Collaborative Storytelling with Claude: A Ping-Pong Method

I’m developing a murder mystery game called “Orfanato Nossa Senhora das Dores” - a hybrid physical + digital experience where players investigate the impossible deaths of three nuns. The twist? They were killed by the ghosts of abused children.

But this post isn’t about the game. It’s about how I’m writing it - through iterative dialogue with Claude.

The Ping-Pong Method

Traditional writing: you sit alone, stare at a blank page, pull ideas from your head.

Collaborative AI writing: you have a conversation. Back and forth. Ping-pong.

Here’s how it works:

1. I Provide Direction, Not Answers

When developing the setting, I didn’t say “write me a description of a haunted orphanage in Sintra.” I said:

“É em Sintra. Um orfanato. Vamos primeiro focarmo-nos na atmosfera.”

Claude proposed. I reacted. “Vamos explorar outros nomes.” We iterated until we landed on Quinta do Silêncio.

2. I Say No. A Lot.

Claude suggested the orphanage was built on ancient evil grounds, and that history would be central to the plot.

I said: “Não quero que a história antes afete o plot principal.”

So we adjusted. The land is haunted, yes. But that’s atmosphere, not story. The real horror is what the nuns did to the children. The ghosts are modern - Miguel (2008), Sofia (1987), João (1973).

3. I Add Constraints That Force Creativity

When Claude proposed death methods for the nuns, the first draft was visceral. Burns, drowning trauma, obvious supernatural violence.

I said: “Devia ser mais subtil.”

That constraint produced something better:

• A nun dead from smoke inhalation. But there was no fire.
• A nun drowned. But the basement is bone dry.
• A nun with fall injuries. But she never left the ground floor.

Subtlety forced Claude to think harder. The results are creepier.

4. I Develop Characters Through Questions, Not Descriptions

Instead of asking “write me a complex character,” I had a conversation:

Me: “Os funcionários. Únicos bons. Já conseguiram salvar 2 crianças.”

Claude: [proposes elaborate rescue backstories]

Me: “Eles têm medo. Tentaram. São humildes.”

Three words. That shaped how Manuel and Rosa behave in interrogations - scared, not heroic. Trying, not succeeding. Humble, not proud.

5. I Push for Complexity When It Gets Too Simple

Claude proposed two recent orphan witnesses: “one who talks, one who doesn’t.”

Binary. Boring.

I asked: “Pode ser diferente? 3 personagens diferentes mais complexas.”

That produced:

• Inês - went back to the orphanage a year ago, now has dreams where the nuns ask for help
• Rui - defends the system, but was friends with Miguel and carries guilt
• Vera - was the “favorite,” only now realizing she was an unknowing informant

Three perspectives on trauma. None simple.

What Claude Does Well

Expanding from fragments. I give three words, Claude gives three paragraphs. I edit down.

Maintaining consistency. 10 characters, 60 years of timeline, multiple interconnected backstories. Claude tracks it all.

Proposing options. “Option A, Option B, Option C” - lets me choose direction without starting from scratch.

Writing in voice. Once I establish tone (“subtle,” “institutional,” “clinical”), Claude maintains it.

What I Have to Do

Say no. Claude will keep expanding unless you constrain.

Provide the emotional truth. “They’re scared. They tried. They’re humble.” Claude can extrapolate, but I have to know what I want.

Make structural decisions. Claude doesn’t know which witness should reveal which information, or what goes in Phase 2 vs Phase 4.

Kill darlings. Claude generates a lot. Most of it is good. Some of it doesn’t fit. That’s my job.

The Result So Far

After multiple sessions of ping-pong:

• ORFANATO_MASTER.md - 537-line synchronized master document
• 700+ line narrative bible
• 15+ fully developed characters (including witnesses, survivors, current orphans)
• Timeline from 1847 to 2024
• 3 impossible deaths with subtle horror
• Complex witness dynamics (defenders, accusers, the guilty, the traumatized)
• Real Sintra facts integrated - from the 1982 flying stones phenomenon to the Convento dos Capuchos
• Proper hierarchy established - Madre Superiora Francisca (alive, architect), three murdered nuns beneath her

All from conversation. No blank page paralysis. No writing alone.

Update (Dec 8, 2024)

Today we hit a milestone: synchronizing two divergent documents (GDD and Narrative Bible) into a single source of truth.

The ping-pong method proved essential for:

• Resolving inconsistencies (two characters named Beatriz!)
• Making difficult decisions (mórbido vs subtil death methods)
• Integrating real-world research (Sintra’s actual paranormal history)
• Adding trigger warnings without losing narrative impact

The process: I identified conflicts, Claude analyzed both documents, I made directional decisions (“gosto mais do mórbido do GDD”), Claude synthesized into the final version.

Is This Writing?

Yes.

I’m making creative decisions constantly. What stays, what goes, what direction, what tone. Claude is a collaborator, but I’m steering.

It’s like having a writing partner who never gets tired, never gets defensive about their ideas, and can generate ten alternatives in seconds.

The ping-pong method isn’t AI replacing writers. It’s AI as an improv partner. I say “yes, and—” or “no, but—” and we build something neither of us would create alone.

Try It Yourself

If you’re stuck on a creative project:

1. Don’t ask for finished output. Ask for options.
2. React honestly. “This is too obvious.” “I don’t like this name.” “Make it darker.”
3. Provide emotional anchors. “They’re scared” matters more than “they’re 67 years old.”
4. Iterate fast. Don’t polish. Keep moving. Polish later.
5. Let the AI surprise you. The best ideas came from Claude proposing something I hadn’t considered.

The goal isn’t to get Claude to write your story. It’s to discover your story through conversation.

Currently developing: Orfanato Nossa Senhora das Dores - a hybrid murder mystery game. Follow along as I document the process.