2nd/10_Wiki/Topic_Programming/DevOps_and_Security/Procedural-Rhetoric.md

id, title, category, status, canonical_id, aliases, duplicate_of, source_trust_level, confidence_score, verification_status, tags, raw_sources, last_reinforced, github_commit, tech_stack

id	title	category	status	canonical_id	aliases	duplicate_of	source_trust_level	confidence_score	verification_status	tags	raw_sources	last_reinforced	github_commit	tech_stack
wiki-2026-0508-procedural-rhetoric	Procedural Rhetoric	10_Wiki/Topics	verified	self	Persuasive Games Computational Rhetoric	none	A	0.9	applied	rhetoric game-design persuasion		2026-05-10	pending	language framework design 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

// 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)

// 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