docs(copy): Sprint 12 Wave 1 — Paula's ten design documents
Character schema and builds: - #179: Character definition schema (6-section formal spec) - #180: Smuggler character build (full schema instantiation) - #181: Detective character build (full schema instantiation) - #182: Divergent starting knowledge (master comparison table) - #183: Divergent relationships (NPC web per character) Institutional design: - #322: Detective chain of command (Veth, Pres, Tsev backstory) NPC pattern documents: - #332: Contradiction arc — reusable FRIEND pattern (5 phases, checklist) - #329: Mirror moment design — 10 paired dual-lens observations Experience design: - #259: First 5 minutes (narrative texture additions to Gestalt's systems doc) - #307: Flat NPC trait pass (Pael, Ren, Tev — traits, routines, dual-lens) Co-Authored-By: Claude Sonnet 4.6 <noreply@anthropic.com>
This commit is contained in:
Claude Sonnet 4.6
@@ -0,0 +1,251 @@
|
||||
# THE FRIEND: Contradiction Arc Pattern
|
||||
|
||||
**Ticket:** #332 | **Priority:** Medium | **Sprint:** 12
|
||||
**Status:** v0.1 Draft
|
||||
**Owner:** Paula
|
||||
**Blocked by:** #297 (Kael Davan profile — done), #298 (Sera Venn profile — done)
|
||||
**Decisions referenced:** D-034 (THE FRIEND pattern), D-035 (tag taxonomy), D-039 (wow moment #3), D-041 (knowledge graph), D-062 (invisible locked options), D-063 (confrontation mechanics)
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## 1. What This Document Is
|
||||
|
||||
A reusable design pattern document extracted from the two concrete THE FRIEND implementations: Kael Davan (smuggler's FRIEND) and Sera Venn (detective's FRIEND). Both are complete. Both worked. This document captures the structural logic they share so that future FRIEND NPCs can be authored consistently and quickly.
|
||||
|
||||
The pattern is called the **Contradiction Arc**. It is not a mystery. It is not a betrayal in the conventional sense. It is the discovery that someone the player trusts is carrying something they haven't shared — and that what they're carrying changes everything the player thought they understood about the relationship.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## 2. The Pattern: Definition
|
||||
|
||||
A Contradiction Arc is a 5-phase character trajectory built around a single observable contradiction that the player discovers through spatial observation, not through dialogue. The contradiction is:
|
||||
|
||||
- **Observable**: The player sees it happen. No NPC tells them. No dialogue flag. No notification.
|
||||
- **Spatially staged**: The contradiction is a behavioral deviation from expected routine (wrong location, wrong time, wrong person, wrong pattern).
|
||||
- **Morally complex**: THE FRIEND's concealment comes from care or fear, not malice. There is no clean resolution.
|
||||
- **Dual-lens resonant**: The same contradiction means something different to each playable character. The second playthrough recontextualizes the first.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## 3. The 5 Phases
|
||||
|
||||
### Phase 1: Baseline Warmth (0-10 minutes)
|
||||
|
||||
**Purpose:** Establish the relationship BEFORE the contradiction. Create genuine attachment so the discovery has emotional weight.
|
||||
|
||||
**Mechanics:**
|
||||
- THE FRIEND is warm, reliable, helpful. Their dialogue is at surface/real trust for their relationship tier.
|
||||
- Monologue during this phase is fond, casual, present-tense. No hints of incoming trouble.
|
||||
- THE FRIEND's routine is consistent with their stated role. No behavioral deviations.
|
||||
- Their personal tell (the observable habit that will become load-bearing later) is established here — but reads as innocuous.
|
||||
|
||||
**Content authoring rule:** Write Phase 1 as if it is the whole story. The warmth must be real, not performed. If the player never discovers the contradiction, Phase 1 should feel like a complete, satisfying relationship.
|
||||
|
||||
**Tag notes:**
|
||||
- Dialogue: `trust: surface` (greeting, small talk) + `trust: real` (personal warmth, shared history)
|
||||
- Monologue: positive mood tags (content, fond, warm)
|
||||
|
||||
**Kael example:** "Kael's already at the dock. Good. The day's better when he's on shift."
|
||||
**Sera example:** "Good to see Sera. She always was the reliable one. At least someone in this district speaks my language."
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
### Phase 2: First Behavioral Shift (10-15 minutes)
|
||||
|
||||
**Purpose:** Introduce behavioral tells that the observant player might notice — but that have plausible innocent explanations.
|
||||
|
||||
**Mechanics:**
|
||||
- THE FRIEND's behavior changes in small ways. Shortened interactions. Increased action frequency (lattice checking, looking around). Redirected attention.
|
||||
- These are observable but not alarming. A non-observant player may not register them at all.
|
||||
- The monologue shifts to mild concern or puzzlement. "Not like them to be..." registers something without naming it.
|
||||
- THE FRIEND's dialogue remains warm at the surface level. The behavioral tells exist beneath the dialogue.
|
||||
|
||||
**Content authoring rule:** Every tell in Phase 2 must have a non-suspicious explanation AND a suspicious one. The player who discovers the contradiction on a second playthrough should recognize these tells as load-bearing. The player experiencing them for the first time should accept the innocent explanation.
|
||||
|
||||
**Tag notes:**
|
||||
- Dialogue: same trust tiers as Phase 1 — surface content unchanged
|
||||
- Monologue: mild concern tone; `trigger: observe_anomaly` for behavioral tell moments
|
||||
- Tell system: all Phase 2 tells fire with `visible_to: peripheral` or `visible_to: any`
|
||||
|
||||
**Kael example:** "Kael's distracted today. Checks his lattice more than usual. Probably nothing."
|
||||
**Sera example:** "Sera left early. 'Headache,' she said. First time she's done that."
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
### Phase 3: The Contradiction (15-20 minutes)
|
||||
|
||||
**Purpose:** The observable contradiction. THE FRIEND is in the wrong place, doing the wrong thing, with the wrong person — and the player sees it.
|
||||
|
||||
**Mechanics:**
|
||||
- Spatial staging: THE FRIEND deviates from their established routine in a way that is spatially visible to the player. This is NOT communicated through dialogue or UI. The player moves through the world and encounters the deviation.
|
||||
- The contradiction must be observable without being forced. The player discovers it; the game does not direct them to it. However, the contradiction is staged in a location the player will naturally visit in the course of normal gameplay.
|
||||
- The monologue fires on `trigger: observe_anomaly` or `trigger: witness_interaction`. It names what the player has seen without drawing a conclusion. The character asks the question; the player supplies the answer.
|
||||
- **Entity color shifts** at this moment: `Friendly` (green) → `PersonOfInterest` (amber). The visual system registers what the player has just observed.
|
||||
- **Dialogue tiers lock**: The discovery creates a relationship fracture. Insider/peer warmth content becomes unavailable. Only public/surface dialogue remains for this NPC going forward. The absence is the signal.
|
||||
|
||||
**Content authoring rule:** The contradiction must be:
|
||||
1. Spatially clear (the player can see what is happening)
|
||||
2. Contextually ambiguous (they understand WHAT but not WHY)
|
||||
3. Emotionally weighted (the relationship context makes the "what" feel like a wound)
|
||||
|
||||
**Tag notes:**
|
||||
- Monologue at discovery: `trigger: witness_interaction` or `trigger: observe_anomaly`, `mood: [shocked, analytical]`
|
||||
- Monologue should name the observation, not the interpretation
|
||||
- KG update: `contradiction_flagged: true`, relationship shifts to PersonOfInterest
|
||||
|
||||
**Kael example:** "That's Kael. But who's he talking to? I don't know that face. And that's not anyone from our rotation."
|
||||
**Sera example:** "That's the third time. Sera leaves when Torek walks in. Three different excuses. Same result."
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
### Phase 4: Confrontation Opportunity (20-25 minutes)
|
||||
|
||||
**Purpose:** Give the player the option to press THE FRIEND. The confrontation dialogue reveals concealment without full confession.
|
||||
|
||||
**Mechanics:**
|
||||
- A new dialogue option appears (D-062 — invisible until unlocked; players won't see it until the contradiction triggers it). The option is written in the character's internal voice (D-063).
|
||||
- THE FRIEND deflects. They give an answer that is technically not a lie, but is not the truth. Their personal tell fires during the deflection — the tell established in Phase 1 becomes the proof that they're hiding something.
|
||||
- The player can choose to accept the deflection, push harder, or walk away. All three paths have consequences.
|
||||
- This is the emotional peak. Whatever the player does here determines the shape of the rest of the session.
|
||||
|
||||
**Content authoring rule:** THE FRIEND's deflection must be sympathetic. They are not lying to harm the player. They are concealing because the truth would hurt someone they love, or would place them in impossible danger. The player who understands the full arc (second playthrough) recognizes the deflection as fear, not treachery.
|
||||
|
||||
**Tag notes:**
|
||||
- New dialogue option: confrontation style, `situation: [confrontation]`, `access: [peer, insider]` — only the character who has the relationship can ask this question
|
||||
- THE FRIEND's response: `trust: real` (this is as honest as THE FRIEND can be without full confession), `situation: [confrontation]`, mood that indicates concealment
|
||||
- Personal tell confirmation: observation monologue fired by THE FRIEND's specific tell behavior
|
||||
|
||||
**Kael example:** "Just a thing. Don't worry about it." [looks left before answering] / Smuggler monologue: "He looked left. He always looks left when he's making something up. Two years I've known that tell. Kael is lying to me."
|
||||
**Sera example:** "He's just loud. I don't like loud drunks." / Detective monologue: "She's not lying. But she's not telling me everything. Sera, what do you know?"
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
### Phase 5: Contaminated Trust (25-30 minutes)
|
||||
|
||||
**Purpose:** THE FRIEND returns to surface-normal behavior. But the player is now watching differently. Every warm interaction is filtered through doubt.
|
||||
|
||||
**Mechanics:**
|
||||
- THE FRIEND's surface behavior normalizes. They resume their routine, greet the player warmly, act as if Phase 3 and 4 didn't happen (or at least, as if they're trying to move past it).
|
||||
- But dialogue has shifted: insider/peer warmth is gone, replaced by public/surface content only. The player hears the same NPC; the texture is different. The warmth is slightly performed.
|
||||
- Monologue shifts into the contaminated register: every warm interaction generates a note of doubt. The player's observational frame has changed.
|
||||
- Three player paths diverge from here:
|
||||
- **Understanding** — gentle follow-up, possible confession, partial truth
|
||||
- **Betrayal** — report/expose THE FRIEND; relationship damage is permanent
|
||||
- **Observation** — watch and wait; the doubt lives but no confrontation happens
|
||||
|
||||
**Content authoring rule:** Phase 5 content must work for all three player paths. The NPC's surface behavior is path-neutral — they don't know what the player has decided. The player's monologue shifts based on what decision they've made (or chosen not to make yet).
|
||||
|
||||
**Tag notes:**
|
||||
- Dialogue: `trust: surface` only; warm tone but no real-tier content; `mood: [composed]` for THE FRIEND
|
||||
- Monologue: `mood: [conflicted]` or `mood: [analytical]`; prerequisite gates on relationship state PersonOfInterest
|
||||
- If player chose Understanding path: additional monologue lines for partial-confession scenario
|
||||
|
||||
**Kael example:** "Same old Kael. Same jokes, same routine. ...What are you not telling me?"
|
||||
**Sera example:** "Still the same Sera. Still reliable. ...But reliable about what?"
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## 4. Required Content Per FRIEND NPC
|
||||
|
||||
| Content Type | Count | Notes |
|
||||
|-------------|-------|-------|
|
||||
| Phase 1 dialogue lines (warmth, establishment) | 8-12 | Across greeting, social, situation contexts |
|
||||
| Phase 1-2 monologue (fond, mild concern) | 5-8 | `trigger: observe_npc`, `trigger: post_conversation` |
|
||||
| Phase 2 behavioral tells (description + monologue) | 3+ | Each tell: visible_to, behavior, monologue line |
|
||||
| Phase 3 contradiction discovery monologue | 3-5 | `trigger: witness_interaction`, observation language only |
|
||||
| Phase 4 confrontation dialogue option (player choice) | 1 | In character's internal voice per D-063 |
|
||||
| Phase 4 THE FRIEND deflection dialogue | 3-5 | With personal tell behavior flagged |
|
||||
| Phase 4 tell confirmation monologue | 1-2 | "I know this tell. They're lying." |
|
||||
| Phase 5 contaminated-trust monologue | 4-6 | Varies by player path taken |
|
||||
| **Total authored** | **~70-100 items** | No generation expansion — all hand-authored |
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## 5. The Tell System
|
||||
|
||||
Every FRIEND NPC has a **personal tell** — a specific behavioral marker established in Phase 1 (innocent, recognizable) and confirmed in Phase 4 (proof of concealment). The tell must:
|
||||
|
||||
1. Be **physical and observable** (not internal state — visible behavior the player can see)
|
||||
2. Be **introduced before it becomes load-bearing** — Phase 1 or early Phase 2
|
||||
3. Be **unique to this NPC** — not a generic "nervousness" tell, but a specific habit
|
||||
4. Be **explainable differently before and after** — innocent early, incriminating late
|
||||
|
||||
**Kael's tell:** Looks left before answering. Established as a habit the smuggler has observed for two years. Becomes proof of lying at Phase 4 because the smuggler knows the tell AND its meaning.
|
||||
|
||||
**Sera's tell:** Gathers her things quickly when leaving. Not a lie tell — Sera isn't lying when she leaves. But the timing (always when Torek arrives) and the variety of excuses (genuine, not scripted) creates the pattern the detective reads as behavioral.
|
||||
|
||||
**Tell design rule:** The tell should produce a different emotional register for each playable character observing it:
|
||||
- The character with the relationship reads the tell as **personal** ("I know that tell — I've seen it before")
|
||||
- The character without the relationship reads the tell as **behavioral pattern** ("That's twice now — flag it")
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## 6. Dual-Lens Design Requirements
|
||||
|
||||
Every FRIEND NPC must produce different monologue experiences for both characters observing the same behavior. The contradiction arc has two distinct "readings":
|
||||
|
||||
| Phase | Bonded Character Reading | Other Character Reading |
|
||||
|-------|--------------------------|------------------------|
|
||||
| Phase 1 | Warmth, familiarity, fond reliance | Clinical observation, behavioral baseline, possible suspicion |
|
||||
| Phase 2 | Personal concern ("something's wrong with them") | Analytical flag ("deviation from baseline, note it") |
|
||||
| Phase 3 | Betrayal, confusion, hurt | Evidence accumulation, pattern confirmation, institutional assessment |
|
||||
| Phase 4 | Personal confrontation (uses the personal tell as confirmation) | Investigative confrontation (uses behavioral pattern as evidence) |
|
||||
| Phase 5 | Contaminated intimacy (every warm moment now suspect) | Professional caution (reliable informant now uncertain quantity) |
|
||||
|
||||
**The second-playthrough resonance:** The player who has experienced both sides of Triangle 4 understands:
|
||||
- Kael is trying to get OUT of the ring to protect Naia. His exit attempt is an act of love, not treachery.
|
||||
- Sera is protecting Naia by NOT reporting what she found. Her concealment is loyalty, not corruption.
|
||||
- The smuggler and detective are both experiencing friendship fractured by the same cause — Naia's worry about Kael, and the chain of protection that worry created.
|
||||
|
||||
This is the design. The contradiction is not "THE FRIEND is bad." The contradiction is "THE FRIEND is doing something complicated for reasons that make sense, and it's happening to YOU."
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## 7. The No-Clean-Resolution Rule
|
||||
|
||||
Every Contradiction Arc must refuse to offer a clean resolution. This is non-negotiable.
|
||||
|
||||
**What "no clean resolution" means:**
|
||||
- Confronting THE FRIEND does not produce a confession that absolves them. It produces a partial truth that raises more questions.
|
||||
- Protecting THE FRIEND does not produce safety. It produces continued risk with the added weight of knowledge.
|
||||
- Reporting THE FRIEND does not produce justice. It produces a particular kind of harm to people who didn't deserve to be caught in the consequence.
|
||||
- Ignoring THE FRIEND does not produce peace. The doubt persists. The knowledge lives.
|
||||
|
||||
**Why this rule exists:** D-027 success criterion #3 is "after each playthrough, player names an NPC they felt conflicted about." Confliction requires that no choice was clearly right. The moment a clean resolution exists — confess = forgiven, report = solved, ignore = safe — the Contradiction Arc collapses into a problem with a correct answer. The player stops feeling conflicted and starts making optimal choices. Emotional weight requires moral weight. Moral weight requires cost on every path.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## 8. Content Authoring Checklist
|
||||
|
||||
Before shipping a FRIEND NPC with a Contradiction Arc, validate:
|
||||
|
||||
- [ ] Phase 1 warmth is genuine — the relationship is established as real before it's threatened
|
||||
- [ ] Phase 2 tells are pre-established in Phase 1 (not appearing for first time at contradiction)
|
||||
- [ ] Phase 3 contradiction is observable through spatial play — no dialogue/UI flag triggers it
|
||||
- [ ] Phase 3 monologue names the observation without naming the explanation
|
||||
- [ ] Phase 3 entity color shifts to amber (PersonOfInterest) at contradiction discovery
|
||||
- [ ] Phase 3 dialogue tier lock: insider/peer content unavailable post-contradiction
|
||||
- [ ] Phase 4 confrontation option appears only post-Phase 3 (D-062 invisible until unlocked)
|
||||
- [ ] Phase 4 confrontation written in character's internal voice (D-063)
|
||||
- [ ] Phase 4 THE FRIEND's deflection is sympathetic — they're concealing, not lying maliciously
|
||||
- [ ] Phase 4 personal tell fires during deflection and is confirmed in monologue
|
||||
- [ ] Phase 5 content exists for all three player paths (Understanding / Betrayal / Observation)
|
||||
- [ ] Dual-lens notes written for both characters on every key monologue trigger
|
||||
- [ ] No clean resolution on any player path
|
||||
- [ ] Total authored content: 70-100 items
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## 9. Application to Future FRIEND NPCs
|
||||
|
||||
This pattern is designed to be reused. When designing a future FRIEND NPC for a new template:
|
||||
|
||||
1. **Identify the concealment.** What is THE FRIEND hiding, and WHY? The why must be sympathetic. "Protecting someone they love" or "fear of consequences" — not "because they're secretly bad."
|
||||
2. **Design the contradiction.** What does the player OBSERVE that breaks the baseline? It must be spatial and behavioral, not told.
|
||||
3. **Design the tell.** What physical habit is introduced in Phase 1 that becomes load-bearing in Phase 4? It must be specific to this NPC.
|
||||
4. **Map the dual-lens difference.** How does the bonded character read the contradiction differently from the observing character? The emotional register must diverge.
|
||||
5. **Refuse the clean resolution.** What does each of the three player paths cost? If any path costs nothing, revise.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
*Ticket #332 — Contradiction arc design document. Reusable FRIEND pattern. v0.1 scope.*
|
||||
@@ -0,0 +1,280 @@
|
||||
# Mirror Moment Design Document
|
||||
|
||||
**Ticket:** #329 | **Priority:** Medium | **Sprint:** 12
|
||||
**Status:** v0.1 Draft
|
||||
**Owners:** Paula (design), Mellanie (authoring)
|
||||
**Blocked by:** #297 (Kael profile — done), #298 (Sera profile — done)
|
||||
**Decisions referenced:** D-032 (separate monologue pools), D-034 (THE FRIEND), D-039 (wow moment #4 — Divergence Reveal)
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## 1. What Is a Mirror Moment?
|
||||
|
||||
A mirror moment is a **shared trigger that produces completely different monologue for each playable character.** Same event. Same NPC. Same location. Two entirely different emotional experiences.
|
||||
|
||||
The player who has completed both playthroughs encounters the mirror moments as a recognition: *"I was in this exact situation, but I felt something completely different."* This is the mechanism of Wow Moment #4 (Divergence Reveal — D-039): the realization that the same world contains two different experiences, and that you've had both.
|
||||
|
||||
**What a mirror moment is NOT:**
|
||||
- A branching dialogue option
|
||||
- A triggered cutscene
|
||||
- An informational difference ("the smuggler knows X and the detective doesn't")
|
||||
|
||||
A mirror moment is an **interpretive difference** — same information, same NPC behavior, same physical event. Different internal frame. Different emotional weight.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## 2. Design Principles
|
||||
|
||||
**Principle 1: Same trigger, different pool (D-032 hard partition)**
|
||||
Mirror moments operate because monologue pools are hard-partitioned by character. The same trigger key fires into the smuggler pool OR the detective pool — never both. The authoring requirement is to write both sides of every shared trigger.
|
||||
|
||||
**Principle 2: The difference must be felt, not explained**
|
||||
A mirror moment works when the player FEELS the divergence without having it explained. The two monologue lines should be immediately recognizable as coming from different places — different relationships, different frames, different fears.
|
||||
|
||||
**Principle 3: The mirror reveals what the character CARES about**
|
||||
The smuggler's monologue reveals personal loyalty (people). The detective's monologue reveals investigative analysis (patterns). A mirror moment that doesn't surface this difference is a content gap, not a mirror.
|
||||
|
||||
**Principle 4: At least some mirrors should work on first playthrough**
|
||||
Not every mirror moment requires a second playthrough to land. Some mirrors work as a moment of character voice — the player just hears what their character notices. Second playthrough makes the divergence explicit, but first playthrough should have its own emotional coherence.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## 3. The 10 Mirror Moments (v0.1)
|
||||
|
||||
### Mirror 1: The Friend's Routine
|
||||
|
||||
**Trigger:** `observe_npc` — Seeing THE FRIEND (Kael/Sera) going about their daily routine in their expected location.
|
||||
|
||||
**Shared observation:** THE FRIEND is doing exactly what they always do. Nothing unusual. The baseline before anything cracks.
|
||||
|
||||
**Smuggler monologue:**
|
||||
*"Kael's at his station. Right where he always is. Something settles when the shift starts right."*
|
||||
|
||||
**Detective monologue:**
|
||||
*"The dock worker — Davan — is on the floor again. Same position, same timing. Three days in a row. That's a routine. File it."*
|
||||
|
||||
**What the mirror reveals:** The smuggler sees a person. The detective sees a data point. Same NPC at the same station. The relationship determines the register.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
### Mirror 2: The Empty Corridor
|
||||
|
||||
**Trigger:** `enter_location` — Player enters a maintenance corridor when no other NPCs are present.
|
||||
|
||||
**Shared observation:** The corridor is empty. The maintenance systems hum. No one is watching.
|
||||
|
||||
**Smuggler monologue:**
|
||||
*"Clear. Good. Transition window's still open for eleven more minutes."*
|
||||
|
||||
**Detective monologue:**
|
||||
*"Three separate entries to this corridor in my district walkthrough. Nothing documented in my file about why workers access this route. Off-books path? Add it to the log."*
|
||||
|
||||
**What the mirror reveals:** The smuggler reads the empty corridor as operational safety. The detective reads it as an investigative lead. The physical space is identical; the cognitive frame inverts it.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
### Mirror 3: The Worried Partner (Naia Tamm)
|
||||
|
||||
**Trigger:** `observe_npc` — Seeing Naia Tamm sitting alone at the bar, visibly preoccupied.
|
||||
|
||||
**Shared observation:** Naia is at The Last Shift without Kael. She looks tired or worried. Not in distress — just carrying something heavy.
|
||||
|
||||
**Smuggler monologue:**
|
||||
*"Naia's here without Kael again. She looks rough. Should check in. ...Not now. Later."*
|
||||
|
||||
**Detective monologue:**
|
||||
*"That woman — Tamm, I think Sera mentioned her — is sitting alone. Wrong energy for a social evening. Something at home, or something she's heard?"*
|
||||
|
||||
**What the mirror reveals:** The smuggler has a protective impulse toward Naia but defers it. The detective categorizes Naia as a potential information source. Same worried woman, same empty chair across from her. One character plans to check on a person; the other plans to assess a witness.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
### Mirror 4: The Spending
|
||||
|
||||
**Trigger:** `observe_npc` — Watching Torek Lintar buy rounds at the bar.
|
||||
|
||||
**Shared observation:** Torek is buying drinks for several people he doesn't know well. The drinks are nicer than they should be on a compliance officer's salary. He's clearly enjoying himself.
|
||||
|
||||
**Smuggler monologue:**
|
||||
*"Torek's buying rounds again. That's the third time this week. Either he won something, or he's getting paid from somewhere he shouldn't be. Starting to worry about that."*
|
||||
|
||||
**Detective monologue:**
|
||||
*"Commission compliance officer, buying grain spirit for half the bar. On his salary? That doesn't close. Financial tell. Noted."*
|
||||
|
||||
**What the mirror reveals:** Both characters notice the same behavioral anomaly. The smuggler frames it as a security risk to the ring. The detective frames it as an evidentiary lead. Both have the same concern (Torek's spending is unusual) — but the concern has completely different stakes.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
### Mirror 5: Sera Leaving
|
||||
|
||||
**Trigger:** `observe_npc` — Watching Sera Venn gather her things and leave the bar when Torek arrives.
|
||||
|
||||
**Shared observation:** Sera gives a brief excuse (headache, kiosk check, early shift) and leaves. She was comfortable until the moment Torek walked in.
|
||||
|
||||
**Smuggler monologue:**
|
||||
*"Sera left. Good timing — she was starting to make everyone nervous anyway. Commission presence at Lera's always shifts the temperature."*
|
||||
|
||||
**Detective monologue:**
|
||||
*"Second time now. Sera leaves when Torek walks in. Same type of excuse. 'Headache' last time, 'kiosk' tonight. Same result. That's two data points. Third is a pattern."*
|
||||
|
||||
**What the mirror reveals:** The smuggler reads Sera's departure as relief (Commission leaving = safer conversation). The detective reads the same departure as a behavioral anomaly. The event is identical. The emotional response is inverted.
|
||||
|
||||
This mirror is structurally important: it shows the detective's FRIEND arc developing through observational patience, while simultaneously showing the smuggler's categorical relationship with Commission presence.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
### Mirror 6: The Station Hum
|
||||
|
||||
**Trigger:** `time_idle` — Player is stationary in the terminal for more than a few seconds with no active interaction.
|
||||
|
||||
**Shared observation:** The station's ambient systems — span gate hum, ventilation cycle, cargo machinery in the background — fill the silence. Sova at rest.
|
||||
|
||||
**Smuggler monologue:**
|
||||
*"Span gate's cycling early. One hour to the next transit. Voss'll be running the schedule check in twenty."*
|
||||
|
||||
**Detective monologue:**
|
||||
*"They've been on this station their whole lives. That hum is just background to them. I'm still trying to tune it out."*
|
||||
|
||||
**What the mirror reveals:** The smuggler hears operational data in the ambient sound. The detective hears alienation. The station hum carries the same frequency to both characters' ears. It means completely different things to their experience of being in this place.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
### Mirror 7: The Commission Kiosk
|
||||
|
||||
**Trigger:** `enter_location` or `observe_npc` — The player walks past or observes the Commission compliance kiosk near the terminal entrance.
|
||||
|
||||
**Shared observation:** The kiosk is a small Commission compliance desk near the terminal entrance — mostly unmanned, used for permit verification and compliance queries. Standard infrastructure.
|
||||
|
||||
**Smuggler monologue:**
|
||||
*"Commission kiosk. Nobody uses it. Institutional furniture. Long as nobody decides to run a full cargo audit, that's exactly what I want it to stay."*
|
||||
|
||||
**Detective monologue:**
|
||||
*"The compliance kiosk has public access to manifest verification records. Local. Less filtered than the request I made through channels. Check it when Maret's not watching."*
|
||||
|
||||
**What the mirror reveals:** The smuggler reads the kiosk as a passive threat to be ignored. The detective reads it as an investigative tool. Same object. Same physical location. The smuggler hopes it stays irrelevant; the detective plans to use it.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
### Mirror 8: Kael and Naia Together (Bar)
|
||||
|
||||
**Trigger:** `observe_npc` — Seeing Kael and Naia sitting together at their usual table. Naia is talking; Kael is listening but seems distracted.
|
||||
|
||||
**Shared observation:** A couple having dinner. Naia is clearly talking seriously about something. Kael is present but not quite there. The gap between them is subtle but visible.
|
||||
|
||||
**Smuggler monologue:**
|
||||
*"Kael and Naia look... off. Naia's talking a lot. Kael's nodding but he's somewhere else. Something's going on at home. He doesn't say."*
|
||||
|
||||
**Detective monologue:**
|
||||
*"Couple — the dock worker, Davan, and the woman who sits with Sera sometimes. She's animated; he's distracted. Relationship tension. That level of checked-out usually means someone's keeping something."*
|
||||
|
||||
**What the mirror reveals:** The smuggler reads this as a friend's private trouble that deserves respect and distance. The detective reads it as behavioral evidence — someone keeping something from a partner. Same visible tension. One character looks away; the other leans in.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
### Mirror 9: The Manifest Terminal
|
||||
|
||||
**Trigger:** `observe_npc` or `enter_location` — The freight manifest terminal in the terminal hub.
|
||||
|
||||
**Shared observation:** A freight terminal kiosk showing manifest data. Busy during shifts; the data moves constantly.
|
||||
|
||||
**Smuggler monologue:**
|
||||
*"That's Maret's terminal. She's got access to all the schedules from here. If anything's getting flagged in the manifest data, she'd see it before anyone else. Maret's solid. She won't say anything."*
|
||||
|
||||
**Detective monologue:**
|
||||
*"Freight manifests for the last six months, loaded from here. The cluster analysis shows three anomaly windows, all at shift transition. That's not clerical error. Someone's using this terminal to adjust records after the fact."*
|
||||
|
||||
**What the mirror reveals:** The smuggler sees a trusted colleague's workspace and trusts that colleague's loyalty. The detective sees the exact location where evidence of the ring's operations lives. The terminal is simultaneously proof of criminal activity and proof of a trusted relationship — depending on which character is reading it.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
### Mirror 10: The End of Shift
|
||||
|
||||
**Trigger:** `observe_npc` — Watching the shift change happen across the terminal floor — workers clocking out, new crew arriving, a brief period of cross-traffic and handoffs.
|
||||
|
||||
**Shared observation:** Dozens of workers moving at once. The shift change is organized chaos. Cargo gets routed, schedules are handed off, the floor changes.
|
||||
|
||||
**Smuggler monologue:**
|
||||
*"Shift transition. Twenty-minute window. The floor's all cross-traffic now — nobody's tracking individual movement. This is when it runs."*
|
||||
|
||||
**Detective monologue:**
|
||||
*"Shift change. Every anomaly in my manifest data clusters around this. The window. The handoff moment. Someone is using the cross-traffic as cover. But for WHAT?"*
|
||||
|
||||
**What the mirror reveals:** The smuggler knows exactly what the shift change covers. The detective sees the pattern but not the specific. Both characters observe the same 20-minute window of organized chaos. One is running something through it; the other is trying to figure out what's being run.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## 4. Mirror Moment Authoring Rules
|
||||
|
||||
### Rule 1: Both sides are mandatory
|
||||
A mirror moment is only complete when both the smuggler monologue and the detective monologue are authored. Omitting one side is a content gap.
|
||||
|
||||
### Rule 2: Same trigger key, different pool
|
||||
Both lines use the same `trigger` type and similar `prerequisite` conditions. They appear in separate character monologue files (D-032 hard partition). The only difference is the `character` tag.
|
||||
|
||||
### Rule 3: No shared content
|
||||
Neither monologue line should directly reference the other or acknowledge the other character's frame. Each line is internally coherent to its character. The divergence is created by the CHARACTER's relationship to the world, not by explicit contrast.
|
||||
|
||||
### Rule 4: The lines must stand alone
|
||||
A player who only plays one character should not feel the mirror moment is incomplete. Both lines should work as independent character voice — good monologue that stands on its own.
|
||||
|
||||
### Rule 5: Tag all mirrors for tracking
|
||||
Add `tags: [mirror_moment]` to both sides of every mirror pair so they can be identified and validated as a set.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## 5. YAML Example
|
||||
|
||||
```yaml
|
||||
# Smuggler side — monologue-smuggler.yaml
|
||||
- id: transit_m_s_044
|
||||
character: smuggler
|
||||
trigger: observe_npc
|
||||
prerequisite:
|
||||
location: the-terminal
|
||||
target: npc:naia-tamm
|
||||
relationship_state: Known
|
||||
text: "Naia's here without Kael again. She looks rough. Should check in. ...Not now. Later."
|
||||
mood: [concerned, fond]
|
||||
topic: [colleague]
|
||||
tags: [mirror_moment, mirror_worried_partner]
|
||||
|
||||
# Detective side — monologue-detective.yaml
|
||||
- id: transit_m_d_044
|
||||
character: detective
|
||||
trigger: observe_npc
|
||||
prerequisite:
|
||||
location: the-last-shift
|
||||
target: npc:naia-tamm
|
||||
text: "That woman — Tamm, I think Sera mentioned her — is sitting alone. Wrong energy for a social evening. Something at home, or something she's heard?"
|
||||
mood: [analytical, curious]
|
||||
topic: [investigation]
|
||||
tags: [mirror_moment, mirror_worried_partner]
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## 6. Validation Checklist
|
||||
|
||||
For each mirror pair:
|
||||
|
||||
- [ ] Both sides authored
|
||||
- [ ] Same trigger type used
|
||||
- [ ] Both sides use `tags: [mirror_moment, {mirror_name}]`
|
||||
- [ ] Lines stand independently as character voice
|
||||
- [ ] Emotional register diverges (personal vs. analytical, OR equivalent meaningful contrast)
|
||||
- [ ] No shared vocabulary that implies the characters are comparing notes
|
||||
- [ ] Prerequisites match (same NPC, same location condition, equivalent state requirements)
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## 7. Expansion Notes (Post-v0.1)
|
||||
|
||||
Additional mirror moments to author in future content passes:
|
||||
|
||||
- **The Missing Person Notice:** A posted notice near the bar about a missing dock worker (pre-existing, unrelated to main plot). Smuggler: "People disappear. Station life." Detective: "Filed under 'before my posting.' What was the investigative status?"
|
||||
- **Voss Walking the Floor:** The shift supervisor doing a routine floor inspection. Smuggler sees cover being maintained. Detective sees a potential informant.
|
||||
- **Drin's Inspection:** Dock inspector doing a container verification. Smuggler knows Drin will find nothing. Detective sees the inspection as either genuine compliance or evidence of a compromised process.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
*Ticket #329 — Mirror moment design document. 10 paired observations. v0.1 scope.*
|
||||
Reference in New Issue
Block a user