Rumors, Observations, and Verified Facts: How Do You Write Them Separately in a Text Adventure?
Conclusion first: treat every piece of information as a "clue item" with a source and a degree of confirmation, rather than writing it directly into the narration. Rumors use "someone says/it is said" and state the speaker's identity and stance; observations use actions, sounds, and positions the narrator can perceive on the spot; verified facts are upgraded only after a reviewable record appears or multiple people independently corroborate them. Whether players can test it depends on whether you leave the source and the confirmation path in the text.
Introduction
Conclusion first: treat every piece of information as a "clue item" with a source and a degree of confirmation, rather than writing it directly into the narration. Rumors use "someone says/it is said" and state the speaker's identity and stance; observations use actions, sounds, and positions the narrator can perceive on the spot; verified facts are upgraded only after a reviewable record appears or multiple people independently corroborate them. Whether players can test it depends on whether you leave the source and the confirmation path in the text.
Below, a fictional teaching example, "The Lantern Festival Lost-Item Case," runs throughout. Setup: at the river lantern festival, the stallkeeper Old Mie's silver lantern pendant is missing, and the apprentice A-Qiao is suspected. The following characters, dialogue, and numbers are made up for explanation, not measured data.
Three Types of Sentences, Each With Its Own Way of Writing
Rumor sentence pattern: speaker + reporting verb + content + hint of stance or interest.
Example: "Liu Po, who sells sugar paintings, says she saw A-Qiao touch Old Mie's box behind the lantern shed. Liu Po's stall faces the lantern shed, but she quarreled with Old Mie over stall space."
Use reporting verbs such as "says, claims, insists, complains," not "it turns out, actually, the fact is." A stance hint is not smearing the speaker; it gives the player the right to judge: Liu Po has a motive to exaggerate, which does not mean she is lying. If the same rumor is retold by someone else, the source must also be relabeled. For example, if Old Mie himself says "Liu Po saw it with her own eyes," this is still a rumor, the source is Liu Po, and Old Mie is only the reteller; it cannot be upgraded just because Old Mie is the owner of the lost item.
Observation sentence pattern: what the narrator perceives on the spot; write only what can be seen, heard, or smelled.
Example: "A short piece of green hemp thread hangs on the box clasp, and the end is new. A-Qiao's cuff is also worn with the same green hemp."
Observation does not explain meaning. Do not write "this shows A-Qiao opened the box"—that is an inference and should be left to the player or later evidence. Observation sentences can include position and sequence: the green hemp thread hangs on the outside of the clasp, and A-Qiao stands three steps from the box. Position and sequence are facts; motive is not.
Verified fact sentence pattern: records, physical evidence, or independent corroboration by multiple people, at least one of the three.
Example: "The player checks the register and verifies with the signing officer, confirming that at the third quarter of the xu hour A-Qiao was at the ferry helping people fish out lanterns." Here only the location at this one time point is confirmed; do not expand it to all her previous actions.
The register is signed by the ferry manager; the record and the signing officer's retelling may share the same source and cannot directly count as two independent pieces of evidence. "Old Mie says the box was still in the shed then" should still be listed separately as a character's claim. To judge whether A-Qiao had a chance to touch the box, you also need to check the positions of the lantern shed and the ferry, the event time points, and the travel distance; you cannot rule out every possibility based only on one presence record.
Evidence Upgrade Rules
Give each clue a confirmation level, and when writing choose the sentence pattern according to the level:
| Level | Basis | Allowed wording | Lantern festival case example |
|---|---|---|---|
| Rumor | Single retelling, no physical evidence | Someone says, it is said | Liu Po says A-Qiao touched the box |
| Observation | The narrator personally saw or heard it | Directly write sensory details | The green hemp thread on the clasp |
| Corroboration | Two independent sources agree | Can write "the two places match" | Register + ferry manager |
| Verified | The current plot has completed the corresponding verification | Only directly state the narrow fact that was verified | The presence time point obtained by checking the register and the signing officer |
Upgrading can only rely on newly added sources, not on the narrator changing tone. When players reread, they should be able to point out which two clues each conclusion was combined from. If the two sources are actually the same source—for example, Liu Po and her assistant both say they saw it—then it still counts as one rumor, not corroboration.
Let Players Test It, Not Blindly Believe It
Leave players three actions: ask about the source, compare times, and inspect physical objects.
Dialogue example (A-Qiao route):
A-Qiao: "I did not touch the box. At the xu hour I was at the ferry." You: "Who saw that?" A-Qiao: "The ferry manager. There is a signature in the register." You: "Liu Po says you touched the box." A-Qiao: "She quarreled with my master over stall space. Go ask her where her sugar-painting stall is set up."
In this passage, A-Qiao's defense is a character's statement, not a new world fact; players must check the register and the ferry themselves to upgrade it to corroboration. The three actions must land on concrete options: asking about the source gives "Who did you hear it from"; comparing times gives "Where were you at the third quarter of the xu hour"; inspecting physical objects gives "Look at the box clasp." The option text itself must expose the testable object; do not just write "investigate."
Add another counterexample to show the consequence of mixing levels:
Narration: A-Qiao stole the silver lantern pendant. At the xu hour she slipped into the lantern shed, and Liu Po saw it perfectly clearly.
This sentence turns a rumor (Liu Po's retelling) into a verified fact, and also draws the conclusion "stole" for the player. Change it to:
Liu Po says that at the xu hour she saw A-Qiao enter the lantern shed. The register records that A-Qiao was at the ferry at the third quarter of the xu hour.
The two sentences stand side by side, and players can ask which time points "entering the shed" and "at the ferry" each refer to. They are not necessarily contradictory: A-Qiao may have first gone to the lantern shed and then to the ferry. If the puzzle requires that the two locations cannot be reached at the same time, the author must first provide enough time and distance clues, and cannot let the narration draw a conclusion for incomplete evidence.
Completion Check
After writing a passage of mystery text, ask item by item:
- Does every piece of information have a source marked?
- Do rumor sentences include the speaker's identity and stance?
- Have inferences been mixed into observation sentences?
- Do verified facts have a record or two independent sources?
- Can players test them by asking, comparing, and inspecting physical objects?
If all five questions pass, the information levels are separated. Next step: pick a passage you have on hand where a rumor is written as truth, relabel the levels according to the table above, and add one test action players can execute.
