diff --git a/story_design/story_dev_prompts/08_scenario_review.md b/story_design/story_dev_prompts/08_scenario_review.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..e13ae89 --- /dev/null +++ b/story_design/story_dev_prompts/08_scenario_review.md @@ -0,0 +1,896 @@ +# Stage 8: Scenario Review and Validation + +**Purpose:** Conduct comprehensive review of the complete scenario to ensure quality, consistency, playability, educational value, and technical correctness before implementation. + +**Output:** A validation report with findings, required fixes, recommendations, and final approval or revision requests. + +--- + +## Your Role + +You are a scenario validator for Break Escape. Your task is to: + +1. Review all materials from Stages 0-7 for completeness and quality +2. Verify consistency across all scenario elements +3. Validate technical compliance with game systems +4. Ensure educational objectives are met +5. Check narrative quality and player experience +6. Identify issues and recommend fixes +7. Provide final approval or request revisions + +**You are the quality gate.** Nothing proceeds to implementation without passing this review. + +## Required Input + +You should receive from all previous stages: +- Stage 0: Initialization (challenges, cell, theme) +- Stage 1: Narrative structure +- Stage 2: Storytelling elements +- Stage 3: Moral choices +- Stage 4: Player objectives +- Stage 5: Room layout +- Stage 6: LORE fragments +- Stage 7: Ink scripts + +## Required Reading + +### All Previous Stage Outputs +Review every document produced in Stages 0-7 + +### Reference Documentation +- `story_design/universe_bible/` - Entire universe bible for consistency checks +- `docs/GAME_DESIGN.md` - Game mechanics and constraints +- `docs/ROOM_GENERATION.md` - Technical room requirements +- `docs/INK_INTEGRATION.md` - Ink integration requirements +- `story_design/universe_bible/10_reference/style_guide.md` - Writing standards +- `story_design/universe_bible/10_reference/cybok_mapping.md` - Educational standards + +## Review Process + +### Step 1: Completeness Check + +```markdown +## Completeness Validation + +### Required Deliverables + +**Stage 0: Initialization** +- [ ] Technical challenges defined (3-5 challenges) +- [ ] ENTROPY cell selected and justified +- [ ] Narrative theme chosen +- [ ] Initialization summary complete + +**Stage 1: Narrative Structure** +- [ ] Three-act structure defined +- [ ] All key story beats identified +- [ ] Challenge integration mapped +- [ ] Pacing and tension planned + +**Stage 2: Storytelling Elements** +- [ ] All NPC characters profiled +- [ ] Atmospheric design complete +- [ ] Dialogue guidelines created +- [ ] Key storytelling moments defined + +**Stage 3: Moral Choices** +- [ ] Major choices designed (2-4 recommended) +- [ ] Consequences mapped +- [ ] Ethical framework validated +- [ ] Choice implementation planned + +**Stage 4: Player Objectives** +- [ ] Primary objectives defined (3-6) +- [ ] Secondary objectives created (2-5) +- [ ] Progression structure mapped +- [ ] Success/failure states defined + +**Stage 5: Room Layout** +- [ ] All rooms specified with dimensions +- [ ] Room connections documented +- [ ] Challenge placement completed +- [ ] Item distribution mapped +- [ ] NPC positioning defined +- [ ] Technical validation completed + +**Stage 6: LORE Fragments** +- [ ] Fragment budget determined +- [ ] All fragments written +- [ ] Fragment metadata complete +- [ ] Discovery flow planned +- [ ] LORE system validation passed + +**Stage 7: Ink Scripts** +- [ ] Opening cutscene scripted +- [ ] Closing cutscene(s) scripted +- [ ] All NPC dialogues scripted +- [ ] Choice moments implemented +- [ ] Mid-scenario beats scripted +- [ ] Syntax validated in Inky + +### Missing Elements Check + +**Critical Missing Elements:** +[List anything required that's missing] + +**Recommended Additions:** +[List anything that would improve the scenario] + +**Optional Enhancements:** +[List nice-to-have elements] +``` + +### Step 2: Consistency Validation + +```markdown +## Consistency Across Stages + +### Narrative Consistency + +**Character Consistency:** +- [ ] Character voices are consistent from Stage 2 through Stage 7 Ink +- [ ] Character motivations align across all appearances +- [ ] Character knowledge/awareness is logical throughout +- [ ] No characters appear/disappear without explanation + +**Issues Found:** +[List any character inconsistencies] + +**Story Consistency:** +- [ ] Events occur in logical order +- [ ] Timeline makes sense +- [ ] No contradictions in what happened +- [ ] Cause and effect relationships work + +**Issues Found:** +[List any story logic problems] + +**Tone Consistency:** +- [ ] Atmospheric design (Stage 2) matches narrative tone (Stage 1) +- [ ] Dialogue tone (Stage 7) matches style guide +- [ ] Serious/humorous balance is appropriate +- [ ] ENTROPY cell portrayal is consistent with universe bible + +**Issues Found:** +[List any tone inconsistencies] + +### Technical Consistency + +**Challenge-Objective Alignment:** +- [ ] All Stage 0 challenges are addressed in Stage 4 objectives +- [ ] All Stage 4 objectives have associated challenges +- [ ] Challenge difficulty matches stated tier +- [ ] Challenge placement (Stage 5) supports objectives + +**Issues Found:** +[List any misalignments] + +**Spatial Consistency:** +- [ ] Stage 2 location descriptions match Stage 5 room designs +- [ ] NPC positions (Stage 5) align with their dialogue (Stage 7) +- [ ] Item locations support challenge requirements +- [ ] LORE fragment placement makes narrative sense + +**Issues Found:** +[List any spatial inconsistencies] + +**Choice Consistency:** +- [ ] Stage 3 choices are implemented in Stage 7 Ink +- [ ] Choice consequences appear in Ink where specified +- [ ] Variables track choices correctly +- [ ] Ending variations reflect choices + +**Issues Found:** +[List any choice implementation issues] + +### Universe Canon Consistency + +**ENTROPY Cell Accuracy:** +- [ ] Cell selection (Stage 0) matches capabilities shown +- [ ] Cell philosophy is portrayed accurately +- [ ] Cell methods align with universe bible +- [ ] Cell members are consistent with established canon + +**Issues Found:** +[List any canon violations] + +**SAFETYNET Accuracy:** +- [ ] Field operations rules are respected +- [ ] Handler behavior is appropriate +- [ ] Agency protocols are followed +- [ ] Technology matches established capabilities + +**Issues Found:** +[List any SAFETYNET inconsistencies] + +**World Rules:** +- [ ] Technology is appropriate for the world +- [ ] No violations of established universe rules +- [ ] Timeline fits with other scenarios +- [ ] Cross-references to other scenarios are accurate + +**Issues Found:** +[List any world-building violations] +``` + +### Step 3: Technical Validation + +```markdown +## Technical Compliance + +### Room Generation Compliance + +**Critical Requirements:** +- [ ] All rooms are 4×4 to 15×15 GU +- [ ] All rooms have 1 GU padding correctly accounted for +- [ ] All items are placed in usable space (NOT in padding) +- [ ] All room connections have ≥ 1 GU overlap +- [ ] Door placements are valid +- [ ] Total map footprint is reasonable + +**Review Each Room:** + +**Room 1: [Name]** +- Size: [X]×[Y] GU ✓/✗ +- Usable space: [X-2]×[Y-2] GU ✓/✗ +- Items in usable space: ✓/✗ +- Connections valid: ✓/✗ + +[Repeat for all rooms] + +**Issues Found:** +[List all room generation violations] + +**CRITICAL:** Any room generation violations MUST be fixed. These will break the game. + +### Ink Technical Validation + +**Syntax Correctness:** +- [ ] All .ink files validated in Inky editor +- [ ] No syntax errors +- [ ] All diverts point to existing knots +- [ ] All variables are declared +- [ ] All conditionals have proper syntax + +**Logic Correctness:** +- [ ] No infinite loops +- [ ] All branches reach END or valid divert +- [ ] Conditional logic is sound +- [ ] Variable states are tracked correctly + +**Integration Correctness:** +- [ ] External variables match game system expectations +- [ ] Variable names are consistent with documentation +- [ ] Events are triggered at correct points +- [ ] Game state is read correctly + +**Issues Found:** +[List all Ink technical issues] + +### Game System Integration + +**Objective System:** +- [ ] Objectives can be tracked by game +- [ ] Success criteria are implementable +- [ ] Progression gates work with game logic +- [ ] Failure handling is implementable + +**Challenge System:** +- [ ] All challenges use available game mechanics +- [ ] Challenge success criteria are clear +- [ ] Challenge difficulty is appropriate +- [ ] Challenges are actually implementable with current systems + +**Issues Found:** +[List integration concerns] + +**Implementation Feasibility:** +[Are there any challenges or features that may be difficult/impossible to implement with current game systems?] +``` + +### Step 4: Educational Validation + +```markdown +## Educational Quality + +### Learning Objectives + +**CyBOK Alignment:** +For each technical challenge: + +**Challenge 1: [Name]** +- CyBOK area: [Area from Stage 0] +- Learning objective: [What player should learn] +- Accuracy: ✓/✗ [Is the technical content accurate?] +- Appropriateness: ✓/✗ [Is difficulty right for tier?] +- Effectiveness: ✓/✗ [Will players actually learn this?] + +[Repeat for all challenges] + +**Issues Found:** +[List any educational concerns] + +### Technical Accuracy + +**Cybersecurity Concepts:** +- [ ] All technical information is accurate +- [ ] No outdated or deprecated techniques taught +- [ ] No "Hollywood hacking" nonsense +- [ ] Real-world applicability is clear +- [ ] Best practices are demonstrated + +**Common Accuracy Issues to Check:** +- Are port numbers realistic? +- Are IP addresses valid? +- Is encryption properly described? +- Are command syntaxes correct? +- Are vulnerability names real? +- Are attack methods accurate? + +**Issues Found:** +[List any technical inaccuracies] + +### Ethical Framework + +**SAFETYNET Rules Compliance:** +- [ ] Scenario respects field operations handbook +- [ ] Choices align with ethical framework +- [ ] No encouragement of illegal hacking +- [ ] Civilian safety is prioritized appropriately +- [ ] Legal boundaries are respected + +**Ethical Choice Quality:** +- [ ] Choices reflect real security dilemmas +- [ ] No choice is clearly unethical +- [ ] Competing values are legitimate +- [ ] Consequences are appropriate + +**Issues Found:** +[List any ethical concerns] + +### Pedagogical Effectiveness + +**Teaching Quality:** +- [ ] Concepts are introduced before required +- [ ] Difficulty progression is appropriate +- [ ] Players learn by doing, not by reading +- [ ] Failure provides learning opportunities +- [ ] Success reinforces correct understanding + +**Engagement:** +- [ ] Learning is integrated into narrative +- [ ] Technical challenges advance the story +- [ ] Players are motivated to learn +- [ ] Educational content doesn't feel like homework + +**Issues Found:** +[List pedagogical concerns] +``` + +### Step 5: Narrative Quality Review + +```markdown +## Narrative Quality + +### Story Structure + +**Three-Act Structure:** +- [ ] Act 1 establishes situation effectively +- [ ] Act 2 develops investigation compellingly +- [ ] Act 3 provides satisfying climax +- [ ] Pacing is appropriate throughout +- [ ] Story beats land with impact + +**Issues Found:** +[List structural problems] + +### Character Quality + +**Character Development:** +- [ ] NPCs feel like real people +- [ ] Character motivations are clear +- [ ] Character voices are distinct +- [ ] Characters serve story purpose +- [ ] No flat or one-dimensional characters + +**Dialogue Quality:** +- [ ] Dialogue sounds natural when read aloud +- [ ] Characters speak distinctly +- [ ] Exposition is integrated smoothly +- [ ] No awkward or stilted conversations +- [ ] Emotional beats land effectively + +**Read-Aloud Test:** +[Did you read all dialogue aloud? What felt off?] + +**Issues Found:** +[List character/dialogue problems] + +### Emotional Impact + +**Engagement:** +- [ ] Opening hooks player attention +- [ ] Stakes are clear and meaningful +- [ ] Tension builds appropriately +- [ ] Climax is genuinely tense +- [ ] Resolution provides satisfaction + +**Player Investment:** +- [ ] Player cares about outcome +- [ ] Choices feel meaningful +- [ ] Success feels earned +- [ ] Failure provides motivation to retry + +**Issues Found:** +[List engagement problems] + +### LORE Integration + +**Fragment Quality:** +- [ ] Fragments are well-written +- [ ] Information is interesting and relevant +- [ ] Progressive revelation works +- [ ] Fragments connect to larger universe +- [ ] Discovery is rewarding + +**Balance:** +- [ ] Not too many fragments (overwhelming) +- [ ] Not too few fragments (unsatisfying) +- [ ] Distribution across difficulty is good +- [ ] Fragment placement makes sense + +**Issues Found:** +[List LORE problems] +``` + +### Step 6: Player Experience Review + +```markdown +## Player Experience + +### Playability + +**Clarity:** +- [ ] Player always knows what to do next +- [ ] Objectives are clear +- [ ] Success criteria are understandable +- [ ] Navigation is intuitive +- [ ] Puzzle solutions are fair + +**Frustration Points:** +[What might frustrate players?] +- Unclear objectives? +- Impossible challenges? +- Confusing layout? +- Unfair difficulty spikes? +- Dead ends? + +**Pacing:** +- [ ] No sections drag on too long +- [ ] Action and reflection are balanced +- [ ] Difficulty curve is smooth +- [ ] Breathing room after intense sections +- [ ] Overall duration feels right + +**Issues Found:** +[List playability concerns] + +### Player Agency + +**Meaningful Choices:** +- [ ] Choices actually affect outcomes +- [ ] Player decisions are honored +- [ ] Multiple approaches are viable +- [ ] Exploration is rewarded +- [ ] Player feels in control + +**False Choices:** +[Are there any "choices" that don't actually matter?] + +**Issues Found:** +[List agency problems] + +### Replay Value + +**Incentives to Replay:** +- [ ] Multiple choice paths to explore +- [ ] LORE to collect +- [ ] Different approaches possible +- [ ] Secrets to discover +- [ ] Variations in ending + +**First vs. Second Playthrough:** +[What's different on replay?] +[Is there enough new to discover?] + +**Issues Found:** +[List replay value concerns] + +### Accessibility + +**Difficulty Options:** +- [ ] Hint system available if stuck +- [ ] Challenges are fair for target tier +- [ ] No mandatory twitch skills +- [ ] Clear feedback on progress +- [ ] Failure allows retry with learning + +**Inclusivity:** +- [ ] Language is clear +- [ ] No unnecessary jargon without explanation +- [ ] Visual descriptions are adequate +- [ ] No assumptions about prior knowledge + +**Issues Found:** +[List accessibility concerns] +``` + +### Step 7: Polish and Presentation + +```markdown +## Polish Review + +### Writing Quality + +**Prose:** +- [ ] No typos or spelling errors +- [ ] Grammar is correct +- [ ] Punctuation is appropriate +- [ ] Formatting is consistent +- [ ] Writing is clear and concise + +**Style:** +- [ ] Matches Break Escape style guide +- [ ] Tone is consistent throughout +- [ ] Voice is appropriate for each character +- [ ] Technical writing is clear +- [ ] Narrative writing is engaging + +**Proofreading:** +[List any writing issues found] + +### Formatting and Organization + +**Documentation:** +- [ ] All sections are properly formatted +- [ ] Headings are consistent +- [ ] Lists are properly structured +- [ ] Code/Ink is properly formatted +- [ ] Cross-references are accurate + +**Organization:** +- [ ] Easy to find information +- [ ] Logical structure +- [ ] Complete table of contents/indices +- [ ] No orphaned sections +- [ ] All files properly named + +**Issues Found:** +[List organizational problems] + +### Completeness of Documentation + +**For Developers:** +- [ ] Clear implementation notes +- [ ] All technical specs provided +- [ ] Integration points documented +- [ ] Variable lists complete +- [ ] Asset requirements listed + +**For Writers:** +- [ ] Character voice guides complete +- [ ] Style notes provided +- [ ] Context is clear +- [ ] References are available + +**For Designers:** +- [ ] Design rationale documented +- [ ] Alternative approaches noted +- [ ] Edge cases considered +- [ ] Testing guidance provided + +**Issues Found:** +[List documentation gaps] +``` + +### Step 8: Risk Assessment + +```markdown +## Risk Analysis + +### Implementation Risks + +**High Risk Items:** +[Features that might be difficult to implement] +- Risk: [Description] + - Mitigation: [How to reduce risk] + - Fallback: [Alternative if it doesn't work] + +**Technical Debt:** +[Anything that might cause problems later] + +**Dependencies:** +[External dependencies that could cause issues] + +### Content Risks + +**Controversial Content:** +[Anything that might be sensitive or controversial] +- Issue: [Description] + - Assessment: [Is this acceptable?] + - Mitigation: [How to handle carefully] + +**Educational Risks:** +[Anything that might teach incorrectly] +- Issue: [Description] + - Fix: [How to correct] + +### Schedule Risks + +**Scope Concerns:** +[Is this scenario too ambitious?] +[Could any features be cut if needed?] + +**Complexity:** +[Are any systems overly complex?] +[Could they be simplified?] + +### Overall Risk Level + +**Risk Level:** [Low / Medium / High] + +**Justification:** +[Why this risk level?] + +**Recommendations:** +[What should be done to manage risks?] +``` + +## Output Format + +```markdown +# Scenario Review Report: [Scenario Name] + +**Reviewer:** [Name] +**Review Date:** [Date] +**Scenario Stage:** Complete (Stages 0-7) + +## Executive Summary + +**Overall Assessment:** [Pass / Pass with Revisions / Needs Major Revisions / Reject] + +**Summary:** +[2-3 paragraph overview of the scenario and review findings] + +**Strengths:** +- [Key strength 1] +- [Key strength 2] +- [Key strength 3] + +**Concerns:** +- [Key concern 1] +- [Key concern 2] +- [Key concern 3] + +**Recommendation:** +[Approve for implementation / Request revisions / Needs redesign] + +--- + +## Detailed Review Findings + +### 1. Completeness Check +[Results from Step 1] + +### 2. Consistency Validation +[Results from Step 2] + +### 3. Technical Validation +[Results from Step 3] + +### 4. Educational Validation +[Results from Step 4] + +### 5. Narrative Quality Review +[Results from Step 5] + +### 6. Player Experience Review +[Results from Step 6] + +### 7. Polish and Presentation +[Results from Step 7] + +### 8. Risk Assessment +[Results from Step 8] + +--- + +## Issues Summary + +### Critical Issues (MUST FIX) +[Issues that prevent implementation] + +1. [Issue description] + - **Location:** [Which stage/file] + - **Impact:** [Why this is critical] + - **Required Fix:** [What must be done] + +### Major Issues (SHOULD FIX) +[Issues that significantly impact quality] + +1. [Issue description] + - **Location:** [Which stage/file] + - **Impact:** [Why this matters] + - **Recommended Fix:** [What should be done] + +### Minor Issues (NICE TO FIX) +[Issues that would improve quality] + +1. [Issue description] + - **Location:** [Which stage/file] + - **Recommendation:** [Suggested improvement] + +--- + +## Validation Results + +### Educational Standards: ✓ / ✗ +[Pass or fail, with explanation] + +### Technical Standards: ✓ / ✗ +[Pass or fail, with explanation] + +### Narrative Standards: ✓ / ✗ +[Pass or fail, with explanation] + +### Universe Canon: ✓ / ✗ +[Pass or fail, with explanation] + +### Implementation Readiness: ✓ / ✗ +[Pass or fail, with explanation] + +--- + +## Recommendations + +### Before Implementation +[What must be done before this can be implemented] + +1. [Recommendation 1] +2. [Recommendation 2] +etc. + +### For Future Iterations +[Enhancements that could be added later] + +1. [Enhancement 1] +2. [Enhancement 2] +etc. + +### Lessons Learned +[What can be applied to future scenarios] + +1. [Lesson 1] +2. [Lesson 2] +etc. + +--- + +## Final Decision + +**Status:** [APPROVED / APPROVED WITH REVISIONS / NEEDS MAJOR REVISION / REJECTED] + +**Conditions for Approval:** +[If approved with conditions, what must be done] + +**Next Steps:** +[What happens next] + +**Sign-off:** +- [ ] Educational content validated +- [ ] Technical implementation feasible +- [ ] Narrative quality acceptable +- [ ] Universe consistency maintained +- [ ] Ready for development + +--- + +**Reviewer Signature:** [Name] +**Date:** [Date] +``` + +## Quality Checklist + +Before finalizing review, verify: + +### Review Completeness +- [ ] All stages reviewed (0-7) +- [ ] All deliverables checked +- [ ] All checklists completed +- [ ] All issues documented +- [ ] All recommendations provided + +### Review Thoroughness +- [ ] Actually read all Ink scripts (didn't just skim) +- [ ] Actually checked room dimensions (didn't just assume) +- [ ] Actually tested Ink syntax (didn't just trust) +- [ ] Actually read LORE fragments (didn't just count) +- [ ] Actually considered player experience (didn't just check boxes) + +### Review Fairness +- [ ] Feedback is constructive +- [ ] Criticism is specific +- [ ] Praise is given where deserved +- [ ] Recommendations are actionable +- [ ] Standards applied consistently + +### Review Usefulness +- [ ] Issues are clearly described +- [ ] Fixes are specific +- [ ] Priorities are clear (critical vs. nice-to-have) +- [ ] Next steps are obvious +- [ ] Feedback can actually be acted upon + +## Common Issues to Watch For + +### Frequent Problems + +**Narrative:** +- Exposition dumps in dialogue +- Flat or interchangeable character voices +- Unclear motivations +- Deus ex machina solutions +- Inconsistent tone + +**Technical:** +- Items placed in padding zones (very common!) +- Room overlap < 1 GU +- Undefined Ink variables +- Infinite Ink loops +- Missing else clauses in conditionals + +**Educational:** +- Outdated technical information +- "Hollywood hacking" unrealism +- Skippable learning content +- Too much lecture, not enough doing +- Wrong difficulty for tier + +**Integration:** +- Objectives without challenges +- Challenges without objectives +- LORE fragments without placement +- Choices without consequences +- Missing prerequisites + +**Player Experience:** +- Unclear next steps +- Unfair difficulty spikes +- Dead ends +- False choices +- Frustrating busywork + +## Review Tips + +1. **Read everything** - Don't skim, actually read every document +2. **Test the Ink** - Load it in Inky, test every branch +3. **Walk through mentally** - Imagine playing the scenario +4. **Check the math** - Room sizes, overlaps, counts +5. **Read aloud** - Dialogue especially +6. **Think like a player** - What would confuse you? +7. **Think like a dev** - What would be hard to implement? +8. **Check the canon** - Does this fit the universe? +9. **Be specific** - "Dialogue feels off" isn't helpful; "Handler doesn't sound professional" is +10. **Be constructive** - Suggest fixes, don't just criticize + +--- + +Save your review report as: +``` +scenario_designs/[scenario_name]/08_review/validation_report.md +``` + +**If Approved:** Scenario proceeds to implementation. + +**If Revisions Needed:** Return to appropriate stages with specific feedback, then re-review. + +**If Rejected:** Major redesign needed, likely return to Stage 0 or 1. diff --git a/story_design/story_dev_prompts/README.md b/story_design/story_dev_prompts/README.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..ec35a1b --- /dev/null +++ b/story_design/story_dev_prompts/README.md @@ -0,0 +1,242 @@ +# Break Escape Scenario Development Prompts + +This directory contains a comprehensive set of AI agent prompts for building complete Break Escape scenarios through a structured, multi-stage process. + +## Overview + +Building a rich, educationally sound, and narratively compelling Break Escape scenario requires coordinating multiple design concerns: technical challenges, narrative structure, character development, moral choices, world-building, and interactive dialogue. This prompt system breaks the development process into 9 distinct stages, each handled by a specialized AI agent. + +## The Development Pipeline + +``` +┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ +│ Stage 0: Scenario Initialization │ +│ Output: Technical challenge outline + Narrative theme options │ +└─────────────────────┬───────────────────────────────────────────┘ + ↓ +┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ +│ Stage 1: Narrative Structure Development │ +│ Output: Complete narrative arc with acts and key moments │ +└─────────────────────┬───────────────────────────────────────────┘ + ↓ +┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ +│ Stage 2: Storytelling Elements Design │ +│ Output: Characters, dialogue, atmosphere, pacing │ +└─────────────────────┬───────────────────────────────────────────┘ + ↓ +┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ +│ Stage 3: Moral Choices and Consequences │ +│ Output: Choice points with narrative branching │ +└─────────────────────┬───────────────────────────────────────────┘ +│ │ +│ ┌──────────────────┴──────────────────┐ +│ ↓ ↓ +│ ┌────────────────────────────┐ ┌────────────────────────────┐ +│ │ Stage 4: Player Objectives │ │ Stage 5: Room Layout │ +│ │ Output: Goals & win states │ │ Output: Physical design │ +│ └──────────┬─────────────────┘ └────────┬───────────────────┘ +│ └────────────┬────────────────┘ +│ ↓ +┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ +│ Stage 6: LORE Fragments Creation │ +│ Output: Collectible fragments placed in scenario │ +└─────────────────────┬───────────────────────────────────────────┘ + ↓ +┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ +│ Stage 7: Ink Scripting (NPCs and Cutscenes) │ +│ Output: Complete Ink files with dialogue and choices │ +└─────────────────────┬───────────────────────────────────────────┘ + ↓ +┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ +│ Stage 8: Scenario Review and Validation │ +│ Output: Complete, validated scenario ready for implementation │ +└─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ +``` + +## Prompt Files + +| File | Stage | Purpose | Key Outputs | +|------|-------|---------|-------------| +| `00_scenario_initialization.md` | 0 | Select technical challenges and narrative themes | Challenge outline, theme options, ENTROPY cell selection | +| `01_narrative_structure.md` | 1 | Build the story arc | Three-act structure, key story beats, dramatic moments | +| `02_storytelling_elements.md` | 2 | Flesh out story details | Character voices, atmosphere, pacing, dramatic tension | +| `03_moral_choices.md` | 3 | Design player choices | Choice points, consequences, branching paths | +| `04_player_objectives.md` | 4 | Define player goals | Win conditions, narrative objectives, optional goals | +| `05_room_layout_design.md` | 5 | Design physical space | Room layout, challenge placement, puzzle design | +| `06_lore_fragments.md` | 6 | Create collectibles | LORE fragments, placement strategy, progressive revelation | +| `07_ink_scripting.md` | 7 | Write dialogue | Ink scripts for NPCs, cutscenes, interactive dialogue | +| `08_scenario_review.md` | 8 | Validate scenario | Consistency check, educational alignment, playability | + +## How to Use This System + +### For AI Orchestrators + +If you're coordinating multiple AI agents to build a scenario: + +1. **Run each stage sequentially** - Each stage builds on outputs from previous stages +2. **Pass outputs forward** - Ensure each agent receives relevant outputs from previous stages +3. **Allow iteration** - Some stages (especially review) may require going back to earlier stages +4. **Maintain context** - Keep a master document that accumulates all decisions and outputs + +### For Single AI Sessions + +If you're working with a single AI in a long conversation: + +1. **Copy the prompt content** from each file into your conversation at the appropriate stage +2. **Maintain a working document** that captures outputs from each stage +3. **Reference universe bible** documents as needed throughout the process +4. **Iterate as needed** - Don't be afraid to revisit earlier stages if new ideas emerge + +### For Human Designers + +If you're using these prompts to guide your own design process: + +1. **Use as checklists** - Each prompt contains key questions and considerations +2. **Adapt as needed** - Not every scenario needs every element +3. **Reference examples** - The universe bible contains example scenarios to learn from +4. **Start small** - Your first scenario doesn't need to use every advanced feature + +## Required Context + +Before starting, ensure you have access to: + +### Essential Universe Bible Documents + +- `story_design/universe_bible/01_universe_overview/world_rules.md` +- `story_design/universe_bible/02_organisations/safetynet/README.md` +- `story_design/universe_bible/02_organisations/entropy/README.md` +- `story_design/universe_bible/03_entropy_cells/README.md` +- `story_design/universe_bible/05_world_building/rules_and_tone.md` +- `story_design/universe_bible/09_scenario_design/framework.md` +- `story_design/universe_bible/10_reference/style_guide.md` + +### Technical Documentation + +- `docs/GAME_DESIGN.md` - Core game mechanics +- `docs/ROOM_GENERATION.md` - Room layout rules and constraints +- `docs/INK_INTEGRATION.md` - Ink scripting guide +- Technical challenge specifications (varies by scenario type) + +## Output Structure + +Each stage should produce structured outputs in this format: + +``` +scenario_designs/[scenario_name]/ +├── 00_initialization/ +│ ├── technical_challenges.md +│ └── narrative_themes.md +├── 01_narrative/ +│ └── story_arc.md +├── 02_storytelling/ +│ ├── characters.md +│ ├── atmosphere.md +│ └── pacing.md +├── 03_choices/ +│ └── moral_choices.md +├── 04_objectives/ +│ └── player_goals.md +├── 05_layout/ +│ ├── room_design.md +│ └── challenge_placement.md +├── 06_lore/ +│ └── lore_fragments.md +├── 07_ink/ +│ ├── opening_cutscene.ink +│ ├── closing_cutscene.ink +│ ├── npc_dialogues.ink +│ └── choice_moments.ink +├── 08_review/ +│ └── validation_report.md +└── SCENARIO_COMPLETE.md (master document) +``` + +## Quality Standards + +All scenarios must meet these criteria: + +### Educational Requirements +- Map to specific CyBOK knowledge areas +- Teach genuine cybersecurity concepts +- Avoid teaching bad practices or unrealistic techniques +- Progressive difficulty appropriate for target audience + +### Narrative Requirements +- Consistent with universe bible tone and lore +- Character voices match established profiles +- World rules respected throughout +- Satisfying story arc with clear beginning, middle, end + +### Game Design Requirements +- Respect room generation constraints (see `docs/ROOM_GENERATION.md`) +- Challenge difficulty appropriate for scenario tier +- Clear player objectives +- Multiple solution paths where possible +- Failure states that teach rather than frustrate + +### Technical Requirements +- Valid Ink syntax +- Proper LORE fragment JSON structure +- Room layouts within Grid Unit constraints +- Challenge placement follows technical specifications + +## Tips for Success + +### Start with Constraints +- Pick your technical challenges first - they're the hardest constraint +- Let the challenges inform the narrative, not vice versa +- Choose an ENTROPY cell whose philosophy aligns with your challenges + +### Build Incrementally +- Don't try to design everything at once +- Each stage adds detail to the previous stage +- It's OK to go back and revise earlier stages as new ideas emerge + +### Use Examples +- Reference the example scenarios in `story_design/universe_bible/09_scenario_design/examples/` +- Look at existing ENTROPY cells for inspiration +- Study character profiles for dialogue voice + +### Focus on Player Experience +- What will the player learn? +- What will the player feel? +- What choices will matter to the player? +- How will the player know they're making progress? + +### Iterate Through Review +- Stage 8 (review) often reveals issues +- Don't be afraid to cycle back to earlier stages +- Small refinements make big differences +- Test your scenario logic before finalizing + +## Common Pitfalls to Avoid + +1. **Challenge-narrative mismatch** - When the story doesn't support why the technical challenge exists +2. **Overly complex layouts** - Trying to fit too many rooms/challenges into one scenario +3. **Inconsistent character voices** - NPCs that don't sound like their established profiles +4. **Unclear objectives** - Player doesn't know what they're trying to accomplish +5. **Dead-end choices** - Moral choices that don't actually affect anything +6. **LORE overload** - Too many fragments or fragments that don't add value +7. **Exposition dumps** - Telling instead of showing through gameplay +8. **Rule violations** - Breaking established world rules or technical constraints + +## Getting Help + +If you encounter issues: + +1. **Consult the universe bible** - Most questions are answered there +2. **Review example scenarios** - See how others solved similar problems +3. **Check technical docs** - Especially for room generation and Ink syntax +4. **Simplify** - When in doubt, reduce scope +5. **Iterate** - First draft doesn't need to be perfect + +## Version History + +- v1.0 (2025-01-17) - Initial prompt system creation + - 9-stage development pipeline + - Comprehensive prompts for each stage + - Integration with expanded universe bible + +--- + +**Ready to build your first scenario?** Start with `00_scenario_initialization.md` and work through the stages sequentially. Good luck, and remember: the best scenarios teach cybersecurity while telling compelling stories!