the binary branch frustration
Tags: gamedev, writing
Published: 2023-12-24 16:20:40

---
title: the binary branch frustration
published: true
date: 2023-11-21 00:00:00 UTC
tags: [ 'gamedev', 'writing' ]
canonical_url: https://onwriting.games/daily/20231121-1135-the-binary-branch-frustration/
---

There is something that **frustrates me a lot** : we are using extremely powerful computers to allow the player to choose between one path or another. Between two **binary** options, or as we programmers like to say, **boolean**.

Most tools like Twine make it **very easy** to write narratives with branches associated with choices made by the player, so it doesn't surprise me that most writers choose this.

I am interested in advancing interactive narrative, which is why I created this list, and my language [cuentitos](https://github.com/hiddenpeopleclub/cuentitos) (it's not ready to be used by just anyone!).

What do I mean by binary or boolean branches? Look:

```
You see the high orc priest in front of you.
  He greets you and you see a smile drawn on his face.
    req reputation_with_orcs >2
  He looks at you with a hatred you have rarely seen in your life
    req reputation_with_orcs <-2
  He just looks at you, as if wondering what you want.
    req reputation_with_orcs >= -2
    req reputation_with_orcs <= 3

```

This example suggests that, based on my reputation with the orcs, one of the 3 possible paths will happen.

Which option is executed depends on what the player has done before reaching this moment, so it's a way of **reacting to the state** , and we want that 👍.

This example gives the player 100% control over the outcome. Maybe the player doesn't know it the first time they play, but their previous choices **determined** which option was chosen.

I think this is fine, but it limits the experiences we create.

I am particularly interested in having tools where we can play with the player's agency, validating their choices, but not giving them 100% control over what happens in the world.

This comes from a frustration I have that goes beyond narrative:

Most of us associate the **quality of our decisions** with **the outcome**.

This is a serious mistake because we can make good decisions (Crossing the street when the light is red for cars) and still get a bad result (If a car doesn't stop at the red light and hits us). Or vice versa.

I believe that if we consider that **all experiences educate us** , video games where the player has 100% control are **reinforcing a broken pattern of reasoning**.

That's why I created cuentitos, to be able to write **probabilistic narrative**.

```
You see the high orc priest in front of you.
  (1) He greets you and you see a smile drawn on his face.
    freq reputation_with_orcs >2 +10000
  (1) He looks at you with a hatred you have rarely seen in your life
    freq reputation_with_orcs <-2 +10000
  (998) He just looks at you, as if wondering what you want.

```

In this case, as we saw in the article on [zero-sum reputation systems](https://dev.to/onwritinggames/zero-sum-reputation-systems-4l3a-temp-slug-5429507), the 3 options can be chosen, only **each one has a probability based on the state of the game**.

This is much more interesting to me, because in this case the player only has a 90% control, 1 out of 10 times they will get a result that **is not what would have come out** in the binary version of the narrative.

What do you think about this? Do you think this is a good idea? Or do you think there are reasons why this shouldn't be done?