I know the author specifically did not use a rules engine in their simulation because of uncertainty on how it would affect it.
I do still wonder if adapting something like card forge for llm use would result in engaging gameplay with an llm.
I do still wonder if adapting something like card forge for llm use would result in engaging gameplay with an llm.
But also with a rules engine, you have to manually go though every step, and pass priority after every action.
I think it makes more sense to let an LLM play magic like a person would. On early turns it is acceptable to say "I play a land and pass" without going through every phase. And you can say "I tap all my land and play this card" without having to use a tool call and agent turn for every land tap.
Also card forge would not let you goldfish a deck. You must have opponents.
(defrule connection
(connection ?id)
=>
(println "User " ?id " connected")
(printout ?id "Welcome to the chatroom from CLIPS!" crlf)
(do-for-all-facts ((?f connection)) (neq ?id (nth$ 1 ?f:implied))
(printout (nth$ 1 ?f:implied) "User " ?id " connected" crlf)))
(defrule say
(connection ?id)
?f <- (message-buffered ?id)
?ff <- (message ?id ~/me ?message)
=>
(retract ?f ?ff)
(printout ?id "You: " ?message crlf)
(do-for-all-facts ((?f connection)) (neq ?id (nth$ 1 ?f:implied))
(printout (nth$ 1 ?f:implied)
?id ": " ?message crlf)))It’s answered on the same site. https://ryjo.codes/articles/forgoing-implicity-using-abstrac...
Thank you for sharing! A lot of good stuff here!
Have the LLM submit a proposed move and either advance the game state or reply "permission denied, try again". Probably also log the number of times it happens since attempted violations seems like a valuable signal as well.