Minds and Machines

, Volume 20, Issue 4, pp 589–614 | Cite as

Story Planning: Creativity Through Exploration, Retrieval, and Analogical Transformation



Storytelling is a pervasive part of our daily lives and culture. The task of creating stories for the purposes of entertaining, educating, and training has traditionally been the purview of humans. This sets up the conditions for a creative authoring bottleneck where the consumption of stories outpaces the production of stories by human professional creators. The automation of story creation may scale up the ability to produce and deliver novel, meaningful story artifacts. From this practical perspective, story generation systems replicate the creative abilities of humans and can thus be considered instances of computational creativity. Computational systems that are purported to be creative typically utilize one of three general approaches: exploration of a space of concepts, combination of concepts, and transformation of concepts. In this article we present an approach to story generation that utilize exploration, combination, and transformation. Our approach, implemented in the Vignette Based Partial Order Causal Link story planner, is an algorithm that searches through a space of possible story solutions, guided by combinations of existing story fragments called vignettes. The vignettes are made relevant to novel story generation contexts through an automated transformation pre-process. Through these processes, we show that story generation can incorporate multiple perspectives on computational creativity. Our approach is presented at both the theoretical and technical levels.


Story generation Computational creativity Case retrieval Analogical reasoning 


  1. Aamodt, A., & Plaza, E. (1994). Case-based reasoning: Foundational issues, methodological variations, and system approaches. Artificial Intelligence Communications, 7(1), 39–59.Google Scholar
  2. Aristotle (1992). The Poetics (T. Buckley, Trans.). Buffalo, NY: Prometheus Books. (Original published 350 B.C.E.).Google Scholar
  3. Bal, M. (1998). Narratology: An introduction to the theory of narrative. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
  4. Baumeister, R. F., & Newman, L. S. (1994). How stories make sense of personal experiences: Motives that shape autobiographical narratives. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 20(6), 676–690.Google Scholar
  5. Blair, D., & Meyer, T. (1997). Tools for an interactive virtual cinema. In R. Trappl & P. Petta (Eds.), Creating personalities for synthetic actors: Towards autonomous personality agents. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  6. Boden, M. (2004). The creative mind: Myths and mechanisms (2nd ed.). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  7. Boden, M. (2009). Computer models of creativity. AI Magazine, 30(3), 23–34.Google Scholar
  8. Britanik, J., & Marefat, M. (2004). CBPOP: A domain-independent multi-case reuse planners. Computational Intelligence, 20.Google Scholar
  9. Bruner, J. (1990). Acts of meaning. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Dehn, N. (1981). Story generation after TALE-SPIN. In Proceedings of the 7th international joint conference on artificial intelligence.Google Scholar
  11. Elson, D., & McKeown, K. (2007). A platform for symbolically encoding human narratives. In Proceedings of the AAAI fall symposium on intelligent narrative technologies.Google Scholar
  12. Etzioni, O., Banko, M., & Cafarella, M. (2007). Machine reading. In Proceedings of the AAAI spring symposium on machine reading.Google Scholar
  13. Falkenhainer, B., Forbus, K., & Gentner, D. (1989). The structure-mapping engine: Algorithms and examples. Artificial Intelligence, 41, 1–63.MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 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.Google Scholar
  15. Francis, A., & Ram, A. (1995). A domain-independent algorithm for multi-plan adaptation and merging in least-commitment planners. In AAAI fall symposium on adaptation of knowledge for reuse.Google Scholar
  16. Gerrig, R. (1994). Narrative thought?. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 20(6), 712–715.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gerrig, R. J. (1993). Experiencing narrative worlds: On the psychological activities of reading. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Gervás, P., Díaz-Agudo, B., Peinado, F., & Hervás, R. (2005). Story plot generation based on CBR. Journal of Knowledge-Based Systems, 18, 4–5.Google Scholar
  19. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Green, M. C., & Brock, T. C. (2000). The role of transportation in the persuasiveness of public narratives. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79(5), 701–721.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Johnson-Laird, P. (2002). How jazz musicians improvise. Music Perception, 19(3).Google Scholar
  22. Kolodner, J. (1993a). Case-based reasoning. San Francisco: Morgan Kaufmann Publishers.Google Scholar
  23. Kolodner, J. (1993b). Understanding creativity: A case-based approach. In Proceedings of the 1st European workshop on case-based reasoning.Google Scholar
  24. Larkey, L. B., & Love, B. C. (2003). CAB: Connectionist analogy builder. Cognitive Science, 27, 781–794.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Lebowitz, M. (1987). Planning stories. In Proceedings of the 9th annual conference of the cognitive science society.Google Scholar
  26. Mateas, M., & Sengers, P. (1999). Narrative intelligence. In M. Mateas & P. Sengers (Eds.), Narrative Intelligence: Papers from the 1999 fall symposium, Technical report FS-99-01. Menlo Park, CA: AAAI Press.Google Scholar
  27. Meehan, J. R. (1976). The Metanovel: Writing stories by computers. Ph.D. thesis, Yale University.Google Scholar
  28. O’Neill, B., & Riedl, M. O. (2009). Supporting human creative story authoring with a synthetic audience. In Proceedings of the 7th creativity and cognition conference.Google Scholar
  29. 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.Google Scholar
  30. Pérez y Pérez, R., & Sharples, M. (2001). MEXICA: A computer model of a cognitive account of creative writing. Journal of Experimental and Theoretical Artificial Intelligence, 13.Google Scholar
  31. Porteous, J., & Cavazza, M. (2009). Controlling narrative generation with planning trajectories: The role of constraints. In Proceedings of the 2nd international conference on interactive digital storytelling.Google Scholar
  32. Rattermann, M., Spector, L., Grafman, J., Levin, H., & Harward, H. (2001). Partial and total-order planning: Evidence from normal and prefrontally damaged populations. Cognitive Science, 25, 941–975.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Riedl, M. O. (2009). Incorporating authorial intent into generative narrative systems. In S. Louchart, D. Roberts, & M. Mehta (Eds.), Intelligent Narrative Technologies II: Papers from the 2009 Spring Symposium, Technical report SS-09-06. Palo Alto, CA: AAAI Press.Google Scholar
  34. Riedl, M. O., & León, C. (2008). Toward vignette-based story generation for drama management systems. In Proceedings of the 2nd international conference on intelligent technologies for interactive entertainment (INTETAIN), workshop on integrating technologies for interactive stories.Google Scholar
  35. Riedl, M. O., & León, C. (2009). Generating story analogues. In Proceedings of the 5th artificial intelligence and interactive digital entertainment (AIIDE).Google Scholar
  36. Riedl, M. O., & Young, R. M. (2004). An intent-driven planner for multi-agent story generation. In Proceedings of the 3rd international conference on autonomous agents and multi-agent systems.Google Scholar
  37. 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.MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Riedl, M. O., & Young, R. M. (2010). Narrative planning: Balancing plot and character. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, (in press).Google Scholar
  39. Spalzzi, L. (2001). A survey on case-based planning. Artificial Intelligence Review, 16(1), 3–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Sternberg, R. J., Forsythe, G. B., Hedlund, J., Horvath, J. A., Wagner, R. K., Williams, W. M., et al. (2000). Practical Intelligence in Everyday Life. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  41. Swanson, R., & Gordon, A. (2008). Say anything: A massively collaborative open domain story writing companion. In First international conference on interactive digital storytelling.Google Scholar
  42. Thue, D., Bulitko, V., Spetch, M., & Wasylishen, E. (2007). Interactive storytelling: A player modelling approach. In Proceedings of the 3rd conference on artificial intelligence and interactive digital entertainment.Google Scholar
  43. Trabasso, T., Secco, T., & van den Broek, P. (1984). Causal cohesion and story coherence. In H. Mandl, N. Stein, & T. Trabasso (Eds.), Learning and comprehension in text. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  44. Trabasso, T., & van den Broek, P. (1985). Causal thinking and the representation of narrative events. Journal of Memory and Language, 24, 612–630.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Turner, S. R. (1994). The creative process: A computer model of storytelling. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  46. Weld, D. (1994). An introduction to least commitment planning. AI Magazine, 15.Google Scholar
  47. Wiggins, G. (2003). Categorising creative systems. In Proceedings of the IJCAI 2003 workshop on creative systems.Google Scholar
  48. Wiggins, G. (2006). Searching for computational creativity. New Generation Computing, 24, 3.Google Scholar
  49. Yannakakis, G., Maragoudakis, M., & Hallam, J. (2009). Preference learning for cognitive modeling: A case study on entertainment preferences. IEEE Systems, Man and Cybernetics; Part A: Systems and Humans, 39(6), 1165–1175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Young, K., & Saver, J. L. (2001). The neurology of narrative. SubStance: A Review of Theory and Literary Criticism, 30, 72–84.Google Scholar
  51. Young, R. M. (1999). Notes on the use of plan structures in the creation of interactive plot. In M. Mateas, & P. Sengers (Eds.), Narrative Intelligence: Papers from the AAAI fall symposium, Technical report FS-99-01. Menlo Park: AAAI Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Interactive Computing, College of ComputingGeorgia Institute of TechnologyAtlantaUSA

Personalised recommendations