Game writing introduces a problem no linear medium has: the audience controls the order. Branching dialogue, optional quests, and choices that change who lives and who dies mean the canon any given player experiences is one path through a graph of possibilities. Every path has to be internally consistent on its own — a line that assumes a character is alive must never play for a player who let them die.
Layer on the sheer scale — hundreds of quests, items, factions, and lore entries, built by large narrative teams over years of development and live updates — and games face the most extreme version of the consistency problem in any medium. This is how to manage it.
The player controls the order
In a novel or a film, the audience receives events in the order you set. In a game, the player chooses — taking quests out of sequence, skipping content, making mutually exclusive choices. Your canon is no longer a line; it is a state that depends on what the player has done. The consistency requirement is brutal: every reachable combination of choices has to produce a coherent world.
This is where game-specific continuity breaks live: a character referencing an event the player hasn't triggered yet, dialogue that assumes a dead NPC is alive, a quest that contradicts the outcome of an earlier choice. None of these are visible if you only read the story top to bottom, because no player experiences it that way.
Canon as state, not prose
Because the world depends on player choices, game canon has to be tracked as state — who is alive, which factions are allied, what the player knows and has done — not as a static document. Each branch consumes and modifies that state, and each line of content carries assumptions about it. A writer who cannot see those assumptions laid out cannot check them.
The practical implication: game lore and canon want to live as structured, connected data — characters, factions, locations, events, and the relationships between them — that can be reasoned about across branches. Prose you re-read does not scale to a branching world; structured canon you can query does.
Scale and large teams
Games are built by teams — narrative designers, quest writers, lore leads — adding to the same canon in parallel, often for years, then continuing through live updates and expansions. Every pressure of a writers' room applies, multiplied by the volume of content and the length of development. The world lives in many heads and many documents, and they drift.
One shared, current source of truth with clear ownership of who changes canon is the only thing that keeps a large narrative team consistent. Without it, the same lore fact ends up written three ways across three quests — and players, who do read everything, will find all three.
Players read everything
Game audiences are completionists and archivists. They datamine, they wiki, they replay every branch, and they compare lore across quests no single developer remembers writing together. A contradiction that only appears on an obscure path will still be found, documented, and discussed. Effectively, the entire branching canon is audited.
The only way to stay ahead is to audit your own canon across branches first — to check the whole graph for contradictions before release and before each live update, with the rigor the community will apply after.
Where CanonBoard fits
CanonBoard holds a game's world as connected, typed cards — characters, factions, locations, events, lore, and a real timeline — on one shared canvas, with role permissions and change history for the team building it. It is canon as structured data, which is exactly what a branching world needs.
Then it checks itself: CanonBoard scans the whole world on demand and surfaces contradictions with both sides quoted and the conflict named — a character who knows too much, a faction whose status disagrees across entries, an event referenced before it can happen. Build the world once as a connected canon, keep it current through development and live updates, and catch the breaks before the players who read everything do.
Frequently asked questions
- Why is continuity harder in games than in linear stories?
- Because the player controls the order. Branching choices mean canon isn't a single path but a graph of possible states, and every reachable combination of choices has to stay internally consistent — a problem no linear medium has.
- How should game writers store canon?
- As structured, connected state and data — characters, factions, locations, events, and their relationships — rather than static prose. The world depends on player choices, so canon has to be something you can query and check across branches, not just read top to bottom.
- How do you keep lore consistent across a large game team?
- With one shared, current source of truth and clear ownership of who can change canon. Large narrative teams writing in parallel over years drift by default; without a single source of truth the same fact gets written several conflicting ways.
CanonBoard scans your whole world and tells you where it disagrees with itself.
Start free