Write an action rather than an author’s judgment
game-world-design asks options to present real speech or action, with separate jobs for buttons, costs and responses. A choice is not a designer’s moral rating.
Original game: an archive restorer discovers testimony. The administrator requests confidentiality; the person involved wants it public. Labels such as trust the administrator or uphold justice prejudge the routes without stating an action.
Use submit the testimony for review or ask the witness to explain it on site. Both actions have a recipient and room for a response. If a button represents dialogue, the resulting line must retain its central intent rather than turning a request into a threat for drama.
Separate uncertainty from withheld known costs
| Visible before selection | Example | Still uncertain |
|---|---|---|
| Who receives the testimony | Submission gives the administrator access | Whether he later publishes it |
| Current time cost | Review lasts until afternoon | Who makes a new request meanwhile |
| Public meeting conditions | Witness agrees; another person objects | Responses and final positions |
Players can accept uncertainty while understanding their action. Disclose an established immediate cost, but do not put every undisclosed motive or ending in the label.
Express inference as inference rather than promising an unverified result. Objects, speech or a brief cue can supply evidence; every option does not need an equally long explanation.
Show a response and a later consequence
After submission, the administrator may accept the document, request a signature or refuse responsibility. Show that response, then allow legal follow-up actions. Submit does not mean review completed or universal belief.
Record concrete facts: who holds the testimony, who knows it and what was promised. A later meeting can read whether the original was inspected, publication authorized or a waiting promise made.
Routes can converge while speech and available action honor history. An unchosen disclosure must not become a fact. A few consequential choices are more useful than many unread route labels.
Read the actual selection path for fidelity
Read button, performed line, response and next scene as one path. They should express the same action. If ask instead forcibly takes the testimony, repair the mapping instead of inventing internal narration to justify it.
If every option only changes tone, name it an expressive choice or provide genuine state differences. Do not advertise plot branches for one changed sentence. If a cost cue reveals the full ending, return to currently knowable conditions.
Do not impose three or more options. Two meaningful actions can be enough, and a passage without a decision can continue narratively. Text review finds misleading mappings; actual player response determines appeal.
FAQ
Are hidden consequences inherently unfair?
Not necessarily. Players need a clear action and available evidence; motives and distant outcomes can remain unknown. Problems arise when known costs are withheld or a label executes its opposite.
Do it with the skill
Use game-world-design to review these choices. Align labels and actions, separate known costs from unknown outcomes, and identify immediate responses and later reads. Avoid moral labels that predecide the character’s choice.
Read the method: Interactive options and responses · Roles of labels and cues · Hidden causality and information beats