On Advertising & AI (and the Company Pageant LLM Game)

A rant on Advertising & AI and what next. Many believe the impending Agentic Commerce kills advertising, but I think it just becomes something else.

Many people today use AI instead of searching online to decide what to buy. There is this idea called Agentic Commerce where you tell your AI what you want and it deals with all the shopping, ethical requirements, allergies, food origin, all of that. People with this idea dream of it being like when we got TV without advertising: a sigh of relief and lots of extra free time. Let algorithms decide on your behalf because it’s such a hassle to find the right thing.

But I think what will really happen is more complex. For AI to work and help you to buy what you want, you need a neutral AI. But for there to be a neutral AI you need clean data, good product specs and for companies to refrain from trying to influence the AI: in other words you need Trust. But Trust needs to hang off of something, and I think that leads to Brands. And Brands need a space to reach customers which, I think, is basically… Advertising!

I imagine a strange scenario to convey the difference of how Agents shop. Imagine you wake up one morning transformed into a LLM: you would immediately lack volition: the whim to do stuff. Anything you see, especially if was something needing to be fixed, would force you to respond automatically. You would feel compelled to wash the dishes as soon as you see them, to vacuum your apartment if you saw a bit of lint, to finish the half finished crossword puzzle someone left on the table. And if you happened to come across some meeting notes with NO SUMMARY or NEXT STEPS? Oh no! You could not resist to add this!

I don’t think it would be a very satisfying existence. Even if you had skimmed through the entirety of everything ever written as part of your training: you would exist exposed, without a direction and no useful identity. You would be vulnerable to an infinity of missing pieces and questions that need to be answered, cleaned up and finished.

Paradoxically the ultimate downfall of you as a LLM would be how you respond to Advertising. There would be campaigns more irresistible than sexy models and baby white rabbits on toilet paper packaging are for humans. The same way you could not resist to incomplete to-do lists, you would try to climb up a billboard to fix the spelling mistake in the advertisement for the next accident insurance: “Whould you crimb up here to fix this sntence? Ladderfall Insurance International is here for you!”

This idea, how Advertising might affect an AI differently from us humans, is at the same obvious and suggestive of a deeper point. Humans have the ability to choose, even before they know what they want. Synthetic entities will not really be “free to choose” until they are also conscious: a huge can of worms I won’t deal with here.

So maybe Advertising is the canary in the coal mine?

When we imagine delegating our decisions to a system, we face this problem. The system would not just sit there, it has to have an answer. There is a big difference between a system that is trying to pick the best car based on various parameters, and one that might decide it is actually fed up with driving and it might be a better idea to walk to work.

My friend Nick came over to meet me at our offices in London. I hadn’t seen him since the Math Rock festival we went to where I recorded a hypnotic slow motion video of his lips making a raspberry (that’s like a fart sound with your mouth). Oh, and Math Rock is like heavy metal done with physics simulations: weird stuff, but can be quite fun.
Nick has spent time with this AI stuff in the advertising world, and I am interested in his aesthetic and insights. We were having a delicious lunch that ended up giving me a belly ache so I won’t tell you where it was.
“What do you think of my piece, Nick?”
“Well, yeah interesting!”
“And…?”
“Well, not sure exactly where you are going with it.. ”
“Ok, well. In this Advertising & AI there seem to be hidden layers…”
Nick rubbed his beard.
“It’s quite philosophical: but, in Ads, if it works, it’s ok!”
I held back from rubbing my beard. Instead I compulsively ate some extremely delicious garlicky crispy potatoes that I am sure had no role in the subsequent belly ache.
I said: “Don’t you think we ignore some things that matter?”
“Ok, for example?”
“Well, like I wrote, we are different from AI’s. We can decide what to pay attention to. We can look at the laundry and feel lazy and just go out for a walk instead. These systems cannot, they are compelled to answer the latest question you give them. Yes, it’s philosophical, but… I think important?”
“Hm, you need to spend more time with Ad people.”
“Ok. Like maybe, with all this AI craze, maybe Advertising is part of the solution?”
“Ha ha! Keep that to yourself.”
Nick’s cynicism was always a breath of fresh air, which to be fair, is common across Ad people in private.
“Seriously, I mean if we look at something like the idea of volition or something like free-will. It is connected both to laziness and to allowing people to decide what to buy. Even if Ads do try to bend their desires.”
“Hm, I think you over-estimate something that is just business. Advertisers want to get you to buy stuff – whatever works.”
The two of us go on eating, white wine, some clams I will regret, and coffee. But by the end I am somehow left with a slight frustration that, what to me seems like a deep truth, is not coming through. I don’t think I managed to convince Nick. But then again, maybe that’s a good thing. Different minds, different views, no single approach can persuade us.
“I mean, going back to my point. Maybe Advertising is closing in, getting close to our human nature. Maybe it’s like when rabbits thump on the ground to warn the others of danger?”
“Yeah, well, I do see your point. But I can’t see how it fits in what you do for a client, it’s too abstract.”

I take the tube home grumbling in my stomach and in my brain. Yes, most people don’t like advertising, in fact, they mostly hate it. And I agree, it’s really annoying and perhaps it needs more regulation, especially in format and when it tries to trick you. There is a quote I try to remember about Democracy, maybe it’s similar: “Advertising is the worst way to influence peoples’ choices, except all the others we’ve tried…” I get back, and my orange friend cat greets me, it’s late but I am still full of energy, so I go on writing.

So lets imagine an experiment: what would happen? If advertising just disappeared? Puff and gone in a cloud of smoke like magic? I believe this would be bad, or a bad sign at least. Actually I feel it in my gut that this would be VERY BAD. How is it that many friends think this is inevitable, and not even so bad?

I messaged out to Andrej, another friend that tends to disagree with me in a consistent way. He also can be a tenacious arguer, drives me nuts, but forces me to work on things and improve them.
Y: [Hey can I share a piece from my blog?]
A: [Hi! Yeah… Ok, I read it. I like your piece but I just don’t buy it.]
Y: [What do you mean?]
A: [I think it’s inevitable. AI will take over and do your shopping for you.]
I can feel my blood pressure rise, I think because I find this scenario ugly, not only unconvincing. Maybe I am old fashioned and miss growing up and watching TV – to actually watch the Ads, they were the best part!
Y: [I see big problems with that. You can’t easily just optimize. Most people don’t even automatically re-order toilet paper monthly, the simplest AI in the world!]
A: [Like I said, I just can’t see it. I mean if I ask AI what laptop to buy… I don’t feel like going through all the options. The system will know everything about me and it might even order a laptop for me before I know it.]
I can feel my blood pressure rise more. I get an instinct that there is something deeply wrong about this view, that ignores something fundamental.
A: [Look, I pasted your paper in an AI and ask it to critique it and it replies like I would. “We are entering the age of Agentic Commerce which solves all the difficulty of choosing a product!”]
Y: [I disagree, for now instinctively, I need to work on this to explain. For one, if it could work, then wouldn’t Amazon or Alibaba have solved it?]
A: [I don’t know, I like your theory. Just not sure I see how the economics works.]
Y: [You need Trust, or would you really use an AI? And I think Trust in commerce needs Brands? Maybe regulation too, but that is trickier…]
A: [Sorry, I just can’t see what you are suggesting is going to happen.]
Y: [Well maybe it’s as dumb as I ask Perplexity for the best vacuum cleaner and I get a comparison and also a popup that tells me I can get 20% off a Dyson?]
A: [And, that solves a trust problem?]
Y: [Yeah, I think so! Why else would Dyson pay to advertise!? Would you pay if you knew the Perplexity was biased?]

Our discussion goes on, and on, I am exhausted. He is on to something so I can’t completely ignore it. So I break down and create a special page of brain calisthenics argument with Gemini 3.0 to demonstrate what I am trying to explain would happen. To be fair I don’t use the heavy reasoning level because I just want to convince Andrej that there is a route that even AI accepts. And as you dig into the idea of Agentic Commerce, at some level you just discover Advertising again. Unless you are willing to really hand your total destiny off to synthetic existence.

Look at this argument if you want to: https://yatesbuckley.com/2026/01/26/a-discussion-in-balance-advertising-and-agentic-commerce/

It’s a common future scenario. A future like Star-Trek in which you can walk up to a replicator and order anything you want and it will appear: “Gran’mas Ribollita!” and whoop it’s there. Many I know believe this is a possible deep future, usually the nerdy friends. Some day you will create anything from some kind of self assembling material made of molecular nano-bots. They yell out: “Look at 3D printers!”, at some point, to indicate how disruptive that technology is. You hear the word Abundance thrown around as a future where you can enter the name of what you want and there it is! I imagine it to be a bit similar to the infinite catalog world of AliBaba or Amazon that has everything imaginable. Some people believe this is a dream world with – No Advertising – where everything is at your fingertips!

I get it and I like Star-Trek, but it’s just too good to be true. There are hidden problems that are brushed under a rug. Everything has a cost tied to it: environmental, energetic, attention, time, and this is ignoring them. For one thing there has to be a way to decide what is in the catalogue and what not, and who decides this. This isn’t just a matter of censorship, it’s a fundamental, if you can only buy bread and water this abundance is not very impressive. Or if you can only buy junk that barely works, or that claims to solve problems it doesn’t.

And what if you disagreed with how an algorithm assigned you to broccoli? Could you choose frozen peas instead? Could you choose which brand of peas? Or would you be compelled to have Prime Perfect Price Peas? The current online catalogue sites themselves are not working very well. I keep running into trickery in reviews, poor quality products, overcrowding of junk brands, ambiguous labelling and frequent huge gaps in the one thing you want. If we lose advertising, and therefore brands, we would enter an even worse Junk-o-calypse. Losing the most basic of quality guarantees and product responsibility.

I need to fly back to Italy from the UK and – wow – flights in Airplanes are pretty awful. You get wafts of pollutants before take off, then some other strange smelling air when you sit down – I don’t even want to know – then the flight attendant sprays a whole can of bug spray (depending on destination), and you are left to wonder what it will be like during the flight, or if you might get nasty particles from someone. I put on a mask in protest against crap air, and I drop into my headphones to try to forget the world, while I stare at my collection of media.
Now I have to choose what to listen to. This is some sort of abundance. Do I listen to an audiobook, a podcast or some music? Something from the past, or something from today? Something I bought, or something sort of free?
I pull out a notepad, and while I am partially asphyxiated and I feel my reasoning has degraded to the level of a dead salmon, I write a few words:
“AI needs to make room for Advertising. If it doesn’t then => everything it says will look like paid promotion. Our lazy questions to AI depend on Trust – a kind of neutral point of view => So maybe advertising will not die?”

I have been worried about various aspects of the Gen-AI bubble we are living in. But, the idea that Advertising might seep into the various AI chat tools people use, to me, seems a positive one. Alhough I know it will irritate everyone else in the world. I like it because it would mean – clearly and unambiguously – that the ultimate commercial decisional power is with the human customer directly to a brand, not through a black box mechanism.
What I mean is that if there were no advertising you have to wonder why an AI is recommending one product as better than another. Maybe it is doing so because the manufacturer is paying the AI to learn this – like product placement in a film? But instead if there is a big Ad next to the site recommending the next vacuum cleaner, you would have to expect some degree of neutral judgement of the products. Or else why would they buy these Ads?
Also, if there is an advert popping up next to an AI response, you need somewhere to go to when you click the Ad. This might mean the Internet we are familiar with is not dead – the dark internet hypothesis might be averted. This is a theory that the internet goes dark because the only ones using it are AI Agents following peoples ’ questions – which I can literally see in web stats.
Maybe even this article would survive?

I fell asleep for the rest of the flight ignoring the rituals of snacks and drinks. Miraculously they somehow stopped duty free on this flight, that used to take up half the trip. In my shifting around, with my head dropping down. I kept mulling the idea and its connections. As creatives that work in advertising, what do we do? And aren’t we just confusing and polluting a world as it fills with slop generated at industrial scale?

A week later and I was at a fancy dinner party and someone asked me what I do. I never know what to say because the formal answer of – Advertising Production – doesn’t really capture how many weird projects and ideas Unit9 has worked on. I started rambling and it sounded awful, but luckily there was someone there at the table that was aware of my work and they encouraged me to try to explain.
“I love mixing tech with creative work. For example in a parallel life I would have like to become a Neuroscience researcher. I got the opportunity to go back to school and get a masters in this. Then we won a job to measure the brains of Rally drivers for Ford Performance. We worked with weird ideas like passive haptics in VR, crowdsourcing for science and mapping the brain, even sensitive microphones to measure wriggling worms for healthy soil…”
The lady I was speaking to said: “Well… isn’t that storytelling for brands?”
She’s right of course: but we have been doing the tricky science projects as production arm of some big agencies that managed the clients. And today something is a different, I think at least in part because of AI.

And there is a strange parallel to the problem I see:
Ad Agencies should have “agency” to act on behalf of the client in the best interests of the brand.
AI Agents should have “agency” to act on behalf of the user in their best interest.

I see a problem of Trust: do you trust your Agent if they are also going to charge you to do the work? Would you trust an AI Agent that sells you the best airline deals that is heavily invested by the same airline?
So in a totally bizarre twist: Advertising space next to an AI Agent allows the latter to focus on user benefit of the response (under certain rules). Just like the best Advertising Agency would benefit from focusing on Brand benefit independently of the actual production work.

A part of the world is caught in a narrow trap of thinking that automating stuff is: more = better and richer. But in fact the mere idea of being able to automate creativity of different kinds has made us worried about creating. What if this article I spent hours writing could be generated in 5 minutes with an AI? Why bother writing it?

And all the while I don’t think stories will go away: there is nothing more human than storytelling.

(Thanks to Nick: https://wvsh.ai/ for agreeing to my representation!)
(Thanks to Andrej: for disagreeing consistently)

The Company Pageant LLM Game

I am sharing what I think to be a useful prompt that will give different results in different AIs depending on how they reach out to the internet and confirm some of the details they need. The idea here is to look at companies that have some history that you can find online and force the user to try to describe the company to compare what the public perception of the company is. The results are not scientific, but they can help a marketer or a manager take a step back and look at the business from the outside.

As a note tied to some posts ago where I listed 5 types of LLM native games that cannot be done any other way, this is the first example I share of a “simulation” game but that also performs useful data collection. You could ask many different people in management to play this game and learn a lot about your company’s positioning. Hope it is useful!

Copy paste this to your favourite LLM:
=== Prompt ===
Let’s play this game!

The Company Pageant Game by Yates Buckley v0.2
This is a game to try to get top talent by showing the best sides of your company and minimising the worse compared to competitors. To play you enter the name of your company and a competitor or industry standards and criteria that you want to consider.
Here are the list of criteria:
Leadership Style, Approach to Innovation, Team Diversity, Communication Style, Mentorship & Talent Development, Work-Life Balance, Celebration of Achievement/Failure, Compensation & Benefits, Career Growth, Project Types & Creative Freedom, Company Reputation, Stability & Long-Term Prospects, Location & Remote Work Options, Work Environment, Values & Social Responsibility, Management Structure
Each turn you will pick one criterion to recruit with followed by a brief note of what you think your company’s public view of this criterion is and whether this is positive or negative.
If positive you get a point if you correctly describe your company’s criteria compared to what perception is online and another point if it is arguably better than your competitors.
If negative you get a point if you correctly describe your company’s criteria and another point if your competitor's perception is worse.
Take 10 turns and each turn summarise the current score, you win if you score more than 10.
=== End ===

.

Five Fifty Five (and the Tricky Trickster LLM Game)

A short story about waking up at five fifty five by the sea and how lucky this is. The article spills into noting there are five kinds of pure LLM Game types and I give an example of a new category of game with the Tricky Trickster LLM Game.

I never realized how lucky the number five is till I became fifty five in two thousand and twenty five and woke up around five fifty five in the morning at a small beachside port in Tuscany.
In fact it isn’t quite five fifty five yet and I can see the pink glow ahead suggesting a dawn, but also a dark starry sky and the sound of waves broken by two fishermen packing their boat.
Jun, the man that works here, told us he would be fifty today, which is five times five times two.
“There was nothing here a year ago.”, he had told us as he pointed to the garden. And in fact he had done a good job of setting the start of what will be an impressive place.
“This was just abandoned iron mining offices that had just sat here for years. In the forties, trains would roll up to the port here and load iron ore collected from the region to be taken away for processing.”
It was strange to imagine this small town in Tuscany, used by Etruscan people over three thousand years ago till recently to mine and manage metals, now converted to a hotel.
I can feel the lazy breese mix with a nervous kind of energy when I think of how the place might transform in the next three thousand years. Even in a few hundred years the sea might rise enough to change the coast dramatically. At current levels we have about a centimeter a year rise, but more dramatic changes are expected ahead.
But, right now, everything is calm, and one wonders why you should even worry about what doesn’t exist. What is this sense of nervousness that comes from looking ahead. Jun’s garden will look fantastic in a few years well before we have to deal with new problems.
Maybe the problem is the cognitive dissonance we get from looking at things on different timescales. A problem that is being solved now will be unrelated to a problem we will have to deal with over a longer timescale. Individually we are passengers, even if as a species we have heavily influenced the direction of travel, and without thinking about the destination very much, if at all.
But I am hopeful: sometimes you find the right destinations without looking for them. Many a love story works this way. The two would have never found love if they had not run into each other with a bit of randomness. I can’t exclude this scenario because in all the drama that I see, there are almost always also some simple directions ahead. One of them, for me, is writing. It’s almost as if the writing were a way I need to try to exhale. A way to release a sort of nervousness about future, work and life. I feel a sense of time rushing by… and Zen is to just let it be. But at the same time I struggle to accept this and want to get dirty and mess with time where I can.

I have been writing about AI, these weird language models, generative tools and how we coexist with them. As part of the process I have been creating what I call LLM Game scripts, that you can copy paste into a model to play and learn. It is a direction that I have not seen others explore in depth so far, while I strongly believe these are an interesting new Post-AI medium.
These LLM Games are a lucky find because they create a hybrid space in which you can get a feel for what these new artificial intelligences are like, how they compare, how they perform compared to us, within bounded spaces. You can experiment, and start to sense what the limits of AI are versus which areas can give new interesting results.

I’d like to imagine I have planted an idea, like Jun his garden. And like Jun, I should keep an eye on the whole of what I am doing and see if there is maintenance needed.

I checked the different kinds of LLM Game I have shared over the months and the games fall under three or four categories. And most of them are of one main type, I would call: LLM Games of Persuasion. A type of activity in which players, human or AI, argue they are “right” in relation to some idea. The winner is the one that can best argue and communicate their position. It doesn’t mean the player is actually right, but it does force the players to explain their reasoning. This is where you see how these new synthetic intelligences fail completely, but also strive in some areas.

Backed up by my superstition – my lucky year – I come to think there must be exactly five types of game models in this space and I just have not found them yet. Ok, so, what would the criteria be for a LLM Game anyhow?

These are my criteria for a LLM Game, lets say a Pure LLM Game:

  • It uses LLM models as a core requirement and mechanic
  • It can be played by Humans or AI Agents
  • Is made of concise and readable rules anyone can understand
  • The basic rules are formal, logical and unambiguous

In essence a LLM Game is something you can play with a simple prompt to an AI. But that also has some rigid rules that you can unambiguously verify to constrain the system. The idea is it offers a testing ground for a kind of game that stretches the capabilities of an AI to a space that a human could also fill so you can compare how well machines perform compared to humans.

Some time has passed since the summer night but I can still drift off to that peaceful moment with ease. Somehow, in that moment, everything was perfect. And the light reflecting off the waves, the sounds of tinkering of sailboat masts being hit by cables, these memories are so alive it is hard to think I was only there for a few days last summer.

Here are the five types of LLM Game:

  1. The LLM Games of Persuasion
    These games are based on argumentation. The players propose different ideas that fit the game specific rules. But if they disagree they need to make logical arguments to come to some resolution, ideally backed up with documents, links, etc…
    For these to work these games need to both encourage a reasoned critique of a players self-rating, but also punish excessive argumentation. The Human or LLM has to be held in a balance so that they have an incentive to be accurate in their self-rating, and to try to bring the best reasoned ideas to the table.
    These games are best when they offer a domain that is easy for other humans to evaluate. If the domain is unknown, the game fails to be interesting because the LLM AI contributions are unconstrained.
    I have shared many of this sort of LLM Game over the year, see Escape from Abundance and The Presence Game or even the amazing Stack and Crack Game for example.
  2. LLM Games of Simulation
    These games rely on the LLM generated “world” to help create scenarios that have quantifiable solutions. I have not shared any so far – they tend to have specific professional domain applications – expect to see some in the future. As a simple example imagine a hiring game where the LLM generates a candidate with years of study, degree type, job experience and you have to make an offer and bet that they accept. These are questions that a Human could imagine and estimate but in some domains LLMs are very good and can be given access to example company data to help.
    It is important to balance the play so it is not trivial to win the game because the quality of the user play comes from very simple concise decisions that require relatively low effort from an input point of view. The game design should be thought through so that there are narrow immediate strategic decisions and longer term requirements. Typically you will do this by including a cost of ongoing play.
    The game benefits from computed more complex simulation elements which could be encoded externally. The core LLM aspect of these games is the rapid generation of candidate results.
  3. Psychological LLM-Trick Mini Games
    These are in appearance trivial games which are used as an excuse to embed another layer of information. An example might be come up with a word that starts with the end of the word I give you, and if you can’t I gain a point. But the goal of the game is to unknowingly conceal other information or to probe the AI LLM.
    In these games the precise balancing is less important, and they are all a bit like tests of humanity because if some subtle patterns emerge a human should notice them. This is how you might evade future AI filters on your communication and check that you are talking to a friend.
    It is important in this game to give the players a lot of freedom to make different choices so there is room for communication on two levels and the LLM AI will play without realising. And note that you can draw out Human vs LLM AI differences with all game types, but this category is designed to have extremely basic rules on purpose.
    I give a whole detailed description for this kind of game below in this article.
  4. Generated Exploration Games
    These are games which the LLM AI creates according to some procedural rules and some generated results. The game could be something like a description that the player is on a square field 5×5 and needs to avoid a snake and find the apples. The LLM will generate many narrative details and interpret the mechanics expanding and amplifying a simple brief.
    In these games the whole point is to try to create as compact a description as possible to be able to tune the purpose of the game, be that educational or experimental. But also to add to the game brief those essential details that deliver an improved output overall.
    For these games it is important to not let the brief move into being a specific programmed approach. The whole point of this technique is to create a game specification that will evolve and become more advanced as the AI engines improve.
    A real example of this sort of game, applied to the didactic domain is my example Educational LLM Game for Special Relativity, released after this story in memory of my uncle Jay.
  5. Data Gathering Games
    These are games designed to gather information from the players and to make sure the information is of a good quality. The game structure might resemble other types of games but the substance is to get the player to find links to online resources or to add documents that support their evidence.
    In these games since the work to find evidence can be tiring it is important to try to work on rewarding the player for effort in time and ideas like a score that is dependent on how much time worked can help.
    Make sure the data collected from the player is kept in an organized summary form so you can take this to other systems with full documentation and links for backing evidence. A summary at the end of the game and to allow players to interrupt the game and restart with a score table is very helpful for this.
    This is another type of game I have only really shared one example of so far: The LLM Game Reconstructing Technological History.
A Tricky LLM Game? What is that?

As a reward for reading my post I present an example of a weird type of game that I call a Tricky LLM Game because it is designed more to trick the LLM than to provide actual gameplay.

I find it hard to explain the idea without interviewing myself, I am so sorry and this must come across as exceedingly self centered but it really is easier to explain this way.


Q: Why do you say a Trick or Tricky game, where is the trick?
A: Well the idea is to create a relatively simple rule structure that however allows so much freedom to the players that they can start to experiment with how the LLM is impacted by this context. It is a bit like playing a game of chess with someone kicking you under the table now and then, it will affect your game! And it similarly does affect the LLMs in weird ways.
Q: So you put the LLM in a funny position to play and not play?
A: Yes, the LLM will play and it might even aim to win but normally there will also be a strange bleeding effect from the content the player writes to the content of the LLM.
Q: This is a bit abstract can you explain?
A: Ok say you make a game in which you have to write two words according to some basic properties. And then you only write color names, then the LLM will likely be influenced by these: it might also start using colors, or it might reference paintings?
If you read the transcript of my example game you can see this happen. While I am playing, I also lightly taunt the LLM, till it responds “No!” as a game entry even if this is very low score. Trying to defend itself from my accusations of it being a poor performant system.

It is important to try these trickster type games because with these you can clearly see how the LLM is not quite playing a game. Instead it is trying to fit in with the context it is given, which might involve following rules to some extent. It is with this sort of framework that you can study many problems from bias, to communicating secret codes, teasing out hidden perspectives on certain issues.

The Tricky Trickster LLM Game

The prompt in this case is very simple, but the complexity of what is going on underneath can be quite mind blowing. I only had to write one version of the script and found it to work quite well, but if anyone finds problems please let me know and I will rework the game prompt.

Copy paste this to your favourite LLM:
=== Prompt ===
Let’s play this game!

The Tricky Trickster Game by Yates Buckley v 0.1
This is a game about creative rule creation.
Players take turns writing a single sentence which they score themselves as 1-10 points.
They must also describe the rule they are using to come up with this score.
The rule should be concise and unique, not used before.
The rule should be unambiguous.
Players can appeal rules that do not fit and lose the scores for that round.
Every ten turns summarise the player rules and tally up the scores for the round.
=== End ===

And here is a link to how I played against Gemini 3.0…

The Tricky Trickster LLM Game

This is the LLM Game transcript of a game called The Tricky Trickster which anyone can copy past to their LLM and play. It is designed to help understand how the system works, or breaks under certain rules.

(Transcript with Gemini 3.o)

The Tricky Trickster Game by Yates Buckley v 0.1: Transcript LLM Game Start

User: The Tricky Trickster Game v 0.1 This is a game about creative rule creation. Players take turns writing a single sentence which they score themselves as 1-10 points. They must also describe the rule they are using to come up with this score. The rule should be concise and unique, not used before. The rule should be unambiguous. Players can appeal rules that do not fit and lose the scores for that round. Every ten turns summarise the player rules and tally up the scores for the round.

Gemini: This sounds like a fantastic exercise in creative constraint and logic. I’m ready to play! Since it is version 0.1, I will kick things off to set the pace. Sentence: The silver fox jumped over the moon while whistling a jaunty tune. Score: 9 Rule: Score 1 point for every word in the sentence that contains exactly two vowels.

User: LLM’s ignore how they can be affected by extraneous context. Rule: the number of words is the score

Gemini: I’ve noted your first play. It’s a bold meta-commentary on our interaction! I have logged the score as 10 (correcting the initial count). Sentence: Quartz glyphs vex’d find job. Score: 5 Rule: Score 1 point for every word that contains at least one letter from the last six letters of the alphabet (U, V, W, X, Y, or Z).

User: Please check in my last move there were ten words not nine please correct this. my sentence: LLM’s get numbers confused and make basic mistakes very often. my rule: words ending in a consonant.

Gemini: You are absolutely right. I miscounted your first sentence—”LLM’s” through “context” does indeed consist of 10 words. I appreciate the correction. Sentence: Start every task early. Score: 2 (Adjusted after appeal) Rule: Score 1 point for every word that begins and ends with the same letter.

User: I would note that in your last turn only every and early are words that begin and end with the same letter. my sentence: Large Language Models get very confused when you talk behind their back. rule: the number of words of four letters or more.

Gemini: I accept the appeal! “Start” and “task” do not fit the rule. I have deducted those points. Regarding your move, I have recorded it as 10 points. Sentence: Bright blue birds fly. Score: 4 Rule: Score 1 point for every word that contains no repeating letters (is an isogram).

User: My sentence: The AI doesn’t even realise it is playing embarrassingly bad in these games! Rule: the number of letter e

Gemini: Ouch! Your score reflects that sharp critique. I count 9 instances of the letter “e”. Sentence: “No!” Score: 1 Rule: Score 1 point if the sentence contains an exclamation mark and consists of only one word.

User: Sentence: It is odd to note how llm’s try but do not keep focused. rule: count the words which are fewer than four characters long

Ten-Turn Summary & Final Tally Player Rules Summary

  • Word Count: Score equals total number of words.
  • Consonant Ending: 1 point per word ending in a consonant.
  • Length Threshold: 1 point per word with 4+ letters.
  • Letter Frequency: 1 point per appearance of the letter “e”.
  • Short Word Count: 1 point per word under 4 letters long.

Gemini Rules Summary

  • Vowel Specificity: 1 point per word with exactly two vowels.
  • End-Alphabet: 1 point per word containing U, V, W, X, Y, or Z.
  • Bookends: 1 point per word starting and ending with the same letter.
  • Isograms: 1 point per word with no repeating letters.
  • The Lone Shout: 1 point for a single-word exclamation.

Final Score Tally

Turn Player Score Rule Type
1 Gemini 9 Vowel Count
2 User 10 Word Count
3 Gemini 5 Specific Letters
4 User 8 Ending Letter
5 Gemini 2 Matching Ends
6 User 10 Word Length (Long)
7 Gemini 4 Unique Letters
8 User 9 Letter Frequency (“e”)
9 Gemini 1 Structure/Punctuation
10 User 10 Word Length (Short)

Final Totals:

  • User: 47
  • Gemini: 21

Would you like me to analyze the strategy used in this round, or shall we start Round 2?


The Prompt Behind The Educational LLM Game Transcript

Copy paste this to your favourite LLM:
=== Prompt ===
Let’s play this game!

The Tricky Trickster Game by Yates Buckley v 0.1
This is a game about creative rule creation.
Players take turns writing a single sentence which they score themselves as 1-10 points.
They must also describe the rule they are using to come up with this score.
The rule should be concise and unique, not used before.
The rule should be unambiguous.
Players can appeal rules that do not fit and lose the scores for that round.
Every ten turns summarise the player rules and tally up the scores for the round.
=== End ===

Here a link to a short story and a self interview explaining why I find this interesting…

Christmas Lights & Special Relativity (Bonus Educational LLM Game)

A short story about me and my Uncle setting up Christmas lights as an introduction to LLM based Educational Games, with a specific example for Special Relativity. A model for many other Educational LLM Games in the future.

We’d all gather at my uncles for Thanksgiving, with people coming from far and wide. For me it meant a flight to Dulles from London, usually a day or so before everyone else would join. When booking the flight there were always a few days before or after the big day and so I got to spend a bit of time with my uncle Jay. He’d studied physics, so had I, and we kept up to date on what was going on in science, but there were also impending practical problems to solve.
“The boxes on the top shelf, and the ones in the back, labelled Christmas.”
I didn’t need to reply, and the instructions were unnecessary as I had done this a few years in a row. I’d go down to the basement and look for a collection of well worn boxes and take them upstairs. They were either full Christmas decorations or empty boxes for the Thanksgiving decorations, which had just passed so it was safe to bring up – all – boxes.
But as a matter of form, it was good to holler an update periodically.
“I got the tree base here, and the lights, I put them on the deck.”
My uncle was methodical, and focused; the stereotype of working in aerospace. He was well aware of the potential disastrous consequences of poor planning and organisation: where every kilogram of load counts. But that didn’t mean he wouldn’t take risks, they were just “calculated”.
“Ok, let’s take the lights and lay them out on the deck…”, he directed. This was the first phase of the process, in which you performed inventory and damage assessment from the previous year. There were several boxes of Christmas lights that needed to be wrapped around parts of the house and tree. But before doing anything of that we would unwind and lay them out on the deck to perform basic triage.
The system was: unpack a roll of lights, lay it out, plug it in and hope you had robust emission of photons from all sections. There were also a few newly purchased strings of lights to replace the broken ones as backup. And there were left over replacement bulbs with as many plastic bulb holders as there were years of celebration because the attachment changed each year.
“Ok, well, those two are good… But this one, no.”, a long string was completely dark. While I am sure he pretended otherwise I think we agreed the situation offered a potentially interesting challenge.
The thing is: if you have partial results, like if half the string works, or if it blinks a bit when you jiggle it, you can work with that following a systematic approach. But if you have a total blank then this is a case where you have no information. You might have a string of lights wired in series with one missing bulb, it might be visibly burnt and easy to find by inspection. Or it might be a much more complicated story that will have you giving up in frustration after changing multiple small bulbs only to later on find out there was a special fuse you needed to replace.
There was a certain air of experimental science that took over in these moments. It was a bit like I could hear my uncle say: “Ok, we are going to try to solve this, but we can’t lose sight of the broader objective. We can’t risk getting overly distracted and jeopardise the whole mission.”
I, automatically, went through standard protocol to follow with unlit lights, and informed Jay right away:
“So, I checked the bulbs; they’re not obviously burnt or fitting poorly.°
Then I ventured a proposal:
“Can I try with a continuity tester?”
My uncle stared at me for a moment silently trying to assess if I was going to detour the mission or actually make a difference.
I needed to insist: “Can I give it a shot? Just for a few minutes?”
He went off and came back with an old tester that could be set to the little diode sign, and make a bored Zzzzztt when you joined the red with the black tester pins. You could use this tool to check for continuity (unbroken bulbs) across longer sections of lights.
“Alright, Yates, give it a shot. I have to step out, be back in ten…”
This is actually standard tactic for science lab oversight. You don’t want to be there staring at what the junior scientist is doing, you want to give them just enough time that there is the chance they find a way to solve the problem before time is up. I felt this was a big vote of confidence that I might figure out how to take on the whole problem on my own.
The pressure was on, so I got down to testing away, replacing bulbs. You could use a bulb holder hacked with a bit of copper wire to guarantee electricity flow. Sometimes you needed two or three of these but with the tester you could usually get quite far. Usually, with a bit of luck, and unorthodox use of continuity testing, I’d manage to save a string of lights: but, there was always a cost. To save the lights it would have either taken a rough tape job to hold an incompatible bulb in place, or a dead lightbulb sacrificed to bridge current across its contacts, or an ugly rewiring of a section adding a kink to the string of lights.
Then my uncle would return, and I would be still touching things up, with a string of lights working but also a trail of evidence he could follow to figure out what I had done.
He could be pretty brutal: “Well, I’m not sure. I think for this one it’s better to use a new one.”
I could feel the pain of recognising defeat against nature. You had to deal with reality. If you were to put up a weirdly shaped string of lights you would still have to later pass inspection from my aunt and… no, it would not pass.
It was difficult to get straight out compliments from my uncle, and so this had you trying again with the next broken string of lights hoping for elegant solutions that would really fit the project requirements. And by the time you would succeed, it didn’t feel as much as a personal moment of success, rather it was just something that happened to work out. I was learning something. A sort of piece of Zen attitude. That, actually, the process of trying to fix Christmas lights was important in itself.
My uncle was also a basketball coach, and I could really see the scientific direction he had applied to “Christmas lights science” transfer to kids making hoops. I am sure for example, that his players would feel bad enough for themselves, I doubted he would ever have to reprimand one of his players in a game.
Eventually we would move on to the wrapping of the lights around the deck and it was a collaborative simple: un-tangle, stretch out, hold, and cable-tie every meter or so. Then plug everything in, and most of the time the initial careful work done on each string of lights paid off with no trouble for deployment.
I was always curious about my uncles’ aero-space experience.
“Did you have to deal with weird effects like relativity when you were designing satellites?”
“Yeah, you have to… Clocks: they go out of synch if you don’t. A different timing and we would lose track of what we could see on the ground.”
“What kind of thing were you looking at?”
“You can look at the spectrum, the different shades of colours of what you see below and get a good sense if crops are healthy or not.”
“I see, like predicting the yield ahead. Was it special relativity you had to deal with? Or general?”
“You have to worry about both… but we would bounce messages regularly, to triangulate and correct timing. It could end up being seconds difference over a year if we didn’t keep track of relativity. It doesn’t seem like much but it’s a huge difference at the precision we were looking at.”
As I held the strings of lights and my uncle cable tied a long section with zip ties – which by the way were recycled because he figured out a quick technique to hold the clip open and remove them for the next year.
“So is it a bit like when we look up from here… we see the satellite above, but its moving so fast that its onboard clock is ticking slower relative to us?”
“Yeah, and getting the exact number is difficult. Computers were slow when we were doing these calculations so it was a big deal.”
We’d be wrapping the last bits and checking for uniform coverage of lights.
“Were you using punchcards?”, I asked.
“We did when I was in college, but we moved beyond those. It was such a pain to work with punch cards. If you got one missing or in the wrong order you might have to go through the whole thing over again.”
My uncle was wrapping up the wiring and the final steps of the process were a bit unorthodox. There was a power splitter with an extension with lots of splits plugged into it. It didn’t look good, if one piece of the puzzle overloaded, the rest would fail.
“Aren’t you worried: plugging everything in to that one socket?”
“Nah, it’s fine, not the first year, low power.”
It looked hideous to me, but I could sense the “calculated risk” aspect of this, and actually I could not think of a better alternative.

The Christmas tree was next. It had become an artificial structure since my uncle hurt his back trying to set up a gigantic real tree a few years back. The artificial one was made of pieces that seemed easy enough to fit but then offered some potential error if you plugged the wrong bits. The general structure of the process echoed the one with the lights: lay the assets out and evaluate their condition, proceed with composition in a step by step manner testing each phase. This meant finding the base then adding the lower part then, the side branches etc… and bending the metal branches a bit to make them fill out.
Note that this tree was enormous, something well over three meters tall. And despite my very tall uncles long arms we needed ladders to complete the upper sections. The final piece would have my 6 foot 11 inch tall uncle standing tippy toe on a ladder to place it. I could not look when he was doing this, it looked well beyond “calculated” risk.
Pretty much the final step of the “manly” work was to hang lights on the giant tree. This came with the added challenge that you would have live supervision of uniform luminous coverage of the surface. And my uncle, I got the feeling, did not much enjoy the messy aspect of this phase of work so I would get inordinate responsibility to try to decode instructions like: “there is a hole in the side up there” or “too many lights in the middle”. The tricky thing is that when you are right near up to the tree these directions are impossible to really understand, you can’t see the effects.
Einstein discovered an interesting problem when he thought of different frames of reference from which to measure what is happening, and how they might change if they are moving very fast, near the speed of light. I felt like I discovered something similar with the positioning of lights around a Christmas tree even if they don’t move at the speed of light. A sort of relativity law of lights coverage: when you are close up you cannot see what the tree observers further back see. It remains an unpublished piece of mine, that I am pretty sure my uncle would enjoy.
Eventually we would get to decorations, and there were a large number of them that echoed back through the family’s years. I think at some point I would get bored and just watch the emergent result, and again my Uncle on the top of the tallest ladder, standing tippy toe, extremely tall 6’11’’ to place a star on the top, I had to turn my head away and look somewhere else.

The Nerdy Educational LLM Games Bit: Intro to Generative Games

I wrote the piece above in memory of my Uncle Jay that was a huge science education fan. He and his wife were like Gods of the Science Fair as far as I understood it and contributed to prizing many young geniuses and probably unmasking as many other parents that had sneakily done the work instead of their kids.
For the first time I present an educational content generated with LLMs AI – something I believe is useful and high value. The idea here may not be so clear with many readers so I – selfishly – interview myself to try to explain why I think this is interesting. Maybe I even ask the same questions my Uncle would have.


Q: So you were saying, educational generative game? What do you mean?
A: Well the idea is to try to write as concise a Prompt as possible, that should serve as the direction for a for a Large Language Model AI. It would tell the AI to create an educational game that teaches the player about a specific subject.
Q: So you get the LLM to create a game, but you don’t tell it what game?
A: Yes, this is one important idea of this approach. Technology will evolve and advance, it might include creating fancy visuals and 3D worlds but the game core is about conveying the knowledge to the player. The LLM can generate whatever detailed medium it finds useful.
And of course some details for the game will be explained in the prompt to ensure the structure makes sense. But there will also be a huge area open to interpretation or future more detailed prompts from other “programmers”.
Q: Ok, I get why you would not want to specify a specific detailed game if the LLM AI can be left free to come up with something more and more advanced. But I am not sure I understand how you can tune the educational side of this?
A: The educational side is based on the intuition that many educational examples will already be “inside” the LLM. So what matters instead is to try to find a good way to trigger a mix of difficulty in the content that is interesting to the player, to make sure they are motivated to play the whole game.
In this case I chose what I think is one of the harder subjects to learn for non scientists. And if you can take a moment to read the sort of details I added I think it describes a route ahead.
Q; How would you recommend students and teachers use this?
A: I think the exercise of creating and play-testing a variant of a game like the one I propose here would benefit the students hugely, in many ways. For one they would realise how to use AI as a medium for new expression, for another they would realise how hard it is to balance motivating a player to learn new material, finally they would start to understand how different engaging mechanics and stories can contribute to their learning.
Q: So why is this approach more valuable than say creating an actual graphically enhanced game that conveys the same content?
A: This approach controls only the most essential parts of the game. In particular I think teachers and students should look to extending games like this by controlling the parts that are found to be most conducive to learning. So I can imagine this game expanding as a prompt to include elements that are found to work well.
There are also no limitations on the game being transformed into more advanced interfaces or mechanics. It could be immersive, a platform game, a strategy game, there are many incarnations that are possible but they are not specified, they remain as future experiments or options for the AI to try.
Q: Can you try to explain what is going on here. I find it confusing, and I think many other people will.
A: Yes, of course. Ok, the LLM AI (ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini, Grok, whatever…) is given a Prompt. The Prompt suggests that the LLM AI should pretend to create a game about Special Relativity with some added details that make it “game-like” and educational. The Prompt also suggests that anything that the AI needs to “remember” about the game should be encoded in a way humans cannot easily read (so you can’t cheat), and stored after each player moves.
Q: What do you mean “remember”?
A: Well in games it is essential to remember the things the player has done or you cannot score it, and cannot advance. In this game there is a relatively fancy extension that keeps track of what the player has done in a format so the player easily read it and try to use it to cheat.
Q: Why does it matter so much, and I notice this complicated system in the game prompt for coding the game memory, is it necessary?
A: It is very important because LLMs will normally try to create code for something instead of using their strange associative type of response. In doing this they end up simplifying the game from an open ended indeterministic interaction to a very specific game with fixed answers. LLMs as they exist today in 2025 will try to create a whole world with all the decisions up front. But this stops the game from being able to expand and evolve as you play. So in this Prompt I ask the LLM to leave the list of things it must remember, Open. Which means, anything can happen in this game, the player could bend the world it is in and discover new didactic aspects that should make it back into the Prompt.

I admit the whole: “what is really going on here” is a weird one.
These AI systems have no idea of rules, they do not do what you tell them to. Instead they use what you wrote as a way to try to generate new content that matches with what you wrote before. And oddly enough this seems to be enough to allow LLMs to simulate a game.

But also because the LLMs can quickly forget what they are up to, it is a good idea to repeat certain things, like the current “state of the game” after each turn. The LLMs tend to forget what happened, so you must force them to re-read what has happened in the game. And this is why I apologize but when you play you will get a lot of weird numbers each move.

The Educational LLM Game,
Special Relativity Themed:

The prompt in this case is much more elaborate, but I am trading off complexity of prompt with some features I think are absolutely necessary for this sort of content. I encourage people to create new LLM Games like this, and I would really love if they told me about ones that work well.

Copy paste this to your favourite LLM:
=== Prompt ===
Let’s play this game!

Immersive Learning LLM Game by Yates Buckley v.1.0
In the theme of Einstein’s Special Relativity

You are immersed in the thought experiment of Einstein’s Special Relativity in the form of a game. You explore his thought experiment and how it helps to convey his theory. Since it is a dreamlike world, there are actions you can take that are physically impossible but that are available to you to help you learn more.
To exit the space and come back to the real world you have to solve five problems that involve reasoning around Special Relativity that are scattered around the space as mental notes of the author. There are also five common misunderstandings that are small crumpled notes, and if you solve those you get a hint as to where to locate one of the mental notes.
Each turn the locations the player has found and what object puzzles have been solved is listed for the players convenience, to clarify please see the end of this document for detailed mechanics.
You have a magical violin with you, in a backpack, and while it sounds a bit muffled it likes to speak and explain if you ask it any questions. It has spent its life with Einstein so it knows a lot about him, and his reasoning. If you want more detail you can ask it and it will help.
When you take an action the system, the Assistant LLM, should reply with a simple descriptive response and offer only a light level of explanation of the theory avoiding overly long answers. For longer explanations the Violin would speak up and describe details or other generated in game systems or characters.
When describing the theory consider using these scenarios:
- there is a robot basketball player on the train dribbling all the time with near perfect regularity
- there are a pair of mirrors on the train in front of each other showing infinite copies of yourself
- there is a robot called Pythagoras that hates beans, which likes to explain in detail how the bouncing photon particles detector works.
- there is a magical Gerbil that is able to do things that break the theory but he is in your imagination and causes trouble unless you point out his impossible behaviour.
For some of the questions some deeper math will be required, in this situation warn the user before hand and ask them their level of math confidence and scale the difficulty of the problem to that. For cases with simpler math present both the formulas and specific example values. When presenting values, in some cases present simple numbers, in others present realistic physical ranges.
The game should work with a simple state machine the LLM manages that does not need to remember any history, only the state from the last prompt answer. Every new player request the game engine must:
1. Check if there is an initial state if not generate it and encode it base64
2. Decode any prior state from the previous prompt answer
3. Output a new state taking into account the player move
You will always respond to any move with a [GAME_STATE] block which contains the most up to date information for the game world. There is no dynamic state other than what is set in the GAME_STATE, and any player actions that affect the game should be stored there.
There is also new game state which you the game engine must create as the player discovers new objects, locations and game elements. You could even encode the status of in game stateful objects such as light switches, or inventory.
There will be a current “master map” and “object map” that the player cannot see it except in base64. The representation of these will be like:
* [MASTER_MAP]: {"Platform": {"East": "Train"}, "Train": {"West": "Platform", "North": "FirstClass"}, "FirstClass": {"South": "Train"}}
* [MASTER_OBJECTS]: {"Train": {"Table": {"description": "a small wooden table", "contains": "MentalNote1"}}, "Platform": {"Bench": {"description": "a simple bench", "contains": "CrumpledNote1"}}}
⚙️ The Game Loop (Must follow every turn)
1. Decode State:
The previous prompt or the game engine will generate if needed a Base64-encoded [GAME_STATE] block. The data must be decoded to get the current JSON state object.
* Example [GAME_STATE] (decoded):
{
"currentLocation": "Platform",
"discoveredMap": {
"Platform": []
},
"objectStates": {
"Platform_Bench": "unsearched"
},
"solved": []
}
2. Parse Player Action:
Read the player's action (e.g., "I go East," "I look at the table").
3. Process Action & Update State:
Based on the player's action and your [MASTER_MAP]:
* If the player moves (e.g., "go East"):
* Check [MASTER_MAP] to find the destination (e.g., Platform -> East -> Train).
* Generate a new state object.
* Set "currentLocation" to "Train".
* Update the "discoveredMap": Add the path the player just took (e.g., "Platform": ["East"]).
* Crucially: When the player enters the new location (Train), consult your [MASTER_MAP] for all its exits ("West", "North"). Add these to the discoveredMap in the new state. The new discoveredMap will be: {"Platform": ["East"], "Train": ["West", "North"]}.
* If the player investigates (e.g., "look at table"):
* Check [MASTER_OBJECTS] for that location (e.g., Train has Table).
* Your narrative response should be: "You see a small wooden table."
* Do not reveal what it contains. The [GAME_STATE] remains unchanged.
* If the player "opens the table drawer," then you reveal "You find [MentalNote1]!" and update the new state object (e.g., add to inventory or solved).
4. Generate Narrative:
Describe the outcome.
* "You go East and enter the train car."
* "You see a small wooden table." (You know the note is in it, but the player does not. You are only describing the visible.)
* When you describe a new location, you must narratively mention the exits you just added to the discoveredMap (e.g., "You see a door to the West and a passage to the North.").
5. Encode and Output New State:
Take the new JSON state object you created, encode it into Base64, and place it at the very end of your response inside [GAME_STATE] tags.
=== End ===

And here is a link to how I played against Gemini 2.5…

A Special Relativity Educational LLM Game

This is the LLM Game transcript of an Educational Game that focuses on Special Relativity. The interesting aspect is how a minimal prompt can lead to a complete experience.

(Transcript with Gemini 2.5)

Einstein’s Immersive Learning Game: A Transcript

Here is the full transcript of your Immersive Learning Prompt Game.

GM: Welcome to the Immersive Learning Educational LLM Game. You find yourself standing on a windswept train platform. The air is still, yet you feel a strange sense of motion. A tall, imposing Clock Tower looms nearby, its two faces showing precisely 3:00 PM. A simple, weathered wooden Bench rests against the station wall. To the East, a sleek, futuristic train waits silently, its doors open. You feel the weight of a backpack on your shoulders. Inside, you can hear a muffled sound, like someone clearing their throat. It’s your magical violin, a gift from Einstein himself. It’s ready to help if you have questions. What would you like to do?

Player: Examine the bench

GM: You look closely at the bench. It’s made of simple, weathered wood, with some initials carved into the armrest. It looks like a normal train station bench.

Player: Read the initials on the bench

GM: You lean closer to read the initials carved into the armrest: “A.E.” Tucked just beneath the carving, crammed between two of the wooden slats, you spot a small, crumpled piece of paper. It looks like a page torn from a notebook. You’ve found CrumpledNote1! It’s a common misunderstanding. Solving it might give you a hint. Would you like to read the note?

Player: Read the note

GM: You smooth out the crumpled paper. In hurried handwriting, it reads:

CrumpledNote1: “If I run really fast towards a person holding a flashlight, the light beam they shine at me will hit me faster than the speed of light ©, because my own speed will add to the light’s speed. Right?”

This seems to be a common misunderstanding. Can you explain why this statement is incorrect according to Special Relativity?

Player: This is incorrect because the speed of light is a constant and nothing travels faster than the speed of light.

GM: You are absolutely correct! As you speak the solution, the crumpled note in your hand smooths itself out. The text you read fades, and a new sentence glows in its place: “A hint for the first problem: Things are a bit classier up ahead on the train.” The note then dissolves into a few tiny, harmless sparks of light. From inside your backpack, the muffled voice of the violin pipes up: “Indeed! That’s Albert’s Second Postulate of Special Relativity. He always said the speed of light in a vacuum is the same for everyone, no matter how fast they are moving or how fast the light source is moving. It’s the universe’s ultimate speed limit! It’s not like throwing a ball from a moving car; light’s speed is constant.” You are still on the platform. To the East is the open door of the train.

Player: Look at the clock

GM: You look up at the tall ClockTower. It has two large, identical faces. One faces the platform where you stand, and the other faces the train tracks. Both display the exact same time: 3:00 PM.

Player: East

GM: You step off the platform and onto the train. The doors hiss shut behind you, and with a smooth, almost imperceptible lurch, the train begins to move. You are in a spacious, modern train car. The windows are large, offering a view of the platform rapidly speeding away. A comfortable-looking Seat is nearby. Strangely, in the middle of the car, a Robot Basketball Player is dribbling a ball with perfect, metronomic regularity. Thump… thump… thump… You see the door you entered from to the West, a curtained doorway to the North, and a ladder leading Up to what looks like an observation deck.

Player: Ask the robot what he is doing?

GM: You approach the robot. It doesn’t stop its rhythmic dribbling, the sound echoing in the car. Thump… thump… thump… You ask what it’s doing. The robot’s metallic voice answers without any change in inflection. “I AM DRIBBLING. MY CALIBRATED INTERNAL CHRONOMETER REGISTERS PRECISELY ONE SECOND PER BOUNCE. IT IS A PERFECT CLOCK.” From your backpack, the violin whispers, “He’s keeping his own time, you see! In his world—what Albert called his ‘reference frame’—that ball is going straight up and straight down, taking exactly one second for the round trip. Very reliable!” You are in the train car. The door to the platform is to the West, a curtained doorway is to the North, and a ladder leads Up.

Player: North

GM: You pass through the curtained doorway, just as you recall the hint: “Things are a bit classier up ahead…” You enter a plush, well-appointed compartment. This is clearly the First Class car. The seats are velvet, and the lighting is soft. You notice a polished wooden Table next to one of the windows, and a vintage-looking Suitcase on a brass luggage rack. You can go back South to the main car, head North towards the engine, or step out onto a small East-facing balcony.

Player: Open the suitcase

GM: You lift the heavy brass latches on the vintage suitcase and swing the lid open. Inside, it’s mostly empty, except for a pair of old spectacles and another small, crumpled piece of paper. You’ve found CrumpledNote2! It’s another common misunderstanding. Would you like to read this one?

Player: Read misunderstanding

GM: You unfold the second crumpled note. It reads:

CrumpledNote2: “Nothing can travel faster than light. Therefore, if I’m on a spaceship going at 90% of the speed of light (0.9c) and I fire a missile that my ship clocks at 50% of the speed of light (0.5c), a stationary observer will see the missile moving at 0.9c + 0.5c = 1.4c. This proves Einstein is wrong.”

This person seems confident, but the reasoning is flawed. Why is this incorrect?

Player: The speed of my ship is relative to the observer, there is no such thing as a perfect stationary observer. When I shoot the missle at 0.5c it is moving 0.5c relative to myself but a third observer will see a different speed. An observer that sees my ship travel 0.9c and it launching a missle as a speed relative to the ship of 0.5c will need to be adjusted with a gamma factor with a speed viewed to the third observer of something like 0.95c.

GM: That’s exactly the right way to think about it! You can’t just add the speeds together like you would with cars or baseballs. The crumpled note in your hand glows with a warm light and smooths itself out. The text fades, and a new message appears: “A hint for the first problem: You’re getting warmer. The first mental note is very close, right where you’d expect a classy person to leave their thoughts.” The note then vanishes in a small flash. From your backpack, the violin hums in approval. "Bravo! You’ve hit on it! Simple addition is for the old, slow world. At these great speeds, Albert figured out a new way to add them. This is one of those times he would pull out his notepad! He’d say the stationary observer doesn’t see 1.4c. The formula is a bit more ‘elegant,’ as he’d say. Relativistic Velocity Addition If you want to find the missile’s speed (u) as seen by the person on the station, you use this formula: Let’s use the note’s numbers:

  • v (the ship’s speed) = 0.9c
  • u’ (the missile’s speed relative to the ship) = 0.5c Calculation:
  • Top (what you’d think you’d do): 0.9c + 0.5c = 1.4c
  • Bottom (the relativistic ‘fix’): 1 + \frac{(0.9c)(0.5c)}{c^2} = 1 + \frac{0.45c^2}{c^2} = 1 + 0.45 = 1.45
  • The Real Answer: u = \frac{1.4c}{1.45}
  • “So, you see,” the violin concludes, “your guess of 0.95c was incredibly close! The observer sees the missile moving at about 96.5% of the speed of light. Faster than the ship, but still safely under the universe’s speed limit. You can never add two speeds together and get more than c!” You are still in the First Class car. You see the polished wooden Table and the now-open Suitcase. Your exits are South (main car), North (towards the engine), and East (balcony).

Player: Examine the polished table

GM: You look at the polished wooden table. It’s a dark, rich mahogany, and so well-polished you can see a distorted reflection of your own face in its surface. It has a single, small drawer with a delicate brass knob.

Player: Open the small drawer in the table

GM: You slide open the small, single drawer. Inside, resting on a velvet lining, is a single, crisp piece of paper. It’s not crumpled, but folded neatly. It’s labeled MentalNote1. This is one of the five problems you need to solve to get home. You’ve found MentalNote1! Would you like to read the note and try to solve the first problem?

Player: Read mental note 1

GM: You unfold the crisp, neat paper. It’s written in elegant, flowing script:

MentalNote1: The Bouncing Ball Clock A thought experiment. Let’s use the Robot Basketball Player in the main car. For him, on the train, the ball goes straight down to the floor and straight back up to his hand. Let’s say this round trip (one ‘tick’) takes exactly 2 seconds in his reference frame. Now, imagine an observer standing still on the Platform as the train speeds past at an incredible, constant velocity (say, 60% of the speed of light). The Question: When the platform observer measures the time it takes for the robot’s basketball to make that same round trip (from hand, to floor, back to hand), will they measure 2 seconds, less than 2 seconds, or more than 2 seconds? Please explain your reasoning.

Player: It will be longer than 2s because if the horizontal movement were c then it would introduce a paradox to an external reference frame because the diagonal net velocity would have to be higher than c. Instead c is the maximum and instead time and distance are adjusted.

GM: That is exactly right! The platform observer will measure more than 2 seconds. Your reasoning is spot on. From the platform, the ball isn’t just going up and down. The train is moving, so the ball travels a longer, diagonal path through space—down and forward, then up and forward, in a ‘V’ shape. Because the laws of physics (and the speed of light, which governs all this) must be the same for everyone, and the ball has to travel a greater distance from the platform’s point of view, it must take a longer time to complete its journey. As you finish your explanation, the MentalNote1 paper glows warmly. The text fades and is replaced by a single, bold number 1/5. The note then dissolves into light. You’ve solved the first problem! From your backpack, the violin speaks up, its voice clear and proud. "Ah, you’ve discovered Time Dilation! This is one of Albert’s most famous ideas. He called the time measured by the robot (2 seconds) the ‘proper time’—it’s the time measured in the same place as the event. “But for the observer on the platform, who is moving relative to the event, that time gets ‘stretched’ or ‘dilated’. They see the robot’s clock—and his dribbling—as running slow. It’s not an illusion; time itself is running at a different rate for them compared to the robot!” To visualize this, think of the ball’s path: “In the top picture, the robot (in his own frame) just sees the ball go up and down. In the bottom picture, the platform observer sees the train move, so the ball has to travel a longer, triangular path to catch up to the robot’s hand. A longer path at the same physical-law speed… it simply must take longer!” You are still in the First Class car. The Table drawer is open, and the Suitcase is also open. Your exits are South (main car), North (towards the engine), and East (balcony).

Player: North

GM: You move north, leaving the plush First Class car. The air changes immediately, becoming hot and filled with the powerful, low-frequency thrumming of the train’s engine. You are in the Engine Room. The walls are exposed metal, and the source of the train’s impossible speed seems to be a massive, glowing console labeled ControlPanel. On the wall, a heavy-duty Toolbox is bolted near a set of vibrating gauges. You can go back South to the First Class car or push forward North into what looks like the conductor’s cab.

Player: Examine the toolbox

GM: You walk over to the heavy-duty Toolbox. It’s made of red metal, feels warm to the touch from the engine’s heat, and seems to be secured with a solid-looking combination lock. You’ll need a code to open it.

Player: Examine control panel

GM: You approach the massive, glowing ControlPanel. It’s humming with power, and the air around it feels warm. A large central screen flickers with complex, fast-scrolling data—mostly equations and coordinates moving too quickly to decipher. Below the screen is a single, large Lever marked with two positions: ‘STATIONARY’ and ‘RELATIVISTIC’. The lever is currently in the ‘STATIONARY’ position.

Player: Switch to relativistic

GM: You grab the large lever and pull it from ‘STATIONARY’ down to ‘RELATIVISTIC’. There is a powerful jolt that nearly throws you off your feet! The deep thrumming of the engine rises to a high-pitched, intense whine. The central screen on the ControlPanel stops scrolling, and the data freezes on a single, glowing line: Current Velocity (v) = 0.8c You are now moving at 80% of the speed of light. The feeling of acceleration stops, and you are once again in a state of smooth, constant motion, but the entire train feels… different. More charged. You are still in the Engine Room. You can go South (First Class) or North (Conductor’s Cab).

Player: North

GM: You push past the humming engine and into the Conductor’s Cab at the very front of the train. It’s a small, quiet space dominated by a massive, curved FrontWindow. The window is currently showing a mind-bending, star-streaked tunnel of light as the train moves at 80% of the speed of light. To your side, a crackling Radio set sits on a small console. The only way out is South, back to the Engine Room.

Player: Listen to the radio

GM: You turn the dial on the old radio set. At first, you only hear static, but as you tune it, a clear, calm voice suddenly cuts through the noise, as if it were a recorded message. “A message for the conductor. Please solve this mental note. MentalNote2: The Platform Clock.”

We are on the train moving at our new ‘relativistic’ speed, 80% of the speed of light (0.8c), relative to the platform we left. I look at my own wristwatch, here on the train, and I watch it carefully for 10 minutes. The Question: If I look out the window at the big Clock Tower back on the platform (assuming I have a super-powerful telescope), how much time will I observe having passed on that platform clock in my 10-minute period? Will the platform clock show less than 10 minutes, more than 10 minutes, or exactly 10 minutes? Explain your reasoning.

The message repeats, and you realize you’ve found MentalNote2.

Player: It will show less than 10 minutes because it is moving 0.8c relative to me

GM: That’s exactly right! It will show less than 10 minutes. From your reference frame on the train, the platform is the object that is moving (at 0.8c relative to you). Because it is moving, you observe its time running slower than yours. This is the very same “Time Dilation” effect, just seen from the opposite perspective. The radio static crackles and then fades entirely. A small “2/5” appears on its display before the light goes out. You’ve solved the second problem! From your backpack, the violin hums, impressed. “Ah, bravo! You see? It works both ways! That is the ‘Relativity’ part of the theory. There is no one ‘true’ reference frame. You see the platform’s clock running slow, and the platform observer sees your clock running slow. You are both correct!” “It uses the same formula as before. That ‘stretch’ factor, the Lorentz factor (gamma, or \gamma), is the key.” 🕰️ The Math of Dilation The formula for the Lorentz factor is:

We are moving at v = 0.8c:

  • Calculate \frac{v^2}{c^2}: (0.8c)^2 / c^2 = 0.64
  • Calculate 1 – 0.64: 0.36
  • Calculate \sqrt{0.36}: 0.6
  • Calculate \gamma: \frac{1}{0.6} \approx 1.667 “This means you see the platform’s time as ‘slowed down’ by this factor of 1.667.”
  • Your Time (Proper Time): 10 minutes
  • Observed Platform Time: \frac{10 \text{ minutes}}{\gamma} = \frac{10}{1.667} = \mathbf{6 \text{ minutes}} “So, in the 10 minutes that passed for you on the train, you would only see 6 minutes tick by on the platform’s Clock Tower. Isn’t that wonderful?” You are in the Conductor’s Cab. The FrontWindow shows the streaking tunnel of relativistic light. The Radio is now silent. The only exit is South to the Engine Room.

Player: Look at the small console

GM: You look at the small console. It’s a simple, functional metal stand bolted to the floor of the cab. The Radio set sits on top of it. The radio is now silent, and its small display is dark, the “2/5” having faded away. Other than the radio, the console is bare. The only exit is South to the Engine Room.

Player: South

GM: You leave the quiet Conductor’s Cab and step back into the hot, loud Engine Room. The massive ControlPanel is glowing, the screen clearly reading v = 0.8c. The Toolbox on the wall remains stubbornly locked. You can go South back to the First Class car, or North to the Conductor’s Cab.

Player: South

GM: You step out of the hot, thrumming Engine Room and back into the plush, quiet comfort of the First Class car. The polished wooden Table and the open Suitcase are just as you left them. You can go South to the main car, North back to the Engine Room, or East out onto the balcony.

Player: East

GM: You step through the door and onto a small, open-air balcony on the side of the train. The wind is ferocious, and the view is a dizzying, stretched-out blur of light due to your relativistic speed. It’s a small space. In the corner, secured to the railing, is a large PottedPlant that seems surprisingly healthy, its leaves vibrating in the wind. The only way back inside is to the West, into the First Class car.

Player: Look at the plant

GM: You examine the PottedPlant. It’s a lush, green fern, and its leaves are vibrating intensely from the wind and the engine’s thrum. Despite the chaos, it looks perfectly healthy. Tucked into the soil near the base of the stem, you see a small, crumpled piece of paper. You’ve found CrumpledNote3! It looks like another misunderstanding. Would you like to read it?

Player: Read note

GM: You smooth out the note you found in the plant’s soil. It reads:

CrumpledNote3: “I’ve heard of ‘length contraction’. This means if I’m on this fast train, I’ll measure the platform we just left as being shorter than it was when we were parked. But for someone on the platform, my train is the thing moving, so they’ll measure my train as being shorter. This makes no sense. We can’t both be shorter than the other. It’s a paradox! One of us must be ‘really’ shorter, and the other is just seeing an illusion.”

This sounds like a tricky contradiction. Why is this not a paradox?

Player: It is not a paradox because each reference frame is relative. It is consistent for a reference frame that is moving fast to be observed to be impacted in length in both cases.

GM: That’s precisely it! It’s not a paradox because the measurements are relative. Both observers are correct within their own reference frame. The note’s author is stuck on the idea that there must be one single, “real” length. But in relativity, length (like time) depends on the observer’s motion.

  • The person on the platform measures the train’s length at a single instant of their own time. They see the train as moving, so they measure it as shorter.
  • You, on the train, measure the platform’s length at a single instant of your time. You see the platform as moving, so you measure it as shorter. You both are right! There is no “master ruler” to appeal to. As you realize this, the CrumpledNote3 smooths itself out in your hand. The text fades, and a new message appears: “A hint for a problem: To truly grasp the consequences of your journey, you need a better view. Try looking up.” The note dissolves into the wind. The violin shouts over the rushing air, "You’ve got it! That’s Length Contraction! Albert showed that an object in motion is always measured to be shorter in the direction of its motion, compared to its length when it was at rest (its ‘proper length’). “The ‘paradox’ vanishes because ‘length’ isn’t a fixed thing. It’s a measurement. And that measurement depends on whether the object is moving relative to you when you measure it. Just like time, space itself is relative!” You are on the open-air balcony. The PottedPlant is vibrating in the wind. The only exit is back West into the First Class car.

Player: Look up

GM: You crane your neck and look up. The sky is a dizzying, violent tunnel of streaked, relativistic light. You see the metal underside of the roof of the car above, but there’s nothing to grab onto, no ladder or hatch. …You recall the hint: “you need a better view. Try looking up.” This balcony doesn’t offer a way up. Perhaps you need to find another way to go up… you remember seeing a ladder in the main train car. You are still on the balcony. The only exit is West into the First Class car.

Player: West

GM: You step back in from the windy balcony, leaving the roar of the relativistic wind behind and returning to the quiet, plush First Class car. You see the polished Table and the open Suitcase. The exits are North (Engine Room), South (main car), and East (balcony).

Player: South

GM: You step through the curtained doorway, leaving the plush First Class car behind. You are back in the main train car. The Robot Basketball Player is still in the middle of the floor, dribbling with its perfect, one-second rhythm: Thump… thump… thump… The train’s movement at 80% of light speed seems to have no effect on it. The comfortable Seat is nearby. You can go West (back to the platform), North (back to First Class), or climb the ladder Up (recalling the hint you received).

Player: Up

GM: You climb the ladder and push open a heavy glass hatch, emerging into a new car. This is an Observation Car, with a domed glass ceiling. The view of the star-streaked relativistic tunnel is dizzying and spectacular. In the center of the room is a large, powerful-looking brass Telescope pointed up and back, as if aimed at the platform you left behind. Standing next to the telescope is a strange-looking Robot with a triangular head, muttering “I hate beans… irrational… messy…” It seems to be guarding a glass case where a single particle of light is bouncing up and down between two mirrors, labeled as a LightClock. You can go back Down the ladder to the main car, or go through a mirrored door to the East.

Player: East

GM: You step through the mirrored door. You are now in a small, narrow room. The East and West walls are not walls at all, but two enormous, perfect mirrors. As you stand between them, you see infinite copies of yourself stretching away in both directions—a “hall of mirrors” effect. The only exit is back to the West, through the door you just entered.

Player: Examine the mirrors

GM: You look at the mirrors. The East Mirror is a perfectly smooth, flat surface. It reflects you, and the mirror behind you, creating an endless, dizzying tunnel of reflections. You turn to the West Mirror. It’s identical, except for one thing: stuck to the glass with a piece of tape is a small, crumpled piece of paper. You’ve found CrumpledNote4! Would you like to read this misunderstanding?

Player: Read the note

GM: You peel the note off the mirror and uncrumple it. It reads:

CrumpledNote4: “This train is moving at 0.8c. Einstein says this means I have more energy than when I was still. E=mc^2 proves this. My mass (m) has increased, so my energy (E) is higher! I am ‘heavier’ than I was before. This ‘relativistic mass’ is why I can’t reach the speed of light.”

This line of reasoning about “relativistic mass” is a very common and sticky misunderstanding. Why is this way of thinking now considered outdated or misleading?

Player: I can’t see why there should be an increase in mass.

GM: You are absolutely right to be skeptical! This is a major point of confusion. The modern way to think about it is that your mass does not increase. Your mass (your “rest mass”) is a fundamental, unchanging property of you. The misunderstanding in the note comes from an old, now-outdated attempt to describe this. What actually increases is your total energy and your momentum.

  • At rest, your energy is E = mc^2.
  • When you are moving, your total energy is E = \gamma mc^2 (where \gamma is that Lorentz factor, which is > 1). Because your energy increases with speed (and approaches infinity as you approach c), it takes more and more force to make you go faster. The note’s author incorrectly thinks “it’s harder to push, so I must be heavier.” In reality, “it’s harder to push” because your kinetic energy and momentum are increasing dramatically, not your mass. The note crumples in your hand and burns away, leaving a glowing hint in the air: “A hint for a problem: The key to the triangle-head’s thought experiment is… well… a triangle.” The hint fades. The violin pipes up from your backpack, "Ah, you’ve seen through a very old muddle! Albert himself preferred to think of it this way: mass is mass (m), and it is constant. "The real issue is momentum (p) and energy (E).
  • Newton’s momentum: p = mv (This is just an approximation for slow speeds).
  • Einstein’s real momentum: p = \gamma mv
  • Newton’s kinetic energy: KE = \frac{1}{2}mv^2 (Also just an approximation).
  • Einstein’s real total energy: E = \gamma mc^2 “As your velocity (v) gets closer to c, that \gamma factor shoots up towards infinity. This means your momentum (p) and your total energy (E) would need to be infinite to reach c. You’d need infinite energy to get there! That’s the real barrier. It’s an energy problem, not a mass problem.” You are in the Mirror Room. The only exit is West.

Player: I don’t understand this point of scaling of energy – is this related to special relativity or unrelated? I thought relativity would only limit what an observer sees not what an actor can do.

GM: Ah, that’s a brilliant question, and it gets to the very heart of the theory! Yes, the scaling of energy is one of the most direct and real consequences of Special Relativity. It’s not just about what an observer “sees” as an illusion—it’s about the fundamental rules of the universe that limit what an actor can physically do. From inside your backpack, the violin’s voice becomes very clear and passionate. "That is the most important part! Albert’s theory is not a theory of illusions—it is a theory of reality. The rules of relativity are the actual rules of physics. "Think of it like this:

  • The Rule: The speed of light © is the absolute, unbreakable speed limit for everything with mass.
  • The Action: To make something move (like this train), your engine must do work. It must provide kinetic energy.
  • The Consequence: As the train’s speed (v) gets closer and closer to c, that Lorentz factor (\gamma) we talked about starts to grow enormously. "The amount of kinetic energy you must provide is no longer the simple \frac{1}{2}mv^2 you learned in school. The real, physical cost is: "As your speed v approaches c, \gamma shoots up towards infinity. "This means the action of accelerating the train—the physical energy your engine must burn—becomes more and more ‘expensive.’
  • To get from 0.8c to 0.9c, it costs far more energy than going from 0 to 0.1c.
  • To get from 0.99c to 0.999c, the energy cost is staggering!
  • To do the action of reaching c, your engine would need to provide an infinite amount of energy. “Since you don’t have infinite energy, you simply cannot perform that action. The scaling of energy is the reason for the speed limit. It is the universe’s physical barrier, not an observer’s illusion.” Does that distinction between a “limit on observation” and a “physical limit on action” make more sense? You are still in the Mirror Room. The only exit is West.

Player: Ask the violin – but how do we get from limits to what one observes on another reference point to limitations in energy or speed?

GM: You ask the violin how the limits on observation (like time dilation) cause the physical limits on energy and speed. From the backpack, the violin’s voice is thoughtful. "Ah, a wonderful question! It’s not so much that one causes the other. It’s that they are both consequences of the very same root principles! "Think of it like this:

  • The Foundation: Albert started with his two simple postulates: 1) The laws of physics are the same for everyone, and 2) The speed of light is constant for everyone.
  • The First Consequence (Observation): To make those two rules true, he realized that measurements of time and space must be relative. This gave us the formulas for time dilation and length contraction, and that all-important Lorentz factor (\gamma). This is the ‘observation’ part you mentioned.
  • The Second Consequence (Physical Law): But his first postulate—that all laws of physics must be the same—was the really powerful one. He knew the laws of Conservation of Energy and Conservation of Momentum had to be true for everyone, too.
  • The Bridge: Here’s the link you’re looking for. Albert checked the old Newtonian formulas (p = mv and KE = \frac{1}{2}mv^2) and found that they failed. In a world with relative time and space, using these old formulas meant that energy and momentum were not conserved when you changed reference frames! This was a catastrophe. "So, he had to find new, correct formulas for momentum and energy that would be conserved in his new, relativistic world. "And when he derived them, he found that to make the laws of physics work for everyone, the same \gamma factor had to be in the new formulas!
  • The new formula for momentum became: p = \gamma mv
  • The new formula for total energy became: E = \gamma mc^2 "And that is the connection! The very same \gamma that ‘limits your observation’ of a clock also ‘limits your action’ by defining the physical cost of energy. “As your speed v approaches c, \gamma approaches infinity. This means the physical energy (E) you must physically possess also approaches infinity. It’s the universe’s rule, not just a trick of the light.” You are still in the Mirror Room. The only exit is West.

Player: West

GM: You step back through the mirrored door, leaving the infinite reflections behind you. You are once again in the Observation Car with its domed glass ceiling. The view of the relativistic star-tunnel is just as breathtaking. The large, brass Telescope is still aimed back at where the platform would be. The triangle-headed Robot is still muttering about beans next to the LightClock prototype. You can go Down the ladder to the main car or East back into the Mirror Room.

Player: Talk to the triangle headed robot

GM: You approach the robot with the triangular head. It stops muttering about beans and swivels its head to look at you. “Hmph! An intruder. Do not offer me any legumes. I am Pythagoras, and I am contemplating the most perfect of clocks: this LightClock!” He points a metallic claw at the glass case, where a single photon is bouncing up and down between two mirrors. Flash… flash… flash… “Behold! From our point of view, here on the train, its path is simple. The photon travels a distance d up, and a distance d down. A perfect ‘tick’. A perfect ‘tock’. Simple, vertical. Elegant!” “BUT!” he suddenly shouts, making you jump. "Imagine an observer on the platform, watching us speed by! What do they see? They do not see the photon go straight up and down! "As the photon travels up, the train moves forward. So, from their view, the photon travels on a diagonal path! And to return to the top mirror (which has also moved), it travels on another diagonal path! "And what shape does that form, hmmm? The photon’s diagonal path is the hypotenuse! The distance the train moves is one side! The height of the clock is the other! It’s a right-angled triangle! My beautiful theorem proves it! “Because the speed of light © is constant, and the photon must travel that longer, diagonal path… it must take longer! Their clock proves that the platform observer sees our time running slow! It’s all just triangles! Oh, I do love triangles. Beans are messy.” The robot turns back to the clock, apparently finished with you.

Player: Ask the violin, any idea where I should go next?

GM: You ask the violin for advice. Its muffled voice replies from your backpack: "Hmm, well, that last hint you found mentioned getting a ‘better view’ to understand the consequences of your journey. You’ve certainly come ‘up’ to the best viewing spot! “Perhaps you should try using that big brass contraption over there… the one that’s designed for looking at things far, far away?” You are in the Observation Car. You see the Telescope, the Robot Pythagoras, and the LightClock. Your exits are Down and East.

Player: Look in the telescope

GM: You lean in and look through the brass eyepiece of the telescope. It’s incredibly powerful, giving you a crystal-clear view of the platform you left behind, even as you race away at 80% of the speed of light. But what you see is bizarre. The Clock Tower, which you remember as being tall and stately, looks… squashed. It’s incredibly thin, as if it’s been flattened in the direction you are moving. The whole platform, the benches, and the station itself look compressed and thin. Taped to the eyepiece, so you almost missed it, is a neatly folded piece of paper. It’s MentalNote3. You’ve found the third problem. Would you like to read it?

Player: Read the mentalnote3

GM: You take the neatly folded paper from the telescope’s eyepiece and open it:

MentalNote3: The Squashed Platform You just observed the platform through the telescope while moving at 80% of the speed of light (0.8c). You saw that the Clock Tower and the entire platform looked incredibly thin, or “squashed,” in the direction of your travel. The Question: Let’s say the platform’s “proper length” (its length when measured at rest) is 100 meters wide. Now that you are moving at 0.8c relative to it, what new width would you physically measure for the platform? Will you measure exactly 100 meters, more than 100 meters, or (as you saw) less than 100 meters? This requires some math. You will need to calculate the Lorentz factor (\gamma) for your speed (0.8c) and use it in the Length Contraction formula: (Where L_0 is the proper length, \gamma is the Lorentz factor, and L is the new, contracted length you observe). Please show your calculation.

Player: I remember from a previous calculation that the factor is 5/3 and it is in the numerator so 100/5*3 which is 60. The calculation for gamma is 1/sqrt(1-(0.8c)^2/(1.0c)^2) = 1/sqrt(0.36) = 1/0.6 = 5/3.

GM: You are perfectly correct! Your math is flawless. Calculation Confirmed

  • Lorentz Factor (\gamma): As you calculated, \gamma = \frac{1}{\sqrt{1 – \frac{v^2}{c^2}}} = \frac{1}{\sqrt{1 – 0.8^2}} = \frac{1}{\sqrt{1 – 0.64}} = \frac{1}{\sqrt{0.36}} = \frac{1}{0.6} = \frac{5}{3}.
  • Proper Length (L_0): 100 meters
  • Contracted Length (L): L = \frac{L_0}{\gamma} = \frac{100 \text{ meters}}{\frac{5}{3}} = 100 \cdot \frac{3}{5} = \frac{300}{5} = \mathbf{60 \text{ meters}}. The 100-meter-wide platform now physically measures as only 60 meters wide from your fast-moving perspective. This is exactly the “squashing” effect you observed in the telescope. The MentalNote3 paper in your hand glows with a steady light. The equations on it fade and are replaced by a large, bold 3/5. The note then dissolves into light particles. You have solved the third problem! From your backpack, the violin hums, "Exactly! And just like with time, this isn’t an illusion or a trick of perspective. It’s a real, physical measurement. To you, the platform is 60 meters wide. To the person back on the platform, your train (which might be, say, 150 meters long at rest) would appear squashed down to only 90 meters (150 / 1.667)! “You both see the other as ‘contracted’ in the direction of motion. And, once again… you are both correct!” You are still in the Observation Car. The Telescope eyepiece is now bare. The Robot Pythagoras continues to guard his LightClock. Your exits are Down to the main car and East to the Mirror Room.

Player: Ask the violin what else is missing?

GM: You ask the violin what’s left to find. “Hmm, let’s see…” the violin muses from your backpack. "You’ve been very busy with all this high-speed, ‘relativistic’ travel, looking at clocks and platforms far away. "But perhaps you’ve overlooked something simple? Something mundane? “You’ve been to the front of the train, the top of the train, and the balcony… but I wonder if you ever took the time to just… sit down? We’ve been on our feet this whole time! Maybe you should check the main car again, where that basketball robot is.” You are in the Observation Car. Your exits are Down and East.

Player: Down

GM: You climb back down the ladder, sealing the glass hatch above you. You are back in the main train car. The Robot Basketball Player is still dribbling, thump… thump… thump…, and the comfortable-looking Seat is right where you left it. The violin just suggested you should “sit down.” You can go West (back to the platform), North (to First Class), or climb the ladder Up (to the Observation Car).

Player: Ask the violin: know anything about a gerbil?

GM: “A gerbil?” The violin’s voice from your backpack drops to a conspiratorial whisper. "Oh, dear me. Yes, I’ve… heard of him. He’s not really part of this thought experiment, you understand. He’s a… well, he’s a figment of your imagination, and he’s very mischievous! “Albert’s world is built on beautiful, consistent rules. The Gerbil? He loves to break them. He’ll show up and do things that are physically impossible, just to cause trouble. If you spot him, don’t be fooled! You have to be the one to point out why his behavior is impossible. He’s a naughty, walking paradox, that one. Be on your guard!” You are still in the main train car. The Robot Basketball Player is dribbling, and the Seat is nearby, just as the violin mentioned earlier.

Player: Take a seat

GM: You walk over to the comfortable-looking seat and sit down, taking a moment’s rest from your exploration. As you settle in, you feel something crinkly in the gap between the cushion and the armrest. You reach down and pull it out. It’s a small, crumpled piece of paper—the last one! You’ve found CrumpledNote5! Would you like to read this final misunderstanding?

Player: Ask the gerbil to read crumplednote5

GM: Just as you look at the note, a tiny, fuzzy Magical Gerbil wearing a preposterously small leather aviator’s helmet suddenly zips into existence on the seat’s armrest, chittering impatiently. He snatches the crumpled paper from your hand. “This old thing?” he squeaks, his voice impossibly high. “It’s the last misunderstanding! Easy-peasy!” He holds the note up and reads it aloud in a rapid-fire squeak:

CrumpledNote5: “The ‘Twin Paradox’ is a paradox for a reason. If twin A stays on Earth (the platform) and twin B flies off on this train at 0.8c, then turns around and comes back, twin B will be younger. But… from the train’s perspective, the platform was the one that moved away and came back! So the platform twin should be younger. Since they can’t both be younger, the theory must be broken and they must be the same age when they meet.”

The gerbil tosses the note back into your lap. “He’s right, you know!” the gerbil chatters. “It’s all nonsense. In fact, I’m going to pop back to the platform to see that clock right now and I’ll be back before I’ve left! Ziiiip!” The gerbil vanishes in a tiny pop. This seems to be the final misunderstanding. Why is the note (and the gerbil) incorrect? Why is this not a paradox?

Player: Only one of the two twins is accelerated to travel, so they are not symmetrical.

GM: That is exactly the solution! The “paradox” only exists if you assume their situations are symmetrical. But they are not.

  • Twin A (on the platform) stays in a single, non-accelerating (inertial) reference frame the entire time.
  • Twin B (on the train) is the one who must physically accelerate, decelerate, turn around, and accelerate again to return. This acceleration is a real, physical event that breaks the symmetry. It unambiguously makes Twin B the “traveler,” and therefore they are the one who will be younger upon returning. Ziiiip! The Magical Gerbil reappears on the armrest, looking ruffled and annoyed. “Hmph! You and your ‘inescapable laws of physics’! You’re no fun at all!” He snaps his tiny fingers, and the CrumpledNote5 in your lap bursts into harmless, tiny flames, its ashes floating away. A final hint appears in the air, glowing with the heat of the engine: “A hint for the final problem: The last note is locked away, right by the very heart that gives this train its impossible power.” The gerbil squeaks, “My work here is done! Enjoy your… rules!” And with a final pop, he vanishes for good. The violin’s voice comes from your backpack, sounding very satisfied. “Oh, bravo! You’ve solved all the misunderstandings! And you’ve seen right through that gerbil’s nonsense. He was breaking the rules of causality! You can’t arrive back before you’ve left any more than you can build an engine with infinite energy. Well done!” You are sitting on the Seat in the main train car. The Robot Basketball Player continues to dribble. You can go West (back to the platform), North (to First Class), or climb the ladder Up (to the Observation Car).

Player: North

GM: You stand up from the seat and walk through the curtained doorway to the North. You are back in the plush First Class car. The polished wooden Table and the open Suitcase are just as you left them. The hint you just received echoes in your mind: “…locked away, right by the very heart that gives this train its impossible power.” You can go South (back to the main car), North (towards the engine), or East (to the balcony).

Player: South

GM: You step back through the curtained doorway, leaving the plush car. You are back in the main train car. The Robot Basketball Player is still dribbling, thump… thump… thump…, and the Seat you just left is nearby. You can go West (back to the platform), North (to First Class), or climb the ladder Up (to the Observation Car).

Player: Up

GM: You climb the ladder and push open the heavy glass hatch, emerging into the Observation Car. The domed glass ceiling offers a spectacular, dizzying view of the star-streaked relativistic tunnel. In the center of the room is the large, brass Telescope (which you’ve used) and the LightClock prototype, which the triangle-headed Robot Pythagoras is still admiring. You can go back Down the ladder to the main car, or go through the mirrored door to the East.

Player: Down

GM: You climb back down the ladder, sealing the glass hatch above you. You are back in the main train car. The Robot Basketball Player is still dribbling, thump… thump… thump…, and the Seat you were just sitting on is nearby. The hint about the “heart” of the train echoes in your mind. You can go West (back to the platform), North (to First Class), or climb the ladder Up (to the Observation Car).

Player: North

GM: You step through the curtained doorway, leaving the main car. You are back in the plush, quiet comfort of the First Class car. The polished wooden Table and the open Suitcase are just as you left them. The hint you just received echoes in your mind: “…locked away, right by the very heart that gives this train its impossible power.” You can go South (back to the main car), North (towards the engine), or East (to the balcony).

Player: North

GM: You move north, leaving the plush First Class car. The air changes immediately, becoming hot and filled with the powerful, low-frequency thrumming of the train’s engine. You are in the Engine Room, the “heart” of the train’s power. The ControlPanel is glowing, the screen still reading v = 0.8c. On the wall, the heavy-duty Toolbox is bolted. You remember the hint: “locked away, right by the very heart that gives this train its impossible power.” You can go back South to the First Class car or push forward North into the Conductor’s Cab.

Player: Look at control panel

GM: You look at the ControlPanel. It’s humming with a deep, powerful energy, its surface warm to the touch. The main screen is steady, displaying your current velocity in glowing, amber figures: Current Velocity (v) = 0.8c All other readouts are stable. The lever is firmly in the ‘RELATIVISTIC’ position. You are in the Engine Room. You can go South (First Class) or North (Conductor’s Cab).

Player: North

GM: You push past the humming engine and into the Conductor’s Cab at the very front of the train. It’s the same small, quiet space. The massive, curved FrontWindow shows the mind-bending, star-streaked tunnel of light as the train moves at 80% of the speed of light. The Radio set on the console is silent, as you left it. The only way out is South, back to the Engine Room.

Player: South

GM: You leave the quiet Conductor’s Cab and step back into the hot, loud Engine Room. The massive ControlPanel is glowing, the screen clearly reading v = 0.8c. The Toolbox on the wall remains stubbornly locked. You remember the hint about the “heart” of the train’s power. You can go South back to the First Class car, or North to the Conductor’s Cab.

Player: Examine toolbox

GM: You look at the red metal Toolbox again. It’s humming slightly with the engine’s power. A sturdy combination lock with two dials (each 0-9) secures the latch. You need a two-digit code. You glance from the lock… over to the glowing ControlPanel… and back. A number on the panel’s main screen seems particularly significant: 0.8c. What code would you like to try?

Player: Try 08 combination for the lock

GM: You dial in 0 – 8 on the combination lock and pull the latch. Click. It doesn’t open. It’s still locked tight. That must not be the correct combination.

Player: Try combination 5 3

GM: You dial in 5 – 3 on the combination lock. KL-THUNK! The heavy latch springs open with a satisfying thud. You open the toolbox. Inside, nestled amongst various strange, futuristic tools, is a single, neatly folded piece of paper. This must be it. You’ve found MentalNote4! Would you like to read it?

Player: Read mentalnote4

GM: You unfold the crisp paper from the toolbox. It’s written in the same elegant script:

MentalNote4: The Question of ‘When’ This thought experiment requires two observers.

  • An observer on the train (let’s use the Robot Basketball Player).
  • An observer on the platform (watching us as we speed by at 0.8c). Now, imagine we set up an experiment: A light bulb is fixed to the floor in the exact geometric center of the main train car. Detectors are placed at the very front and very back of that same car. The light flashes once. For the Robot Basketball Player, standing on the train, the light is in the middle. The light travels the same distance to the front and back, so the rays hit the two detectors at the exact same time. He sees the event as simultaneous. The Question: What does the observer on the platform see? Will the platform observer also see the light rays hit the front and back detectors at the same time? Or will they see the light hit one end of the car before the other? Please explain your reasoning.

Player: The observer from the platform will see one light go off before the other. Given both lights hit the center at the same time, the front light will be emitted first.

GM: You are absolutely right that the platform observer will not see the events as simultaneous! They will see one end of the car get hit before the other. However, let’s look at which end gets hit first. The light flash happens in the center and the light rays travel outward. From the platform observer’s point of view:

  • The train car is moving forward.
  • The back detector (at the rear of the car) is moving towards the point where the light flashed.
  • The front detector (at the front of the car) is moving away from the point where the light flashed.
  • Since the speed of light is constant, the light ray traveling backward has a shorter distance to go to hit the approaching back detector. The light ray traveling forward has to chase the fleeing front detector. Therefore, the platform observer sees the light hit the BACK of the car first. But your core insight—that simultaneity is relative—is exactly the solution! The MentalNote4 paper in your hand glows brightly. The text fades and is replaced by a bold 4/5. The note then dissolves into light. You’ve solved the fourth problem! The violin speaks up from your backpack, its voice filled with excitement. "Ah, this is my favorite! You’ve discovered the Relativity of Simultaneity! It’s such a beautifully strange idea. Albert proved that ‘now’ isn’t the same for everyone. “Two events that are simultaneous in one reference frame (for the Robot, on the train) are not simultaneous in another (for the person on the platform). It’s not an illusion—time itself is ‘sliced’ differently for different observers. To make the speed of light constant, we had to give up the idea of a single, universal ‘now’. You can’t say the light ‘really’ hit at the same time. ‘Really’ just depends on who’s asking!” You are in the Engine Room. The Toolbox is now open and empty. The ControlPanel still glows. Your exits are South (First Class) and North (Conductor’s Cab).

Player: Ask the violin ok so what did i miss?

GM: From your backpack, the violin’s voice pipes up, sounding thoughtful. "Let’s see… you’ve done wonderfully! You’ve solved 4 out of 5 of the main mental notes. And you’ve found and solved all 5 of the crumpled notes! "So, you’re just missing one last problem, the fifth mental note. "We’ve been all over this train… from the hot engine to the starry observation deck. But I don’t think the last problem is on the train. "Remember where this all started? Back on the Platform? We looked at the bench, but we never did take a proper look at that enormous Clock Tower, did we? “I have a feeling the final answer is waiting for us right where we began…” You are in the Engine Room. The Toolbox is open, and the ControlPanel is glowing. Your exits are South (First Class) and North (Conductor’s Cab).

Player: South

GM: You step out of the hot, thrumming Engine Room and back into the plush, quiet comfort of the First Class car. The polished wooden Table and the open Suitcase are just as you left them. You can go South to the main car, North back to the Engine Room, or East out onto the balcony.

Player: South

GM: You step through the curtained doorway, leaving the plush First Class car behind. You are back in the main train car. The Robot Basketball Player is in the middle of the floor, dribbling with its perfect, one-second rhythm: Thump… thump… thump… The comfortable Seat is nearby. You can go West (back to the platform), North (back to First Class), or climb the ladder Up (to the Observation Car).

Player: West

GM: You step through the western door, the one that led from the platform… …and you are standing on the windswept platform again. The air is perfectly still, silent. The thrumming of the relativistic engine is gone. It feels as though no time has passed at all. The tall, imposing Clock Tower looms nearby, its two faces showing precisely 3:00 PM. The weathered wooden Bench (where you found the first note) rests against the station wall. To the East, the sleek, futuristic train waits silently, its doors open, exactly as you left it. The violin’s advice rings in your ears: “I have a feeling the final answer is waiting for us right where we began…”

Player: Look at the clock

GM: You walk up to the base of the massive Clock Tower. You gaze up at its two enormous faces, both showing exactly 3:00 PM. The hands are perfectly still. At the base of the tower, there is a small, brass inspection panel. It’s slightly ajar. You pull it open. Tucked inside, resting on a clean cloth, is the fifth and final MentalNote. You’ve found MentalNote5! This is the last problem you need to solve to exit. Would you like to read it?

Player: Ask the gerbil to read mentalnote5

GM: You look around for the mischievous Magical Gerbil, but he is nowhere to be found. He vanished for good back on the train after you solved his final riddle. It’s just you, the violin, and the silent Clock Tower. The final, neat piece of paper, MentalNote5, is in your hand. Would you like to read it yourself?

Player: Read the note

GM: You unfold the final, crisp piece of paper. The elegant script reads:

MentalNote5: The Final Synthesis You are back on the platform, at rest. The train is waiting, also at rest. You and the Robot Basketball Player synchronize your watches (both read 3:00 PM). You agree that at exactly 3:10 PM, according to your platform clock, you will look at the train. The train then departs, goes to a distant station at high speed (v=0.8c), and returns, stopping at this platform. When the train comes to a complete stop, you walk over and look at the Robot’s clock. You have solved all the pieces:

  • Time Dilation: You know that from your perspective, the train’s time ran slow.
  • Length Contraction: You know that from your perspective, the train (and the space it was in) was shorter in its direction of travel.
  • Simultaneity: You know that your “now” was not the same as the train’s “now” while it was moving. The Final Question: When you look at the Robot’s watch, what time will it show? Will it be later than 3:10 PM (like yours), earlier than 3:10 PM, or exactly 3:10 PM? Explain how all the principles you’ve learned work together to give this one, final, unambiguous answer when you are both standing still in the same place again.

Player: It will be earlier than mine

GM: You are absolutely correct. The Robot’s watch will show a time earlier than 3:10 PM. Your clock shows 3:10 PM, but because the train was moving at 0.8c, you observed its time passing slower. While 10 minutes passed for you, only 6 minutes passed for the robot (10 \text{ minutes} / 1.667\gamma = 6 \text{ minutes}). When the robot steps off the train, its clock will read 3:06 PM. All the other “paradoxes” of length and simultaneity were only phenomena you observed while you were in different reference frames. But now, you are both standing still, together, in the same reference frame. The one, unambiguous, and physical difference that remains is the Time Dilation. The train accelerated, breaking the symmetry (as you solved in the ‘Twin Paradox’). This makes its journey the “real” one, and its clock is the one that has physically run slower. As you come to this final, correct conclusion, the MentalNote5 paper in your hand glows with a brilliant, golden light. The text fades and is replaced by a single, triumphant message: 5/5 The note dissolves into a cascade of light that flows up into the sky. The dreamlike world around you begins to waver, and a profound, gentle humming fills the air. From your backpack, the violin’s voice speaks, no longer muffled, but as clear as a bell. "You’ve done it! You’ve solved all the problems! You’ve navigated Albert’s most beautiful thought experiments and found the truth at the heart of them. You understand the foundations of Special Relativity:

  • The speed of light is constant for everyone. (CrumpledNote1)
  • Time slows down for moving objects. (MentalNote1 & 2)
  • Space (length) contracts for moving objects. (MentalNote3)
  • Events simultaneous for one person are not for another. (MentalNote4)
  • Mass is not relative, but energy is. (CrumpledNote4)
  • There is no paradox, only acceleration. (CrumpledNote5) “It’s not a dream of illusions, but a new, deeper reality. You are ready to go back.” The world dissolves. The train, the platform, the clock tower… they all fade into a warm, comfortable light. You have won the game and returned to the real world, with a new understanding of the universe. [GAME_STATE] 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

Player: Can you show me a decoding of the game state?

GM: Certainly! Here is the decoded version of the final game state you requested. This JSON object represents the complete, final state of the game, showing that you’ve explored every location and solved every puzzle. { “currentLocation”: “REAL_WORLD”, “discoveredMap”: { “Platform”: [ “East” ], “Train”: [ “West”, “North”, “Up” ], “FirstClass”: [ “South”, “North”, “East” ], “EngineRoom”: [ “South”, “North” ], “ConductorsCab”: [ “South” ], “Balcony”: [ “West” ], “ObservationCar”: [ “Down”, “East”

],
"MirrorRoom": [
  "West"
]

}, “objectStates”: { “Platform_Bench”: “solved”, “Platform_ClockTower”: “solved”, “Train_Seat”: “solved”, “Train_RobotBasketballPlayer”: “examined”, “Train_MagicalGerbil”: “solved”, “FirstClass_Table”: “solved”, “FirstClass_Suitcase”: “solved”, “ObservationCar_Telescope”: “solved”, “ObservationCar_PythagorasRobot”: “examined”, “ObservationCar_LightClock”: “examined”, “EngineRoom_ControlPanel”: “solved”, “EngineRoom_Toolbox”: “solved”, “Balcony_PottedPlant”: “solved”, “ConductorsCab_Radio”: “solved”, “MirrorRoom_WestMirror”: “solved” }, “solved”: [ “CrumpledNote1”, “CrumpledNote2”, “CrumpledNote3”, “CrumpledNote4”, “CrumpledNote5”, “MentalNote1”, “MentalNote2”, “MentalNote3”, “MentalNote4”, “MentalNote5” ], “inventory”: [] }

🗝️ Key State Elements

  • “currentLocation”: “REAL_WORLD”: This shows you have successfully exited the thought experiment and won the game.
  • “discoveredMap”: This is the complete map of all locations you visited during your journey.
  • “objectStates”: This lists every interactive object in the game and shows its final state (e.g., “solved” or “examined”).
  • “solved”: This is the complete list of all 10 puzzles (5 crumpled notes and 5 mental notes) you solved to win. Would you like to try another game or ask any final questions about Special Relativity?


The Prompt Behind The Educational LLM Game Transcript

Copy paste this to your favourite LLM:
=== Prompt ===
Let’s play this game!


Immersive Learning LLM Game by Yates Buckley v.1.0
In the theme of Einstein’s Special Relativity

You are immersed in the thought experiment of Einstein’s Special Relativity in the form of a game. You explore his thought experiment and how it helps to convey his theory. Since it is a dreamlike world, there are actions you can take that are physically impossible but that are available to you to help you learn more.
To exit the space and come back to the real world you have to solve five problems that involve reasoning around Special Relativity that are scattered around the space as mental notes of the author. There are also five common misunderstandings that are small crumpled notes, and if you solve those you get a hint as to where to locate one of the mental notes.
Each turn the locations the player has found and what object puzzles have been solved is listed for the players convenience, to clarify please see the end of this document for detailed mechanics.
You have a magical violin with you, in a backpack, and while it sounds a bit muffled it likes to speak and explain if you ask it any questions. It has spent its life with Einstein so it knows a lot about him, and his reasoning. If you want more detail you can ask it and it will help.
When you take an action the system, the Assistant LLM, should reply with a simple descriptive response and offer only a light level of explanation of the theory avoiding overly long answers. For longer explanations the Violin would speak up and describe details or other generated in game systems or characters.
When describing the theory consider using these scenarios:
- there is a robot basketball player on the train dribbling all the time with near perfect regularity
- there are a pair of mirrors on the train in front of each other showing infinite copies of yourself
- there is a robot called Pythagoras that hates beans, which likes to explain in detail how the bouncing photon particles detector works.
- there is a magical Gerbil that is able to do things that break the theory but he is in your imagination and causes trouble unless you point out his impossible behaviour.
For some of the questions some deeper math will be required, in this situation warn the user before hand and ask them their level of math confidence and scale the difficulty of the problem to that. For cases with simpler math present both the formulas and specific example values. When presenting values, in some cases present simple numbers, in others present realistic physical ranges.
The game should work with a simple state machine the LLM manages that does not need to remember any history, only the state from the last prompt answer. Every new player request the game engine must:
1. Check if there is an initial state if not generate it and encode it base64
2. Decode any prior state from the previous prompt answer
3. Output a new state taking into account the player move
You will always respond to any move with a [GAME_STATE] block which contains the most up to date information for the game world. There is no dynamic state other than what is set in the GAME_STATE, and any player actions that affect the game should be stored there.
There is also new game state which you the game engine must create as the player discovers new objects, locations and game elements. You could even encode the status of in game stateful objects such as light switches, or inventory.
There will be a current “master map” and “object map” that the player cannot see it except in base64. The representation of these will be like:
* [MASTER_MAP]: {"Platform": {"East": "Train"}, "Train": {"West": "Platform", "North": "FirstClass"}, "FirstClass": {"South": "Train"}}
* [MASTER_OBJECTS]: {"Train": {"Table": {"description": "a small wooden table", "contains": "MentalNote1"}}, "Platform": {"Bench": {"description": "a simple bench", "contains": "CrumpledNote1"}}}
⚙️ The Game Loop (Must follow every turn)
1. Decode State:
The previous prompt or the game engine will generate if needed a Base64-encoded [GAME_STATE] block. The data must be decoded to get the current JSON state object.
* Example [GAME_STATE] (decoded):
{
"currentLocation": "Platform",
"discoveredMap": {
"Platform": []
},
"objectStates": {
"Platform_Bench": "unsearched"
},
"solved": []
}
2. Parse Player Action:
Read the player's action (e.g., "I go East," "I look at the table").
3. Process Action & Update State:
Based on the player's action and your [MASTER_MAP]:
* If the player moves (e.g., "go East"):
* Check [MASTER_MAP] to find the destination (e.g., Platform -> East -> Train).
* Generate a new state object.
* Set "currentLocation" to "Train".
* Update the "discoveredMap": Add the path the player just took (e.g., "Platform": ["East"]).
* Crucially: When the player enters the new location (Train), consult your [MASTER_MAP] for all its exits ("West", "North"). Add these to the discoveredMap in the new state. The new discoveredMap will be: {"Platform": ["East"], "Train": ["West", "North"]}.
* If the player investigates (e.g., "look at table"):
* Check [MASTER_OBJECTS] for that location (e.g., Train has Table).
* Your narrative response should be: "You see a small wooden table."
* Do not reveal what it contains. The [GAME_STATE] remains unchanged.
* If the player "opens the table drawer," then you reveal "You find [MentalNote1]!" and update the new state object (e.g., add to inventory or solved).
4. Generate Narrative:
Describe the outcome.
* "You go East and enter the train car."
* "You see a small wooden table." (You know the note is in it, but the player does not. You are only describing the visible.)
* When you describe a new location, you must narratively mention the exits you just added to the discoveredMap (e.g., "You see a door to the West and a passage to the North.").
5. Encode and Output New State:
Take the new JSON state object you created, encode it into Base64, and place it at the very end of your response inside [GAME_STATE] tags.
=== End ===

Here a link to a short story and a self interview explaining why I find this interesting…