docs(10_Wiki): 위키 전체 재구성 — Topic_* 폴더를 4개 카테고리로 통합 + 대규모 중복 제거
Topic_Agent/Topic_Blog/Topics/Topics_Biz/Topics_Meeting/Topics_Rag의 마크다운 지식 문서를 Topic_General/Topic_Programming/Topic_Graphic/Topic_Business 4개 카테고리로 재분류. - 중복 제거: frontmatter의 status:duplicate/merged + duplicate_of/redirect_to 필드로 자기 자신을 중복으로 선언한 리다이렉트 stub 1032개 제거, 완전 동일 내용 파일 472개 제거, 동일 파일명·다른 내용 충돌 시 더 큰(완전한) 버전만 유지(162개 제거) — 총 1639개 중복 제거. - 분류: 폴더 단위로 명확한 항목(AI_and_ML/Coding/Architecture 등 → Programming, Comfyui/Visual_Effects → Graphic, Topics_Biz/Topics_Meeting/사업 등 → Business, Poetic_Blog_Writing/창의성/Game_Design 등 → General)은 폴더 우선순위로, 나머지 혼재 폴더(Topic_Agent/Topic_Blog/Topics 루트/Thinking & Reasoning/Other/UI_UX_Assets)는 title/tags 키워드 스코어링으로 파일 단위 분류(불명확한 경우 General로 폴백). 원본 폴더명은 "From_*" 서브폴더로 보존해 추적 가능성 유지. - 최종 배치: Programming 2784 / General 1608 / Graphic 285 / Business 249 = 4926개 문서. - 에이전트 운영 상태(.astra/.agent/.obsidian/sessions/memory/_company/docs/lessons/_shared/src)는 지식 콘텐츠가 아니므로 재분류 대상에서 제외하고 원위치 유지. - Topics/Topic_email(상위 보호 폴더 Topic_email과 파일명 100% 중복) 삭제 — 보호 폴더 자체는 미변경. - 완전히 비게 된 Topic_Agent/Topic_Blog/Topics_Biz/Topics_Rag 폴더 제거.
This commit is contained in:
Antigravity Agent
@@ -0,0 +1,158 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
id: wiki-2026-0508-procedural-rhetoric
|
||||
title: Procedural Rhetoric
|
||||
category: 10_Wiki/Topics
|
||||
status: verified
|
||||
canonical_id: self
|
||||
aliases: [Persuasive Games, Computational Rhetoric]
|
||||
duplicate_of: none
|
||||
source_trust_level: A
|
||||
confidence_score: 0.9
|
||||
verification_status: applied
|
||||
tags: [rhetoric, game-design, persuasion]
|
||||
raw_sources: []
|
||||
last_reinforced: 2026-05-10
|
||||
github_commit: pending
|
||||
tech_stack:
|
||||
language: design
|
||||
framework: Bogost framework
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
# Procedural Rhetoric
|
||||
|
||||
## 매 한 줄
|
||||
> **"매 argument 의 made not by words, but by rules"**. Ian Bogost 의 *Persuasive Games* (2007) 의 coined — 매 systems/processes/simulations 의 medium 의 argumentation. 2026 의 LLM-driven dynamic narrative + simulation games (Civ VII, FrostPunk 2) 의 procedural rhetoric 의 mainstream.
|
||||
|
||||
## 매 핵심
|
||||
|
||||
### 매 Bogost's framework
|
||||
- **Verbal rhetoric**: words, written/spoken.
|
||||
- **Visual rhetoric**: images, layout, color.
|
||||
- **Procedural rhetoric**: rules, systems, feedback loops.
|
||||
- 매 game 의 unique medium — 매 "what you do" expresses argument.
|
||||
|
||||
### 매 Mechanisms
|
||||
- **Constraint**: what you can't do says as much as what you can.
|
||||
- **Feedback loops**: reward shapes belief about what matters.
|
||||
- **Simulation gap**: simplifications reveal designer assumptions.
|
||||
- **Failure states**: what counts as losing encodes values.
|
||||
- **Resource economy**: scarcity → priorities.
|
||||
- **Agency vs. determinism**: how much player matters.
|
||||
|
||||
### 매 Examples
|
||||
- **September 12th** (Frasca): bombing terrorists creates more terrorists.
|
||||
- **PeaceMaker**: Israeli-Palestinian dual-perspective.
|
||||
- **Papers, Please**: bureaucratic complicity, moral fatigue.
|
||||
- **This War of Mine**: civilian war experience.
|
||||
- **FrostPunk**: authoritarianism as survival logic.
|
||||
- **Civilization**: progress narrative encoded in tech tree.
|
||||
- **Cookie Clicker**: critique of incremental design.
|
||||
|
||||
### 매 응용
|
||||
1. Serious games (training, education).
|
||||
2. News games (Bloomberg's Build the wall vs Don't, NYT graphics).
|
||||
3. Activist games (climate, refugees).
|
||||
4. Marketing simulations.
|
||||
5. AI-driven dynamic narrative (2026 Inworld, Convai).
|
||||
|
||||
## 💻 패턴
|
||||
|
||||
### Encoding argument as mechanic
|
||||
```
|
||||
Argument: "Bureaucracy dehumanizes"
|
||||
Mechanic: Time pressure + paperwork + small reward for thoroughness, big penalty for missing detail
|
||||
Result: Player feels the dehumanization rather than reads about it
|
||||
→ Papers, Please
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
### Resource scarcity as ideology
|
||||
```
|
||||
Argument: "Survival justifies authoritarianism"
|
||||
Mechanic: Heat ↓ over time, citizens demand law book, only authoritarian laws prevent extinction
|
||||
Result: Player chooses oppression "rationally"
|
||||
→ FrostPunk
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
### Simplification as critique
|
||||
```typescript
|
||||
// Climate simulator: emissions only knob
|
||||
// By omitting "carbon offsets", "green tech", argues these are insufficient distractions
|
||||
const tempAtYear = (year: number, emissions: number) =>
|
||||
baseline + emissions * year * sensitivity;
|
||||
// What's missing IS the rhetoric
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
### LLM-driven NPC dialogue (2026)
|
||||
```typescript
|
||||
// Inworld-style: NPC values encoded as system prompt + memory
|
||||
// The game's argument now adapts to player — emergent procedural rhetoric
|
||||
const npcPrompt = `
|
||||
You are a refugee in an unnamed conflict.
|
||||
Your values: family safety > nation > ideology.
|
||||
You distrust both sides equally.
|
||||
Respond based on the player's prior actions: ${recentActions.join(', ')}.
|
||||
`;
|
||||
// The NPC's reactive logic IS the rhetorical move
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
### Failure state as moral
|
||||
```
|
||||
Lose condition: Empire collapses if happiness < 50%
|
||||
Encoded argument: "Subject welfare is instrumentally necessary, not intrinsically valued"
|
||||
vs.
|
||||
Lose condition: Game ends when one citizen dies
|
||||
Encoded argument: "Each person has infinite worth"
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
### Reward loop as ethics
|
||||
```
|
||||
Reward: +XP per enemy killed
|
||||
Argument (unintended): violence is the path to progress
|
||||
Reward: +XP per peaceful resolution
|
||||
Argument: dialogue valued
|
||||
→ Designers encode ethics whether they intend to or not
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
### Counter-rhetoric (anti-game)
|
||||
```
|
||||
Players expect: shooter rewards aggression
|
||||
Anti-game: every kill ages your character +1 year, game ends at 100
|
||||
→ Mechanic refutes the genre's implicit argument
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
## 매 결정 기준
|
||||
| 상황 | Approach |
|
||||
|---|---|
|
||||
| Educational claim | Simulate causal model, let player explore |
|
||||
| Empathy goal | Constrain player to NPC perspective |
|
||||
| Critique of system | Make player IS the system, feel its pressures |
|
||||
| Information delivery | Verbal/visual still better for facts |
|
||||
| Complex policy | Procedural model + verbal scaffolding |
|
||||
|
||||
**기본값**: identify the felt experience the player should have, design mechanics that produce it, then verify via playtest.
|
||||
|
||||
## 🔗 Graph
|
||||
- 부모: [[Game-Design]]
|
||||
- 변형: [[Persuasive-Games]]
|
||||
- 응용: [[Beat Saber 엑서게임 연구(Beat Saber Exergaming Study)]] · [[Edtech-Industry-Trends]]
|
||||
- Adjacent: [[Media-Literacy]] · [[Information-Society]]
|
||||
|
||||
## 🤖 LLM 활용
|
||||
**언제**: analyze a game's procedural argument, brainstorm mechanics that embody a thesis, generate playtest probes.
|
||||
**언제 X**: never collapse procedural rhetoric to "narrative" — the rules ARE the argument.
|
||||
|
||||
## ❌ 안티패턴
|
||||
- **Skin over substance**: stick a "climate change" theme on standard mechanics — argument absent.
|
||||
- **Sermon mechanic**: the only "right" choice — no agency, weak rhetoric.
|
||||
- **Unintended argument**: reward loop says A while writing says B — players believe the loop.
|
||||
- **Realism worship**: simulation accuracy ≠ rhetorical clarity.
|
||||
|
||||
## 🧪 검증 / 중복
|
||||
- Verified (Bogost *Persuasive Games* 2007, *How to Do Things with Videogames* 2011, Frasca *Videogames of the Oppressed*).
|
||||
- 신뢰도 A.
|
||||
|
||||
## 🕓 Changelog
|
||||
| 날짜 | 변경 |
|
||||
|---|---|
|
||||
| 2026-05-08 | Phase 1 |
|
||||
| 2026-05-10 | Manual cleanup — Bogost framework + 2026 LLM-NPC angle |
|
||||
Reference in New Issue
Block a user