mirror of
https://github.com/cliffe/BreakEscape.git
synced 2026-02-22 11:48:18 +00:00
Add Mission 2 'Ransomed Trust' development preparation document
- Created comprehensive preparation doc for M02 development - Extracted mission details from Season 1 arc plan - Documented 9-stage development workflow - Applied Mission 1 good practices and lessons learned - Identified new mechanics: patrolling guards, PIN cracking - Outlined moral choices: ransom payment, hospital exposure - Documented campaign connections to M1 and M6 - Included risk assessment and success criteria - Ready for Stage 0: Scenario Initialization
This commit is contained in:
Claude
@@ -0,0 +1,809 @@
|
||||
# Mission 2: "Ransomed Trust" - Development Preparation
|
||||
|
||||
**Mission ID:** m02_ransomed_trust
|
||||
**Title:** Ransomed Trust
|
||||
**Status:** 🔄 READY FOR STAGE 0 INITIALIZATION
|
||||
**Prepared:** 2025-12-20
|
||||
**Development Process:** 9-Stage Scenario Development Workflow
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Executive Summary
|
||||
|
||||
Mission 2 "Ransomed Trust" is a crisis response mission where players must infiltrate a hospital hit by ransomware to recover decryption keys before critical systems fail. This mission introduces patrolling guards and PIN cracking mechanics while reinforcing lockpicking and social engineering from Mission 1.
|
||||
|
||||
**Key Metrics (Target):**
|
||||
- **Difficulty:** Beginner (Mission 2 of Season 1)
|
||||
- **Estimated Playtime:** 50-70 minutes
|
||||
- **ENTROPY Cell:** Ransomware Incorporated
|
||||
- **SecGen Scenario:** "Rooting for a win" (ProFTPD backdoor, basic exploitation)
|
||||
- **CyBOK Areas:** Malware & Attack Technologies, Incident Response, Applied Cryptography
|
||||
- **New Mechanics:** Patrolling guards (timing/stealth), PIN cracking (safe minigame)
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Mission Overview from Season 1 Arc
|
||||
|
||||
### Story Premise
|
||||
|
||||
Local hospital hit by ransomware; patient records encrypted. SAFETYNET suspects ENTROPY's Ransomware Incorporated cell. Player must infiltrate the hospital's compromised network to recover decryption keys before critical systems fail.
|
||||
|
||||
### Core Challenges (Break Escape)
|
||||
|
||||
- **Lockpicking** (reinforced from M1)
|
||||
- **Patrolling guards** (NEW) - security heightened after breach
|
||||
- **NPC social engineering** (reinforced) - stressed IT admin provides access
|
||||
- **PIN cracking on safe** (NEW) - backup encryption keys stored physically
|
||||
|
||||
### VM Challenge Integration
|
||||
|
||||
**SecGen Scenario:** "Rooting for a win" (ProFTPD backdoor exploitation)
|
||||
- Exploit ProFTPD backdoor on hospital backup server
|
||||
- Recover encrypted patient database
|
||||
- Find decryption keys and test recovery process
|
||||
|
||||
**Hybrid Architecture:**
|
||||
- VM provides technical validation (exploitation skills)
|
||||
- ERB templates provide narrative content (ransom notes, patient data, hospital emails)
|
||||
- Dead drop system: VM flags unlock backup access, decryption tools
|
||||
|
||||
### Educational Objectives (CyBOK)
|
||||
|
||||
- **Malware & Attack Technologies:** Ransomware behavior, encryption
|
||||
- **Incident Response:** Recovery procedures, backup importance
|
||||
- **Applied Cryptography:** Symmetric encryption, key recovery
|
||||
|
||||
### Narrative Arc (3 Acts)
|
||||
|
||||
**Act 1: Urgent Briefing & Infiltration (15-20%)**
|
||||
- Urgent briefing - patients at risk
|
||||
- Infiltrate hospital as "external security consultant"
|
||||
- Establish cover, meet stressed hospital staff
|
||||
|
||||
**Act 2: Investigation & Escalation (50-60%)**
|
||||
- Discover ransomware deployed via vulnerable FTP server
|
||||
- IT admin NPC helps locate backup systems
|
||||
- Exploit vulnerability to access backups
|
||||
- PIN crack safe containing offline key backup
|
||||
- Navigate patrolling guards (NEW mechanic tutorial)
|
||||
|
||||
**Act 3: Climax & Choice (20-30%)**
|
||||
- **Choice moment:** Pay ransom for faster recovery vs. use recovered keys (slower)
|
||||
- **Secondary choice:** Expose hospital's poor security publicly vs. quiet resolution
|
||||
- Confront or trace ENTROPY operative "Ghost"
|
||||
- Resolution based on player choices
|
||||
|
||||
### Key NPCs
|
||||
|
||||
- **Dr. Sarah Kim** (Hospital CTO) - Desperate to recover systems, considers paying ransom
|
||||
- **Marcus Webb** (IT Admin) - Overworked, feels guilty, provides access (social engineering target)
|
||||
- **"Ghost"** (Ransomware Inc. operative) - Anonymous contact demanding payment (voice/text only)
|
||||
- **Agent 0x99** (Handler) - Remote support, guidance on ransomware response
|
||||
|
||||
### LORE Opportunities
|
||||
|
||||
- **Ransomware Note** - Includes ENTROPY cell signature, philosophy about "teaching resilience"
|
||||
- **Payment Wallet Connection** - Connected to broader cryptocurrency network (setup for M6)
|
||||
- **CryptoSecure Recovery Services** - Ransomware Inc. legitimate cover company
|
||||
- **Cross-Cell Coordination Hints** - References to Zero Day Syndicate (M3 connection)
|
||||
|
||||
### Moral Complexity
|
||||
|
||||
**Major Choice:** Pay ransom (faster recovery, funds ENTROPY) vs. recover independently (slower, patients at higher risk)
|
||||
|
||||
**Secondary Choice:** Expose hospital's poor security publicly (damages reputation, forces improvement) vs. quiet resolution (vulnerabilities remain, protect hospital image)
|
||||
|
||||
**Consequences:**
|
||||
- Ransom payment affects M6 (cryptocurrency trail)
|
||||
- Hospital exposure affects future medical facility missions
|
||||
- Patient outcomes reflected in closing debrief
|
||||
|
||||
### Success Outcomes
|
||||
|
||||
- **Full Success:** Keys recovered, no ransom paid, patients safe, vulnerability patched
|
||||
- **Partial Success:** Ransom paid but systems recovered, OR keys recovered but some data lost
|
||||
- **Minimal Success:** Systems recovered but significant data loss or ransom paid
|
||||
|
||||
### Connection to Campaign Arc
|
||||
|
||||
- **Financial Trail:** Cryptocurrency wallet connects to Crypto Anarchists (M6)
|
||||
- **Cross-Cell Coordination:** Ransomware deployed too precisely (someone scouted vulnerabilities - Zero Day Syndicate)
|
||||
- **ENTROPY Sophistication:** Second evidence of professional planning
|
||||
- **Campaign Choice Tracking:** Ransom payment decision affects M6 financial investigation clarity
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Development Workflow: 9-Stage Process
|
||||
|
||||
Based on Mission 1 example and the story development prompts, Mission 2 will follow this process:
|
||||
|
||||
### ✅ Pre-Stage 0: Mission Selection (COMPLETE)
|
||||
|
||||
**Source:** `planning_notes/overall_story_plan/season_1_arc.md` lines 178-239
|
||||
**Deliverables:**
|
||||
- Mission concept identified
|
||||
- ENTROPY cell selected (Ransomware Incorporated)
|
||||
- SecGen scenario identified ("Rooting for a win")
|
||||
- Narrative theme established (Crisis Response)
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
### 🔄 Stage 0: Scenario Initialization (NEXT)
|
||||
|
||||
**Reference Prompt:** `story_design/story_dev_prompts/00_scenario_initialization.md`
|
||||
|
||||
**Key Decisions Needed:**
|
||||
1. **Technical Challenges Detailed Breakdown:**
|
||||
- VM challenges (ProFTPD exploitation specifics)
|
||||
- In-game challenges (guard patrol patterns, safe PIN puzzle design)
|
||||
- Hybrid integration (how VM flags unlock physical resources)
|
||||
|
||||
2. **Narrative Theme Deep Dive:**
|
||||
- Hospital setting details (layout, atmosphere, time pressure)
|
||||
- Ransomware crisis specifics (what systems are down, patient impact)
|
||||
- Moral dilemma presentation (how to frame the ransom choice)
|
||||
|
||||
3. **ENTROPY Cell Integration:**
|
||||
- Ransomware Incorporated philosophy ("teaching resilience through crisis")
|
||||
- Ghost's character and communication style
|
||||
- Connection to broader ENTROPY network
|
||||
|
||||
**Deliverables for Stage 0:**
|
||||
- `00_scenario_initialization.md` - Complete mission initialization
|
||||
- `technical_challenges.md` - Detailed challenge breakdown (VM + in-game)
|
||||
- `narrative_themes.md` - Expanded narrative and setting details
|
||||
- `hybrid_architecture_plan.md` - How VM and ERB integrate
|
||||
|
||||
**Good Practices from Mission 1:**
|
||||
- ✅ Make stakes concrete with specific numbers (e.g., "X patients at risk", "Y critical systems down")
|
||||
- ✅ Show villain's philosophy through documents/communications, not just dialogue
|
||||
- ✅ Plan ERB narrative content separately from VM challenges
|
||||
- ✅ Identify cross-mission connections early (M6 financial trail)
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
### ⬜ Stage 1: Narrative Structure Development
|
||||
|
||||
**Reference Prompt:** `story_design/story_dev_prompts/01_narrative_structure.md`
|
||||
|
||||
**Key Tasks:**
|
||||
- Expand 3-act structure from arc summary into scene-by-scene breakdown
|
||||
- Identify key story beats and dramatic moments
|
||||
- Plan emotional arc (urgency → desperation → relief/consequences)
|
||||
- Map narrative beats to gameplay moments
|
||||
|
||||
**Deliverables:**
|
||||
- `01_narrative_structure.md` - Complete narrative arc with scenes
|
||||
- Story beat timeline
|
||||
- Emotional progression chart
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
### ⬜ Stage 2: Storytelling Elements Design
|
||||
|
||||
**Reference Prompt:** `story_design/story_dev_prompts/02_storytelling_elements.md`
|
||||
|
||||
**Key Tasks:**
|
||||
- Develop character voices (Dr. Kim, Marcus, Ghost, Agent 0x99)
|
||||
- Define hospital atmosphere (sterile, tense, crisis mode)
|
||||
- Design pacing (time pressure without overwhelming)
|
||||
- Create environmental storytelling elements
|
||||
|
||||
**Deliverables:**
|
||||
- `02_storytelling_atmosphere.md` - Setting and atmosphere details
|
||||
- `02_storytelling_characters.md` - NPC profiles with voice examples
|
||||
- `02_storytelling_dialogue.md` - Sample dialogue demonstrating voices
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
### ⬜ Stage 3: Moral Choices and Consequences
|
||||
|
||||
**Reference Prompt:** `story_design/story_dev_prompts/03_moral_choices.md`
|
||||
|
||||
**Key Tasks:**
|
||||
- Design ransom payment choice presentation
|
||||
- Design hospital exposure choice presentation
|
||||
- Map consequences (immediate, debrief, campaign-level)
|
||||
- Ensure educational constraints respected (choices don't skip challenges)
|
||||
|
||||
**Deliverables:**
|
||||
- `03_moral_choices.md` - Complete choice design with branching paths
|
||||
- Consequence mapping table
|
||||
- Campaign impact documentation
|
||||
|
||||
**Good Practices from Mission 1:**
|
||||
- ✅ Avoid vague "approach" choices at mission start
|
||||
- ✅ Include mid-mission moral choice (e.g., warn Marcus about something)
|
||||
- ✅ Track player actions with global variables
|
||||
- ✅ Reflect choices in closing debrief with specific acknowledgments
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
### ⬜ Stage 4: Player Objectives and Tasks
|
||||
|
||||
**Reference Prompt:** `story_design/story_dev_prompts/04_player_objectives.md`
|
||||
|
||||
**Key Tasks:**
|
||||
- Define complete objective hierarchy (objectives → aims → tasks)
|
||||
- Map VM flag submissions as tasks
|
||||
- Map in-game tasks (guard evasion, safe cracking, NPC interactions)
|
||||
- Design progressive unlocking with intentional backtracking
|
||||
- Create objectives.json structure
|
||||
|
||||
**Deliverables:**
|
||||
- `04_player_objectives.md` - Narrative design of player goals
|
||||
- `objectives.json` - Complete JSON structure
|
||||
- `objective_to_world_mapping.md` - Where/how each task completes
|
||||
|
||||
**New for Mission 2:**
|
||||
- Guard evasion tasks (timing-based objectives)
|
||||
- PIN cracking task (safe minigame completion)
|
||||
- Ransom decision task (choice tracking)
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
### ⬜ Stage 5: Room Layout and Spatial Design
|
||||
|
||||
**Reference Prompt:** `story_design/story_dev_prompts/05_room_layout_design.md`
|
||||
|
||||
**Key Tasks:**
|
||||
- Design hospital layout (reception, IT office, server room, administrative wing)
|
||||
- Place containers (safes, filing cabinets, medical supply cabinets)
|
||||
- Design lock types and placement
|
||||
- Position NPCs (static and patrolling)
|
||||
- Place terminals (VM access, drop-site)
|
||||
- Design guard patrol routes (NEW for Mission 2)
|
||||
|
||||
**Deliverables:**
|
||||
- `05_room_layout.md` - Complete room design with dimensions (GUs)
|
||||
- `05_guard_patrols.md` - Patrol route specifications
|
||||
- Container placement map
|
||||
- Lock placement strategy
|
||||
- ASCII map diagram
|
||||
|
||||
**New Challenges for Mission 2:**
|
||||
- Designing patrol routes that create stealth gameplay
|
||||
- Balancing guard timing with player progression
|
||||
- Hospital layout must feel authentic while supporting gameplay
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
### ⬜ Stage 6: LORE Fragment Design
|
||||
|
||||
**Reference Prompt:** `story_design/story_dev_prompts/06_lore_fragments.md`
|
||||
|
||||
**Key Tasks:**
|
||||
- Create 3-4 LORE fragments for beginner difficulty
|
||||
- Design discovery locations and unlock requirements
|
||||
- Align fragments with CyBOK areas
|
||||
- Connect to broader ENTROPY lore
|
||||
|
||||
**Suggested LORE Fragments:**
|
||||
1. **Ransomware Inc. Business Model** - Legitimate "recovery services" cover
|
||||
2. **Ghost's Manifesto** - Philosophy about "resilience through adversity"
|
||||
3. **Cryptocurrency Wallet Analysis** - Connection to M6 financial network
|
||||
4. **Zero Day Exploit Source** - Connection to M3 (exploit sold by ZDS)
|
||||
|
||||
**Deliverables:**
|
||||
- `06_lore_fragments.md` - Complete LORE content and placement
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
### ⬜ Stage 7: Ink Scripting
|
||||
|
||||
**Reference Prompt:** `story_design/story_dev_prompts/07_ink_scripting.md`
|
||||
|
||||
**Key Tasks:**
|
||||
- Write opening briefing (Agent 0x99 explains crisis)
|
||||
- Write NPC dialogues (Dr. Kim, Marcus Webb)
|
||||
- Write terminal scripts (drop-site, ransom payment interface)
|
||||
- Write phone conversations (Agent 0x99 support, Ghost's ransom demand)
|
||||
- Write closing debrief (reflects player choices)
|
||||
|
||||
**Deliverables (in `07_ink_scripts/` directory):**
|
||||
- `m02_opening_briefing.ink`
|
||||
- `m02_npc_sarah_kim.ink`
|
||||
- `m02_npc_marcus_webb.ink`
|
||||
- `m02_terminal_dropsite.ink`
|
||||
- `m02_terminal_ransom_interface.ink` (NEW - ethical dilemma interface)
|
||||
- `m02_phone_agent0x99.ink`
|
||||
- `m02_phone_ghost.ink` (NEW - antagonist communication)
|
||||
- `m02_closing_debrief.ink`
|
||||
|
||||
**New Ink Patterns for Mission 2:**
|
||||
- Guard detection consequences (dialogue changes if caught)
|
||||
- Time pressure indicators in Agent 0x99 support calls
|
||||
- Ransom payment ethical debate (Ghost's persuasion vs. 0x99's warnings)
|
||||
|
||||
**Constraints:**
|
||||
- ✅ 3-line dialogue rule (user requirement from M1)
|
||||
- ✅ Auto-detection format for single NPCs
|
||||
- ✅ Hub patterns for replayable conversations
|
||||
- ✅ Use `#complete_task:task_id` for objectives integration
|
||||
- ✅ Use `#give_item:item_id` for item transfers
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
### ⬜ Stage 8: Scenario Review and Validation
|
||||
|
||||
**Reference Prompt:** `story_design/story_dev_prompts/08_scenario_review.md`
|
||||
|
||||
**Key Tasks:**
|
||||
- Completeness check (all stages 0-7 complete)
|
||||
- Consistency validation (narrative, technical, spatial, choice, canon)
|
||||
- Technical validation (room generation, Ink syntax, game systems)
|
||||
- Educational validation (CyBOK alignment, accuracy, pedagogy)
|
||||
- Narrative quality review
|
||||
- Player experience review
|
||||
- Polish and presentation check
|
||||
- Risk assessment
|
||||
|
||||
**Deliverables:**
|
||||
- `08_validation_report.md` - Comprehensive validation results
|
||||
- Issue tracking and resolution plan
|
||||
- Approval decision (PASS / CONDITIONAL PASS / REVISIONS NEEDED)
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
### ⬜ Stage 9: Scenario Assembly and ERB Conversion
|
||||
|
||||
**Reference Prompt:** `story_design/story_dev_prompts/09_scenario_assembly.md`
|
||||
|
||||
**Key Tasks:**
|
||||
- Pre-assembly logical flow validation (no soft locks)
|
||||
- Critical path walkthrough
|
||||
- Assemble complete `scenario.json.erb`
|
||||
- Create ERB templates for narrative content
|
||||
- Generate encoded messages (Base64, ROT13, Hex)
|
||||
- Document implementation guidance
|
||||
- Create developer handoff document
|
||||
|
||||
**Deliverables:**
|
||||
- `09_logical_flow_validation.md` - Pre-assembly completability check
|
||||
- `09_assembly_notes.md` - Implementation guidance
|
||||
- `scenarios/m02_ransomed_trust/mission.json` - Metadata file
|
||||
- `scenarios/m02_ransomed_trust.json.erb` - **FINAL PLAYABLE FILE** (if using ERB)
|
||||
- `DEVELOPER_HANDOFF.md` - Quick-start guide for developers
|
||||
- `MISSION_COMPLETE.md` - Master index and completion report
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Key Differences from Mission 1
|
||||
|
||||
### New Mechanics to Design
|
||||
|
||||
1. **Patrolling Guards:**
|
||||
- Need patrol route design system
|
||||
- Timing-based stealth gameplay
|
||||
- Detection consequences (not game-over, but complications)
|
||||
- Tutorial integration (first guard encounter)
|
||||
|
||||
2. **PIN Cracking Safe Minigame:**
|
||||
- Design puzzle mechanics
|
||||
- Difficulty appropriate for beginner mission
|
||||
- Narrative integration (why is backup key in physical safe?)
|
||||
- Hint system design
|
||||
|
||||
3. **Time Pressure Element:**
|
||||
- Not a hard timer, but narrative urgency
|
||||
- NPC dialogue reflects increasing desperation
|
||||
- Optional: progressive system failures if player takes too long
|
||||
|
||||
4. **Ransom Payment Interface:**
|
||||
- Unique terminal type (ethical decision interface)
|
||||
- Shows consequences of each choice
|
||||
- Ghost's persuasion vs. Agent 0x99's warnings
|
||||
- No "right" answer indicated
|
||||
|
||||
### Setting Differences
|
||||
|
||||
- **Hospital vs. Corporate Office:**
|
||||
- More restrictive environment (security cameras, guards)
|
||||
- Innocent bystanders (patients) create moral weight
|
||||
- Sterile, institutional atmosphere vs. startup culture
|
||||
- Different container types (medical supply cabinets, hospital records)
|
||||
|
||||
### Narrative Tone Shifts
|
||||
|
||||
- **Higher Stakes:** Patients at direct risk (lives, not just data)
|
||||
- **More Urgency:** Time pressure from failing systems
|
||||
- **Moral Ambiguity:** Is paying ransom wrong if it saves lives?
|
||||
- **Institutional Dysfunction:** Hospital's poor security practices contributed to crisis
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Good Practices from Mission 1 to Apply
|
||||
|
||||
### ✅ Concrete Stakes with Specific Numbers
|
||||
|
||||
**Mission 1 Example:** "Operation Shatter will kill 42-85 people"
|
||||
|
||||
**Mission 2 Application:**
|
||||
- "X patients on life support with Y hours of backup power remaining"
|
||||
- "Z critical medical records encrypted affecting ABC ongoing treatments"
|
||||
- Specific ransomware demand amount (e.g., "2.5 Bitcoin = $87,000")
|
||||
|
||||
### ✅ Villains as True Believers
|
||||
|
||||
**Ghost (Ransomware Inc. operative) should:**
|
||||
- Believe hospitals with poor security deserve consequences
|
||||
- Have philosophy about "teaching resilience through adversity"
|
||||
- Feel no remorse about patient risk ("acceptable cost of education")
|
||||
- Refuse cooperation if caught (ideologically committed)
|
||||
- Present coherent worldview in communications
|
||||
|
||||
**NOT:** Sympathetic hacker who regrets their actions
|
||||
|
||||
### ✅ Evidence Through Discovery
|
||||
|
||||
**Don't just tell players about ransomware in dialogue. Let them find:**
|
||||
- Ransomware deployment logs on compromised FTP server
|
||||
- Internal hospital security audit showing ignored vulnerabilities
|
||||
- Email chain where IT budget was repeatedly cut
|
||||
- Ghost's manifesto document explaining ENTROPY philosophy
|
||||
- Payment wallet analysis showing connection to other ENTROPY operations
|
||||
|
||||
### ✅ Mid-Mission Moral Choice
|
||||
|
||||
**Example:** Player discovers Marcus (IT admin) will be scapegoated for the breach, even though management ignored his security warnings.
|
||||
|
||||
**Choice:**
|
||||
- Warn Marcus privately (help innocent ally, complicate investigation)
|
||||
- Plant evidence clearing Marcus (manipulate investigation, protect innocent)
|
||||
- Focus on mission (Marcus faces consequences, mission smoother)
|
||||
|
||||
### ✅ Closing Debrief Reflects Choices
|
||||
|
||||
**Track with global variables:**
|
||||
```json
|
||||
"globalVariables": {
|
||||
"paid_ransom": false,
|
||||
"exposed_hospital_publicly": false,
|
||||
"marcus_protected": false,
|
||||
"systems_recovered": 0,
|
||||
"patients_saved": 0,
|
||||
"lore_collected": 0,
|
||||
"ghost_traced": false
|
||||
}
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
**Debrief acknowledges:**
|
||||
- Ransom decision and outcome
|
||||
- Systems recovery percentage
|
||||
- Patient outcomes (lives saved/improved)
|
||||
- Marcus's fate
|
||||
- Hospital's security improvements (or lack thereof)
|
||||
- Ghost's status (escaped/traced/captured)
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Critical Decisions Needed Before Starting Stage 0
|
||||
|
||||
### 1. Guard Patrol Mechanics Specification
|
||||
|
||||
**Question:** How do patrolling guards work mechanically?
|
||||
|
||||
**Options:**
|
||||
- **Option A:** Timed patrol routes (player must wait for guard to pass)
|
||||
- **Option B:** Line-of-sight detection (avoid guard's vision cone)
|
||||
- **Option C:** Noise-based detection (lockpicking alerts nearby guards)
|
||||
- **Option D:** Combination of above
|
||||
|
||||
**Recommendation:** Option A (timed patrols) for Mission 2 beginner difficulty. Simple to understand, teaches timing-based gameplay. Line-of-sight can be introduced in later missions.
|
||||
|
||||
### 2. PIN Cracking Puzzle Design
|
||||
|
||||
**Question:** What type of puzzle is the safe PIN cracking?
|
||||
|
||||
**Options:**
|
||||
- **Option A:** Mastermind-style logic puzzle (guess code, get feedback)
|
||||
- **Option B:** Clue-based puzzle (find hints around environment)
|
||||
- **Option C:** Mini-game (lockpicking variant with numbers)
|
||||
- **Option D:** Combination (find some digits via clues, guess remainder)
|
||||
|
||||
**Recommendation:** Option D (combination). Find 2-3 digits through environmental clues (Marcus's birthday on photo, hospital founding year on plaque), guess final digit(s). Balances investigation with puzzle-solving.
|
||||
|
||||
### 3. Ransom Payment Consequences
|
||||
|
||||
**Question:** What are the mechanical and narrative consequences of paying ransom?
|
||||
|
||||
**Immediate:**
|
||||
- **If paid:** Faster system recovery (positive), ENTROPY funded (negative), Ghost escapes (negative)
|
||||
- **If not paid:** Slower recovery (negative), no ENTROPY funding (positive), opportunity to trace Ghost (positive)
|
||||
|
||||
**Campaign (M6 Financial Investigation):**
|
||||
- **If paid:** Clear cryptocurrency trail to follow, but more funds available to ENTROPY
|
||||
- **If not paid:** Less clear financial trail, but ENTROPY has less operational funding
|
||||
|
||||
**Recommendation:** Neither choice is "wrong." Each has trade-offs. Debrief acknowledges both paths as valid.
|
||||
|
||||
### 4. Hospital Exposure Consequences
|
||||
|
||||
**Question:** What happens if player exposes hospital's security failures publicly?
|
||||
|
||||
**Immediate:**
|
||||
- **If exposed:** Hospital reputation damaged, security improvements forced, Dr. Kim may lose job
|
||||
- **If quiet:** Hospital reputation intact, security may not improve, Dr. Kim grateful
|
||||
|
||||
**Campaign:**
|
||||
- **If exposed:** Future medical facility missions more difficult (hospitals distrust SAFETYNET)
|
||||
- **If quiet:** Better relationship with medical sector, but vulnerabilities persist
|
||||
|
||||
**Recommendation:** Track for later missions. M10 could reference this choice (hospital security improved or not).
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Development Timeline Estimate
|
||||
|
||||
Based on Mission 1 development experience:
|
||||
|
||||
| Stage | Description | Estimated Time |
|
||||
|-------|-------------|----------------|
|
||||
| Stage 0 | Scenario Initialization | 8-12 hours |
|
||||
| Stage 1 | Narrative Structure | 6-8 hours |
|
||||
| Stage 2 | Storytelling Elements | 8-10 hours |
|
||||
| Stage 3 | Moral Choices | 4-6 hours |
|
||||
| Stage 4 | Player Objectives | 6-8 hours |
|
||||
| Stage 5 | Room Layout Design | 8-12 hours (includes guard patrols) |
|
||||
| Stage 6 | LORE Fragments | 3-4 hours |
|
||||
| Stage 7 | Ink Scripting | 12-16 hours (8 scripts) |
|
||||
| Stage 8 | Review & Validation | 6-8 hours |
|
||||
| Stage 9 | Scenario Assembly | 8-12 hours |
|
||||
| **TOTAL DESIGN** | **All stages** | **69-96 hours** |
|
||||
|
||||
**Implementation (Post-Design):** 70-90 hours (based on M1)
|
||||
|
||||
**Total Mission 2 Development:** ~140-186 hours (design + implementation)
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Success Criteria for Mission 2
|
||||
|
||||
### Educational Success
|
||||
|
||||
- ✅ Players understand ransomware behavior and encryption
|
||||
- ✅ Players learn incident response procedures
|
||||
- ✅ Players practice ProFTPD exploitation techniques
|
||||
- ✅ Players understand backup importance
|
||||
- ✅ CyBOK areas (Malware, Incident Response, Cryptography) covered
|
||||
|
||||
### Narrative Success
|
||||
|
||||
- ✅ Players feel urgency without being overwhelmed
|
||||
- ✅ Ransom choice feels genuinely difficult (no obvious "right" answer)
|
||||
- ✅ Ghost is memorable antagonist with coherent philosophy
|
||||
- ✅ Hospital setting feels authentic
|
||||
- ✅ Connection to M1 (ENTROPY coordination) and M6 (financial trail) clear
|
||||
|
||||
### Game Design Success
|
||||
|
||||
- ✅ Guard patrol mechanics intuitive and fair
|
||||
- ✅ PIN cracking puzzle satisfying without frustrating
|
||||
- ✅ Lockpicking reinforced from M1 (players improve)
|
||||
- ✅ Social engineering reinforced (Marcus interaction)
|
||||
- ✅ Hybrid architecture (VM + ERB) seamless
|
||||
|
||||
### Player Experience Success
|
||||
|
||||
- ✅ 80%+ completion rate for minimal path
|
||||
- ✅ Average playtime 50-70 minutes
|
||||
- ✅ Positive feedback on moral choices
|
||||
- ✅ Players remember Ghost and Ransomware Inc.
|
||||
- ✅ Players feel prepared for Mission 3 mechanics
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Risk Assessment
|
||||
|
||||
### Risk 1: Guard Patrol Complexity
|
||||
|
||||
**Risk:** Guard patrols too difficult for beginner mission
|
||||
**Mitigation:**
|
||||
- Simple, predictable patrol routes
|
||||
- Tutorial section with Agent 0x99 explaining timing
|
||||
- Forgiving detection (warning before consequences)
|
||||
- Optional paths around guards for struggling players
|
||||
|
||||
**Probability:** Medium
|
||||
**Severity:** High (could frustrate new players)
|
||||
|
||||
### Risk 2: PIN Puzzle Accessibility
|
||||
|
||||
**Risk:** Players can't find clues or solve puzzle
|
||||
**Mitigation:**
|
||||
- Multiple clue types (visual, dialogue, documents)
|
||||
- Progressive hint system via Agent 0x99
|
||||
- Optional brute-force path (try all combinations, time-consuming but works)
|
||||
|
||||
**Probability:** Low
|
||||
**Severity:** Medium
|
||||
|
||||
### Risk 3: Ransom Choice Feels Forced
|
||||
|
||||
**Risk:** Players feel railroaded into "correct" choice
|
||||
**Mitigation:**
|
||||
- Present both options neutrally
|
||||
- Ghost's persuasion vs. Agent 0x99's concerns balanced
|
||||
- Debrief validates both choices
|
||||
- No achievement/score penalty for either choice
|
||||
|
||||
**Probability:** Medium
|
||||
**Severity:** High (undermines moral choice system)
|
||||
|
||||
### Risk 4: Hospital Setting Feels Generic
|
||||
|
||||
**Risk:** Hospital doesn't feel distinct from corporate office (M1)
|
||||
**Mitigation:**
|
||||
- Unique container types (medical supply cabinets)
|
||||
- Hospital-specific atmosphere (PA announcements, medical equipment sounds)
|
||||
- NPC dialogue references patient impact
|
||||
- Visual design distinct from M1
|
||||
|
||||
**Probability:** Low
|
||||
**Severity:** Medium
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Next Steps: Starting Stage 0
|
||||
|
||||
### Immediate Actions (2-4 hours)
|
||||
|
||||
1. **Review Stage 0 Prompt:**
|
||||
- Read `story_design/story_dev_prompts/00_scenario_initialization.md` completely
|
||||
- Understand hybrid architecture requirements
|
||||
- Review Mission 1 Stage 0 documents as examples
|
||||
|
||||
2. **Make Critical Decisions:**
|
||||
- Finalize guard patrol mechanics specification
|
||||
- Finalize PIN cracking puzzle design
|
||||
- Confirm ransom and exposure consequence details
|
||||
|
||||
3. **Gather Reference Materials:**
|
||||
- SecGen "Rooting for a win" scenario details
|
||||
- Ransomware Incorporated cell lore from universe bible
|
||||
- Hospital layout references (if available)
|
||||
|
||||
### Stage 0 Development (8-12 hours)
|
||||
|
||||
4. **Write `00_scenario_initialization.md`:**
|
||||
- Mission overview (tier, duration, CyBOK areas)
|
||||
- ENTROPY cell selection (Ransomware Inc.) with justification
|
||||
- Recommended narrative theme ("Hospital Crisis Response")
|
||||
- Complete 3-act structure preview
|
||||
- Key NPCs with roles
|
||||
- LORE opportunities
|
||||
- Victory conditions and failure states
|
||||
- Educational objectives
|
||||
|
||||
5. **Write `technical_challenges.md`:**
|
||||
- Break Escape challenges (guards, PIN, lockpicking, social engineering)
|
||||
- VM challenges (ProFTPD exploitation specifics)
|
||||
- Challenge integration (physical + digital correlation)
|
||||
- Difficulty scaling options
|
||||
- Educational outcomes
|
||||
|
||||
6. **Write `narrative_themes.md`:**
|
||||
- Recommended theme deep dive (hospital setting)
|
||||
- Full inciting incident (ransomware attack)
|
||||
- Stakes across all levels (patient lives, hospital reputation, ENTROPY funding)
|
||||
- Central conflict (time pressure + moral dilemma)
|
||||
- Beat-by-beat narrative arc (all 3 acts expanded)
|
||||
- NPC deep dives with voice examples
|
||||
- Tone and atmosphere (urgent, sterile, morally complex)
|
||||
|
||||
7. **Write `hybrid_architecture_plan.md`:**
|
||||
- VM scenario role (ProFTPD exploitation for technical validation)
|
||||
- ERB narrative content plan (ransom notes, hospital records, Ghost's communications)
|
||||
- Dead drop system integration (VM flags unlock backup access)
|
||||
- Objectives system integration (VM tasks + in-game tasks)
|
||||
- In-game education approach (Agent 0x99 teaches incident response)
|
||||
|
||||
### Deliverable Checklist for Stage 0 Completion
|
||||
|
||||
- [ ] `README.md` - This document (already created)
|
||||
- [ ] `00_scenario_initialization.md` - Complete initialization
|
||||
- [ ] `technical_challenges.md` - Detailed challenge breakdown
|
||||
- [ ] `narrative_themes.md` - Expanded narrative details
|
||||
- [ ] `hybrid_architecture_plan.md` - VM + ERB integration plan
|
||||
- [ ] Critical decisions documented and finalized
|
||||
- [ ] Cross-references to M1 and M6 documented
|
||||
- [ ] Ransomware Inc. philosophy integrated from universe bible
|
||||
- [ ] SecGen scenario compatibility confirmed
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Reference Documents
|
||||
|
||||
### Essential Reading Before Stage 0
|
||||
|
||||
**Season 1 Arc:**
|
||||
- `planning_notes/overall_story_plan/season_1_arc.md` (lines 178-239 for M2 details)
|
||||
- `planning_notes/overall_story_plan/README.md` (hybrid architecture overview)
|
||||
- `planning_notes/overall_story_plan/quick_reference.md` (M2 quick facts)
|
||||
|
||||
**Mission 1 Examples:**
|
||||
- `planning_notes/overall_story_plan/mission_initializations/m01_first_contact/README.md`
|
||||
- `planning_notes/overall_story_plan/mission_initializations/m01_first_contact/initialization_summary.md`
|
||||
- `planning_notes/overall_story_plan/mission_initializations/m01_first_contact/technical_challenges.md`
|
||||
- `planning_notes/overall_story_plan/mission_initializations/m01_first_contact/narrative_themes.md`
|
||||
|
||||
**Development Prompts:**
|
||||
- `story_design/story_dev_prompts/README.md` (workflow overview)
|
||||
- `story_design/story_dev_prompts/00_scenario_initialization.md` (Stage 0 template)
|
||||
|
||||
**Universe Bible:**
|
||||
- `story_design/universe_bible/03_entropy_cells/ransomware_incorporated.md` (if exists)
|
||||
- `story_design/universe_bible/05_world_building/rules_and_tone.md`
|
||||
- `story_design/universe_bible/10_reference/style_guide.md`
|
||||
|
||||
**Technical Documentation:**
|
||||
- `docs/ROOM_GENERATION.md` (for Stage 5 room design)
|
||||
- `docs/OBJECTIVES_AND_TASKS_GUIDE.md` (for Stage 4 objectives)
|
||||
- `docs/INK_INTEGRATION.md` (for Stage 7 Ink scripting)
|
||||
- `docs/NPC_INTEGRATION_GUIDE.md` (for NPC placement)
|
||||
- `docs/CONTAINER_MINIGAME_USAGE.md` (for safe PIN puzzle)
|
||||
- `docs/LOCK_KEY_QUICK_START.md` (for lockpicking)
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Questions for Consideration
|
||||
|
||||
### Narrative Questions
|
||||
|
||||
1. Why is the hospital particularly vulnerable to ransomware? (Budget cuts? Outdated systems? IT warnings ignored?)
|
||||
2. What makes Ghost (Ransomware Inc. operative) believe in their philosophy?
|
||||
3. How does this mission's tone differ from M1? (More urgent? More morally ambiguous?)
|
||||
4. What specific patient stories make the stakes personal?
|
||||
|
||||
### Mechanical Questions
|
||||
|
||||
1. How many guards should patrol? (1-2 for beginner difficulty?)
|
||||
2. What's the safe PIN complexity? (4-digit? 6-digit?)
|
||||
3. Should there be a hard time limit, or just narrative urgency?
|
||||
4. Can players be "caught" by guards, or just delayed?
|
||||
|
||||
### Educational Questions
|
||||
|
||||
1. What ransomware behaviors should players observe?
|
||||
2. What incident response procedures should players practice?
|
||||
3. How do we teach ProFTPD exploitation context without slowing narrative?
|
||||
4. What's the balance between technical accuracy and playability?
|
||||
|
||||
### Integration Questions
|
||||
|
||||
1. How does the cryptocurrency payment connect to M6 mechanically?
|
||||
2. Should M1 choices affect M2? (Reputation with institutions?)
|
||||
3. How does Ghost's character connect to broader ENTROPY lore?
|
||||
4. What clues about M3's Zero Day Syndicate can we plant?
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Conclusion
|
||||
|
||||
**Mission 2: "Ransomed Trust" is READY FOR STAGE 0 INITIALIZATION.**
|
||||
|
||||
This document provides a complete foundation for beginning development based on:
|
||||
- ✅ Season 1 arc mission breakdown
|
||||
- ✅ Mission 1 good practices and lessons learned
|
||||
- ✅ 9-stage development workflow understanding
|
||||
- ✅ Hybrid architecture (VM + ERB) integration model
|
||||
- ✅ Game systems integration requirements
|
||||
|
||||
**Recommendation:** Proceed to Stage 0 with focus on:
|
||||
1. Making stakes concrete (specific patient numbers, system failures)
|
||||
2. Designing Ghost as true believer (Ransomware Inc. philosophy)
|
||||
3. Creating morally complex ransom choice (no "right" answer)
|
||||
4. Introducing guard patrols intuitively (beginner-friendly)
|
||||
5. Connecting to M1 (ENTROPY coordination) and M6 (financial trail)
|
||||
|
||||
**Next Step:** Begin writing `00_scenario_initialization.md` following the Stage 0 prompt template.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
**Document Version:** 1.0
|
||||
**Last Updated:** 2025-12-20
|
||||
**Status:** PREPARATION COMPLETE - READY FOR STAGE 0
|
||||
|
||||
**"When systems fail, who do you trust? When lives hang in the balance, what price is too high?"**
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
Reference in New Issue
Block a user