§7.11. Character Knowledge and Reasoning
A character may be endowed with knowledge and even reasoning skills. Relations form quite a good way of keeping track of such problems: for instance, we can allow characters to be acquainted with one another with a relation such as
Lucy knows Lady Cardew.
Or we might keep track of more complicated attitudes between characters, as in Murder on the Orient Express, in which some characters suspect others of the crime.
Alternatively, we might have a list of salient facts that are important in our story. We might declare these as values, and then characters could know, learn, and forget entries as appropriate:
A fact is a kind of value. Some facts are defined by the Table of All Known Facts.
Knowledge relates various people to various facts. The verb to know (he knows, they know, he knew, it is known) implies the knowledge relation.
Table of All Known Facts
fact summary
shoe-size "Lucy wears a size 9 shoe."
sunset-time "Sunset is at 8:22 PM this evening."
Lucy knows shoe-size.
Bob knows sunset-time and shoe-size.
Or again we might keep a whole database of information in a table: the characters in Questionable Revolutions know dates, countries, and a short description for each of several rebellions and popular uprisings, while in Queen of Sheba, Solomon is able to answer who, what, where, when, and why questions about a range of topics. This kind of approach is most useful when the characters need to display a deep knowledge of a particular field. The facts stored in the Table of All Known Facts, above, are comparatively sparse, because there we are designing a story in which not all data about the world is equally valuable: Lucy doesn't know the shoe size of every person in the story, because for some reason it is only her own shoe size that matters. On the other hand, the Table of All Known Facts can store different kinds of information, whereas the revolutions table has no way of storing shoe sizes or sunset times. And Murder on the Orient Express works differently again, because it is storing knowledge that concerns people and things that already exist in the world model, rather than abstract ideas. Our way of modeling character knowledge, in other words, will depend quite a lot on what kind of knowledge it is.
The possibilities of character reasoning are similarly broad, but The Problem of Edith introduces one kind: the character has a concept of how different conversation topics relate to one another, so that when she is asked about a new keyword, she picks a response that makes the question most relevant to the conversation already in progress.
We end with a longer scenario, in which we track what the character knows about the player and the conversational state: in Chronic Hinting Syndrome, the main character guides conversation in the direction he intends it to go, with the player's sometimes-reluctant participation.
See Obedient Characters for a character who needs to be taught how to perform actions before doing them
See Characters Following a Script for a programmable robot who can be given whole sequences of actions to perform
![]() | Start of Chapter 7: Other Characters |
![]() | Back to §7.10. Character Emotion |
![]() | Onward to §7.12. Characters Following a Script |
|
|
Suppose we want the player to ask questions of slightly more complexity - we might want to build in a system that understood "who", "what", "where", and "when", for instance. We could use a topic table for this, too:
One of the nice things about this system is that it only resets the "current question" when we get a new question word. For instance, this test will produce different replies to the question about Solomon himself, because the second time he is still in the mode of answering "what" questions:
If Solomon is to live up to his reputation at all, his wisdom table will have to be quite a bit longer - though one also would want to be careful, because forcing the game to cycle through a really immense table could be quite time-consuming. In fact, for the sake of this example, let's reward the player for managing to stay within the (narrow) range of Solomon's knowledge:
In a real game we'd need to be a great deal subtler. All the same, if we have a character of quite limited resources to present to the player, it's a good idea to give the player some incentive to stay on topic, ask questions the character can answer, and generally interact within the parameters we're prepared for. Now, this last bit requires some trickery from later chapters, particularly those on Understanding and Activities, to pull the question words out of the player's command:
And now we have a game that will accept (though not always respond very sensibly to) questions of almost any form we might put to another character: ASK SOLOMON WHAT RAIN IS will be answered, but then again, it won't be distinguished from, say, ASK SOLOMON WHETHER THIS PERSISTENT RAIN IS A DIVINE PUNISHMENT OR WHAT. All the same, a system that allowed the player a bit more specification of questions than simple keyword-use might be useful in a mystery game, for instance, where we might want to let our detective conduct inquiries into specific details. An alternative approach to the rather free one above would be to force the player to use only questions of the form WHAT IS RAIN? or WHO ARE YOU?: this would cut down on false-positive matches. But we might still choose to store the responses in a table of this type. |
|
Suppose we want the player to ask questions of slightly more complexity - we might want to build in a system that understood "who", "what", "where", and "when", for instance. We could use a topic table for this, too:
One of the nice things about this system is that it only resets the "current question" when we get a new question word. For instance, this test will produce different replies to the question about Solomon himself, because the second time he is still in the mode of answering "what" questions:
If Solomon is to live up to his reputation at all, his wisdom table will have to be quite a bit longer - though one also would want to be careful, because forcing the game to cycle through a really immense table could be quite time-consuming. In fact, for the sake of this example, let's reward the player for managing to stay within the (narrow) range of Solomon's knowledge:
In a real game we'd need to be a great deal subtler. All the same, if we have a character of quite limited resources to present to the player, it's a good idea to give the player some incentive to stay on topic, ask questions the character can answer, and generally interact within the parameters we're prepared for. Now, this last bit requires some trickery from later chapters, particularly those on Understanding and Activities, to pull the question words out of the player's command:
And now we have a game that will accept (though not always respond very sensibly to) questions of almost any form we might put to another character: ASK SOLOMON WHAT RAIN IS will be answered, but then again, it won't be distinguished from, say, ASK SOLOMON WHETHER THIS PERSISTENT RAIN IS A DIVINE PUNISHMENT OR WHAT. All the same, a system that allowed the player a bit more specification of questions than simple keyword-use might be useful in a mystery game, for instance, where we might want to let our detective conduct inquiries into specific details. An alternative approach to the rather free one above would be to force the player to use only questions of the form WHAT IS RAIN? or WHO ARE YOU?: this would cut down on false-positive matches. But we might still choose to store the responses in a table of this type. |
|
|