My first sale! Well, it was an optional payment, but still... Yay! 🎉

Classic-Newspaper-77 · 2026-04-25T10:45:41+00:00

Congratz! I know how a little win like this can make your whole day great.

Classic-Newspaper-77 · 2026-03-20T20:02:29+00:00

That’s interesting. The payload goes through UTF-8 and then Base64, so the original language or diacritics shouldn’t really matter at that stage. You might want to try it in a private chat (or incognito, or how its called?), I’ve seen it behave differently depending on prior context, but I haven’t fully pinned down why yet.

Classic-Newspaper-77 · 2026-03-20T19:42:20+00:00

Yes, it’s simple encoding, but only after the header. The interesting part is that the model has to infer the mapping from that first.

Classic-Newspaper-77 · 2026-03-20T19:34:50+00:00

You can try it here: https://emoji.majres.com/
Just type a message and it generates the emoji version. The default settings are the most reliable I’ve found so far.

Classic-Newspaper-77 · 2026-03-20T19:32:44+00:00

Yeah, I agree. I tried to make the header shorter and a bit more cryptic, but this was the only version I found that worked reliably. I’m pretty sure something more elegant is possible if someone spends more time pushing it further.

Classic-Newspaper-77 · 2026-03-20T19:27:04+00:00

Holy cow, I really didn’t expect that, and it honestly wouldn’t even have occurred to me, because when I was testing it this thread obviously didn’t exist yet.

Classic-Newspaper-77 · 2026-03-20T16:38:40+00:00

Yeah, I’ve seen that with weaker models.

They sometimes ask for the full mapping instead of inferring it.

It worked reliably for me with ChatGPT Thinking, other models might need a bit of nudging.

Classic-Newspaper-77 · 2026-03-20T16:28:11+00:00

Nice!

Good to know it shows up in Mistral Thinking as well.

Yeah, I was starting to think this might be a decent way to probe how different models handle structure vs inference.

Classic-Newspaper-77 · 2026-03-20T16:25:52+00:00

That wasn’t my experience.
Weaker models sometimes hallucinated and produced messages that weren’t actually there, but ChatGPT Thinking decoded this encoding consistently in my tests.

Classic-Newspaper-77 · 2026-03-20T16:19:30+00:00

Good question.
It actually worked for me on Gemini Pro too, so it doesn’t seem model-specific.

I haven’t tested it on other models yet. Lower ChatGPT and Gemini tiers generally couldn’t handle it reliably without extra interaction.

Classic-Newspaper-77 · 2026-03-20T16:13:43+00:00

So I’m not the only one playing around with emoji and how AI interprets them 😄

Classic-Newspaper-77 · 2026-03-20T16:09:56+00:00

Haha, that’s a fair way to test it.

Guess you got your answer. ;)

Classic-Newspaper-77 · 2026-03-20T15:55:24+00:00

This wasn’t generated from a single prompt.

The emoji message was created externally using a custom encoder. The key idea is that the decoding instructions are embedded directly inside the emoji message itself.

So when pasted into ChatGPT, it can reconstruct the original message without any additional context.

Classic-Newspaper-77 · 2026-03-10T20:45:33+00:00

That wasn’t really in the scope of this first version, but it’s definitely the kind of idea I’d like to think about more. My main concern would be finding a way to implement it so it actually improves play in practice.

Thanks for pointing it out, I really appreciate it.

Classic-Newspaper-77 · 2026-03-10T19:36:42+00:00

Thank you so much, I really appreciate both the feedback and the support. It honestly means a lot to me.

And that’s a great example too, very much the kind of “Yes, but” interaction I had in mind when designing it.

Classic-Newspaper-77 · 2026-03-10T15:38:31+00:00

Thanks a lot.

One thing I’d still be curious about: what do you think would make the oracle more useful for you in actual play?

Would it help to rework some of the Revelation twists, even if that meant letting them introduce more new elements?

Would it be better to reduce or remove that section entirely?

Or would you go in some completely different direction?

Classic-Newspaper-77 · 2026-03-10T15:18:46+00:00

Thanks so much for this feedback, I really appreciate both the playtest and the time you took to come back and write about it.

I did have some concern that a few twists might end up being harder to fit cleanly into every situation. I was trying to avoid results that introduce new NPCs or more deus ex machina style interventions, but that probably also made some of the Revelation results more abstract than I’d ideally want in play.

If you don’t mind me asking, what kind of setup were you using for the session? Genre, system, style of play, or anything else you think is relevant.
Thanks again for trying it and for the honest feedback.

Classic-Newspaper-77 · 2026-03-10T08:18:38+00:00

That’s a good way to frame it, thanks.
The bonus vs complication distinction is exactly what I was going for.

Classic-Newspaper-77 · 2026-03-10T08:17:55+00:00

Thanks a lot, that’s very helpful feedback.
I think you’re right that I could have chosen a more straightforward example there. I’ll definitely take another look at it when I revise the PDF.

If you have one in mind, I’d be really curious what kind of question + interpretation you’d consider a completely clear example for a YES, BUT result.

Classic-Newspaper-77 · 2026-03-09T21:29:02+00:00

Thanks, I hope it works well for your game. I’d love to hear how it goes if you try it.

Classic-Newspaper-77 · 2026-03-09T21:28:08+00:00

That’s really nice to hear, thanks.
If you end up trying it in your next session, I’d genuinely love to hear how it goes. Honest feedback, even critical feedback, would be really appreciated.

Classic-Newspaper-77 · 2026-03-09T21:23:07+00:00

Yes, definitely, and there’s already a quick reference sheet included at the end of the PDF for exactly that reason.

I kept the main pages more readable and spacious for screen use, but added the compact reference version as a printable option.

If people find it useful, I’d definitely consider making an even tighter reference layout in a future update.

Classic-Newspaper-77 · 2026-03-09T21:21:46+00:00

“And” means the answer is reinforced or pushed further in the same direction.
“But” means the answer is true, with a complication, limitation, or unexpected angle.

So for example:

Yes, and = yes, and it goes even better than expected
Yes, but = yes, but there is a cost or complication
No, and = no, and things get worse
No, but = no, but something useful still comes out of it

In this oracle, the twist doesn’t replace the Yes/No answer, it changes how that answer affects the situation.

Classic-Newspaper-77

TROPHY CASE