player agency?” Narratives on tight linear rails are rarely satisfying in immersive stories – the audience should rightly feel the narrative wouldn’t have unfolded at all without them. Another is “it’s working when the audience is entertaining themselves”.

13) Do you remember a situation, in which you wanted to give up anything? What happened?

That’s never more than a passing thought, really. Most of the time, when an ARG is live, the entire structure has a certainly among of looseness, constantly be re-written and explored and brainstormed, often in reaction to audience speculation. So in one way, you give up little things and change little details constantly … and remind yourself not to give up the big things.

14) Was there something like a favourite item from an ARG that you didn’t want to give away, but you had to, because the IG-Character had to?

Wer ist Benjamin Stove ?We bickered and squabbled as a team during Stove about the actual crop circle painting. It became a joke internally about rewriting the story so that it didn’t go out. But it had to for the story to be complete as a journey.

15) How do you see the future of ARGs?

I think it is potentially a label in flux. It describes one set of ascribed rules for immersive entertainment, but at the same time is one of the principal conceptual breeding grounds for some unique concepts inside that bigger playground. Part of that concept is “collective intelligence” which is a collaborative model. Another part is “flexible narrative” which is a storytelling model. Another part is “platformless gaming” which is a counter-culture appropriationist movement. There will be continue to be a huge variety of experiments in immersive entertainment, and some of those experiments might stretch the strict definitions of ARG to the bending or breaking point while still ringing true to the DNA which emerged in this space.

Vielen Dank, Brian, daß du dir die Zeit für unser Interview genommen hast und damit unseren Lesern einen kleinen Einblick hinter die Kulissen gewährst. (PM)

ARGFest Rückblick und Vorschau

Fotograf: KiwiDeaPi, Lizenz: CC 3.0

Das ARGFest NYC 2005 ist den ARGlern noch immer in guter Erinnerung, nicht zuletzt weil das dort unter anderem vorgestellte ARG Perplex City immer noch in vollem Gange ist.

Für alle, die nicht dabei sein konnten, gibt es nun eine Online-Veröffentlichung der ARGFest NYC 2005 DVD „How Do You Like Your Reality?“. Diese besteht aus zwei Torrent-Dateien (gehostet von GreyLodge), die von Dave Szulborski und Abacus Video Productions freundlicherweise zur Verfügung gestellt wurden.

Die beiden Video-Torrents enthalten die Präsentation, die während des drei Tage dauernden Events im Pennsylvanian Hotel gehalten wurde. Dabei wurden folgende Punkte vorgestellt:

  • Perplex City – von Mind Candy Ltd (unter anderem Michael Smith und Adrian Hon)
  • The Art of the Heist – das PM-Team (mit Mike Monello, Brian Cain, Brian Clark, Matt Fischvogt, Jim Gunshanan, Gabriel Georgeian, and Dave Szulborski)
  • MetaCortechs – das PM-Team (mit Steve Peters, Krystyn Wells, Brooke Thompson, and Sean Stacey)
  • There is No Such Thing as an ARG – Gast Referentin: Jane McGonigal

ARGFest Chicago 2006

Nun steht das ARGFest 2006 auf dem Programm. Der ebenfalls dreitägige Event findet an einem Juli-Wochenende statt, und zwar vom 21. bis 23. Juli in Chicago. Krystyn hat dazu ein Organisations-Wiki online gestellt, in dem jeder der will, dem Organisationsteam unter die Arme greifen kann, Übernachtungsmöglichkeiten suchen oder bieten kann, und vieles mehr.

Mini-EuroARGFest 2006

Wer nicht zum ARGFest Chicago 2006 kommen kann, der muss nicht ganz enttäuscht sein. Einige der europäischen ARGler planen ein Treffen in den Niederlanden. Ein genauer Termin dafür steht noch nicht fest und das Treffen wird auch kein mehrtägiger Event sein sondern eher ein gemütliches Zusammentreffen zum Informationsaustausch und natürlich auf einen Drink.