Separate three kinds of knowledge for crucial secrets
NovelToGame separates world facts, what characters know or believe, and what players have currently seen. Its world method reserves this tracking for high-risk secrets, testimony, and mistaken beliefs rather than every ordinary object.
Original scene: in their inn room, the player reads a captain’s note inviting them aboard before sunset. The gatekeeper knows the boat is at the dock, but has not seen the note or received the captain’s message.
| Party | Current evidence |
|---|---|
| World | The captain left this invitation in the player’s room. |
| Player | Has read it and can choose whether to tell the gatekeeper. |
| Gatekeeper | Knows the boat’s location, not the invitation; cannot say “Since the captain invited you…” yet. |
The defect is not awkward tone. The line uses information the character has not acquired. Repair its knowledge condition before polishing wording.
Separate being told, seeing evidence, and believing
| Action | Knowledge acquired |
|---|---|
| “Does the back gate lead to the dock?” | The player wants to reach the dock, not automatically why. |
| “The captain invited me aboard.” | Has heard a claim; belief still depends on character and context. |
| Actually shows the note | Has seen the invitation text and may check, doubt, or change strategy. |
Showing must actually occur. Opening the note in inventory does not mean the gatekeeper saw it. A button without completed disclosure does not establish knowledge. If the note is obscured or withdrawn, record only what was readable.
Seeing an invitation does not automatically create willingness to open the gate. Rules, goals, and response determine help; knowledge and permission are distinct conditions. Inference is valid too, but retain an appropriate uncertain voice instead of turning it into a world fact.
Merge the setting without sharing every line
Both routes may return to the inn entrance and share the background and greeting. Invitation-related lines should differ by history.
Not shown: “You’re in a hurry to reach the dock. Who are you looking for?”
Note read: “It says before sunset. You still have time to ask the captain.” This requires that sunset has not occurred and the gatekeeper read that sentence. It does not promise boarding on the captain’s behalf.
Read “gatekeeper saw the note,” not merely “player acquired note.” With generated dialogue, supply information available to this character and check candidates for leakage to unwitnessed parties. Complete design facts are not automatically a character’s memory.
A player’s previous playthrough knowledge does not give this run’s characters those experiences. If the fiction explicitly carries memories over, define the scope; otherwise track this route.
Check the repair with a nondisclosure path
First follow actual disclosure and check when the gatekeeper reads the words and whether later lines match. Then restart and only ask directions. The invitation should not leak into dialogue, options, or the quest log.
Keep the initial state, action order, first leak location, and actual response needed for diagnosis. A merge-condition defect needs a local read repair; changed acquisition rules need affected saves and neighboring routes checked. One leaking line does not require rewriting every character.
This example is a paper design, not an implemented or tested result. Automation may detect state contamination; intelligence and credible suspicion still require scene judgment and playtesting.
FAQ
May a character infer an undisclosed secret?
Yes, from evidence actually available to them, with uncertainty retained. Private player reading and author notes are not their observations. A correct guess does not grant every detail.
Do it with the skill
Use game-world-design to check premature knowledge. List crucial facts, player observations, and each character’s actual acquisition action. Locate the first unsupported line or option. Separate claim, evidence, and belief; preserve nondisclosure and have game-qa check neighboring paths.
Read the method: Knowledge layers and branch reads · Crucial facts and observers · Unwitnessed-knowledge counterexamples