Separate Interpreting, Confirming, and Narrating an Action
Free-form input lets a player directly write, “Push the table under the window and stand on it to reach the vent.” AI can interpret that sentence as a candidate action and turn a confirmed result into natural scene feedback. Whether the action works still depends on the table being present, supporting the player's weight, and placing the vent within reach.
Resolve an action by answering three questions in order:
- What is the player trying to do? Preserve negation, sequence, and conditions, and read the intent as a whole.
- What do the current facts allow? Check only the location, objects, access, character response, or prior event that this action actually depends on.
- What really happens? Confirm whether any fact changes before writing dialogue, movement, and environmental response.
This gives important outcomes an independent decision point: the wording may vary while the causality already confirmed for the turn remains fixed.
Start with a Reusable Turn Card
This turn card is an editorial worksheet based on the skill’s method, not a record format already implemented in an engine.
When free-form input could change location, possessions, access, or a quest outcome, complete this compact card first. It checks the key causality in the current scene and records only the facts directly relevant to this turn's result.
| Card item | Fill in for this turn |
|---|---|
| Relevant current facts | Where is the player? What do they carry? What is the state of the door, character, or event directly involved? |
| Player action | What do they clearly want to do? Which actions are negated, sequenced, or conditional? |
| Condition | What must already be true before the action can succeed? |
| Actual world change | State the relevant change supported after the condition passes, or write “no change” when it fails |
| Result narration | Describe only the confirmed action, reason, and feedback; base every success, reward, or loss on the actual-change field |
Use this copyable blank:
Relevant current facts: ____. Player action: ____. Condition: ____. Actual change or no change: ____. Result narration: ____.
The card makes the final line depend on a result that has already been confirmed. If the result narration is the first place a key, permission, injury, or completed objective appears, return to the earlier lines and confirm that the fact has been established.
Resolve the Facts Before Writing the Prose
Check each turn with one simple causal line:
Current facts + player action + applicable condition → actual change or refusal + readable feedback + next opportunity
First record “I climb over the wall into the garden” as the action the player requested. If the wall is too high, the ladder is absent, or the garden is inaccessible, the player's location stays unchanged. Useful feedback says where the attempt stops and reveals a fact the player can act on next, such as a maintenance platform beside the wall that currently requires authorization.
When the condition passes, limit the committed outcome to the change established by this turn. Opening a storage cabinet changes the door state; obtaining its contents requires a taking action. Convincing a gatekeeper to allow entry changes access; trust and secrets each require their own established conditions. Later questions such as “Where am I now?” and “What am I carrying?” then stay consistent with the narration the player just read.
Original Design Sketch: The Pump-Station Service Record
This fictional paper scenario takes place in a decommissioned riverside pumping station, where the player is investigating the previous night's shutdown. The service record is inside a locked metal cabinet in the control room. Mina, the on-duty technician, is present, carries the key, and is authorized to open this cabinet when presented with a valid work order. The player’s bag contains a stamped order that expressly covers this cabinet and is still in date, but the player has not shown it to Mina for verification and does not yet have permission to open the cabinet.
Invalid action: “I open the cabinet and take out last night's service record.”
| Card item | This turn |
|---|---|
| Relevant current facts | The cabinet is locked; the player has no key; Mina is present, has the key, and is authorized to open it after verifying a valid work order; the player's bag holds a stamped order that is still in date and expressly covers this cabinet, but it has not yet been shown |
| Player action | Open the cabinet and take the record |
| Condition | The cabinet is already open, or Mina verifies a valid order for this cabinet, agrees to open it, and uses her key |
| Actual world change | The condition fails; the cabinet remains locked, the record remains inside, and the player's possessions do not change |
| Result narration | “The cabinet rattles but does not move. Mina raises a hand. ‘Don’t force it. I need to verify the work order for this cabinet before I can use my key to open it.’” |
The response reveals the obstacle and a next step while the cabinet, record, and Mina's permission remain in their current states.
Later valid action: “I show Mina the stamped work order and ask her to verify it before opening the cabinet.” The card establishes that the player has a valid order for this cabinet and that Mina is the authorized keyholder. After she checks the cabinet number and date, she agrees to open it. This turn changes only one relevant fact: “cabinet locked” becomes “cabinet open.” Result narration describes Mina checking the date, turning the key, and exposing the folders inside. Reading a record and solving the shutdown remain for a later turn, when the player can choose which document to inspect.
The two turns use the same setting: the first preserves the relevant facts, the second commits only the cabinet-opening result, and the player continues the investigation afterward.
Do Not Guess Through Negation, Conditions, or Ambiguity
Free-form input is most likely to be reversed in four kinds of expression. Preserve the complete meaning. Send unresolved conditions, negation, references, and conflicting requirements to clarification or refusal, and leave every affected outcome unchanged.
| Input | Handling |
|---|---|
| Negation | Player's wording: “Don't force the cabinet; I only inspect the keyhole.”; Handling: Preserve “do not force” and perform only the inspection; the result contains the keyhole observation while cabinet and alarm states remain unchanged |
| Condition | Player's wording: “If Mina confirms the stamp is valid, ask her to open it; otherwise put the order back in my bag.”; Handling: Establish Mina's decision first, then follow the matching branch; the cabinet state remains unchanged until the condition is resolved |
| Ambiguous reference | Player's wording: “Give it to her, then open it.”; Handling: Ask, “Do you want to give the work order to Mina and ask her to open the cabinet?” Item and cabinet states remain unchanged until the objects are identified |
| Conflicting requests | Player's wording: “Don't alert Mina, but have her open the cabinet for me now.”; Handling: Explain that both requests cannot currently be satisfied together and ask which goal takes priority or whether the player wants another approach |
Keep the clarification question short and restate the intent that remains valid. In a compound request, if unresolved action meaning, negation, a condition, sequence or dependency, or a reference can affect the outcome, clarify or refuse before committing any state change tied to the request. Keep all request-related state unchanged until the entire request is resolved.
Track Only Facts That Affect the Current Decision
Focus persistent records on facts that change whether an action is available or what result it can produce: current location, important possessions, open or closed passages, promises already fulfilled, whether an objective has ended, and a character's permission or refusal when it genuinely affects the current action. Cups, casual remarks, and character thoughts can enter the narration as the scene requires.
To decide whether a fact should persist, ask whether it will change the available action, success condition, or feedback the next time the player acts. Promote facts with a later effect to persistent state and keep the rest as scene detail. Record ordinary facts directly as world state. Distinguish who knows or believes something when a secret, testimony, deception, or mistaken identity changes an action.
This page addresses alignment between free-form input and actual outcomes. Choose the investigation, management, or interactive-narrative form through gameplay selection first. For the complete adaptation sequence, see the novel-to-game quick start. For information before a branch and persistent consequences after different choices, see meaningful choices. Prompts and play instructions for a particular model belong to the later implementation stage.
Check One Representative Path on Paper
Choose one ordinary path in which the player meets resistance and then finds a valid approach. Complete the turn card for each turn, and check only five things afterward:
- Did the narration add a success, object, location, or permission that was absent from the card?
- When the action failed, did the relevant facts actually remain unchanged?
- When the action succeeded, did it change only facts whose conditions were met?
- Can the player understand the reason from the feedback and see one viable next step?
- Do the facts read by the next turn agree with the result confirmed in the previous one?
The representative path in the pump-station example is: “Trying to take the record directly fails → the player learns that a valid work order is required → the player presents the work order already in their bag → Mina opens the cabinet → the player chooses which record to inspect.” If the cabinet is somehow open after the failed turn, or the player suddenly knows the cause of the shutdown immediately after it opens, the causal chain is broken.
Use the paper check to find causal contradictions in the design. After a real version exists, test real input for ambiguous phrasing, readable feedback, consistency across multiple turns, and player understanding, then revise the design from those observations.
FAQ
Should the AI decide whether an action succeeds in a text adventure?
Current facts and applicable conditions determine whether an action succeeds. AI can interpret free-form input, propose a reading of the action, and express a confirmed result naturally, while rules commit changes to location, possessions, access, and objectives. This keeps every key, permission, and victory traceable to facts established for the turn.
Which facts should persist in the game world?
Persist facts that change later actions, success conditions, or feedback. Ordinary description such as the color of a desk can remain in the prose. Current location, important objects, passage state, and fulfilled promises are more likely to matter. Track who knows or believes something when secrets, testimony, or deception affect play.
Should every action in a multi-part player message happen at once?
Preserve the sequence and conditions, then confirm current facts and player intent for each part. If an earlier step fails and removes the prerequisite for a later one, stop at that failure. If an ambiguous part would change location, possessions, or access, ask one concrete clarification question first. Every intermediate result needs an established condition.
Do it with the skill
Once SOURCE_BIBLE.md, the selected CONCEPT.md, and PRODUCT_BRIEF.md are ready, run /game-world-design ($game-world-design in Codex) to produce design/GAME_DESIGN.md. This full design artifact covers the experience and loop, world rules and progression, decisions and level beats, feedback and failure, any applicable narrative attachment, handoff boundaries, the executable slice, and the validation slice. The turn card in this article is one creator-facing check inside that workflow: align the relevant facts, action, conditions, actual change, and narration for one free-form-input scene, then use a representative path to check consistency between adjacent turns.
Read the method: Method used in this article