design-information-state

Design Information State

Model narrative information as state, not as exposition.

Use this loop:

Truth → Access → Interpretation → Belief → Disclosure → Update → Consequence

The central question is not only what is true? It is who has what relationship to that truth, and when can that relationship change?

Inputs

Use available:

• objective story facts
• characters / factions / player
• timeline or quest order
• evidence and clues
• lies, propaganda, rumors, secrets
• possible player paths
• reveal requirements
• desired dramatic irony or mystery

Define Facts Atomically

Break large revelations into facts that can be separately learned.

Weak:

• Mira betrayed the rebellion.

Better:

• Mira met the governor before the raid.
• Mira knew the west gate would be unguarded.
• Mira received payment afterward.
• Mira claims the meeting was coercion.

Atomic facts allow partial knowledge, mistaken interpretation, and staged reveals.

Information States

For each actor and fact, use one of these states where useful:

• Unknown — no meaningful exposure.
• Aware — has encountered the fact/evidence but may not understand it.
• Suspects — treats it as plausible but unconfirmed.
• Believes true — accepts it as true.
• Believes false — rejects it.
• Misunderstands — has a specific wrong interpretation.
• Knows — has strong justified knowledge.
• Conceals — knows/believes but intentionally withholds.
• Pretends — performs a public belief different from private state.

Do not use more precision than the story needs.

Evidence and Inference

Track how knowledge is acquired:

• witnessed directly
• told by trusted source
• told by untrusted source
• document / artifact
• mechanical observation
• deduction from multiple clues
• rumor
• coercion / confession
• supernatural or technological access

A fact should not become known merely because a scene containing the fact exists.

Public vs Private State

Separate:

• what an actor privately believes
• what they claim publicly
• what other actors think they believe

This is essential for deception and political narratives.

Reveal Design

For each important reveal define:

1. prerequisite knowledge
2. triggering evidence/event
3. who receives it
4. whether it confirms, overturns, or reframes prior belief
5. immediate reaction opportunity
6. downstream content that should change

Player Information

Treat player knowledge separately from protagonist/avatar knowledge when relevant.

Useful modes:

• player and avatar know the same thing
• player knows more than avatar (dramatic irony)
• avatar knows more than player (controlled mystery)
• player may discover optional facts

Document intentional gaps so they are not mistaken for continuity errors.

Interactive Procedure

1. List the important objective facts.
2. Split compound facts where partial knowledge matters.
3. List relevant actors.
4. Assign initial information states.
5. Identify every legitimate acquisition path.
6. Map lies, misunderstandings, and concealment.
7. Define reveal/update events.
8. Specify what content should react after each update.
9. Check alternate paths and optional discovery.
10. Export an information-state matrix and reveal ledger.

Output

Fact ledger

Fact ID	Objective fact	Evidence	Earliest possible acquisition	Critical?

Information matrix

Actor	Fact	Private state	Public claim	Source	Confidence

Reveal ledger

Reveal	Prerequisites	Trigger	Recipients	State update	Required follow-through

Dramatic asymmetries

Important cases where actors/player know different things.

Implementation obligations

Variables, flags, quest states, dialogue variants, or callbacks required.

Failure Modes

Avoid:

• treating scene presence as universal knowledge
• characters learning facts off-screen without an authored path
• one giant knows_secret flag for a multi-stage mystery
• confusing suspicion with certainty
• player choices revealing information that the player could not possess
• characters forgetting discoveries because branches reconverged
• public statements being treated as private belief
• optional evidence becoming mandatory knowledge on all paths

Final Quality Check

Verify that every important belief change has a plausible information path and every major reveal creates the intended downstream narrative state.