I have no objections for this for the time being.
The chain to Rudolf and Kyrie’s room cannot be set from the outside (regardless of the attempted method).
Gohda’s corpse? No, you’re right, there isn’t.
The fact that the red key found itself in the pot when it was supposed to be on Battler’s person? Yes.
Excuse me dear sir but it is indeed relevant to me.
I’m afraid it isn’t. No extra bodies, side from the bodies of the people directly mentioned in the story, are allowed to be present or used in any of the tricks. In other words, you’re left with needing at least one of them to be dead. (Given the discovery of Kanon, Rudolf and Kyrie).
The ‘HA HA HA’ had not existed on Kinzo’s door when the door was looked at by Shannon and George as they searched the third floor. Of course, neither of the two could’ve written the text at the time without the other noticing. And naturally, the two did not part ways at any point while searching the third floor! That last one would’ve just been flat-out unfair given there’s no mention or hint of that happening in the narrative.
The nature of the bookcase is irrelevant here and it would’ve been ridiculous to ask of you to utilize a trick like this with no proper details regarding it. The best I can help you here is that you think of it as a large object that must be moved fully out of the way for someone to be able to open, close, enter or leave through the door to the study.
I suppose I can explain how the game had worked while I’m here. The concept, if nothing else, could be worth discussing and refining.
This is a direct copy of the rules at the time:
Previous iteration of the game
The game will be played differently than usual. As suggested before, it’ll be a game played between me and another person. It won’t be a game of roleplaying nature. Instead, it’ll be a simple battle of red v blue.
…With one additional condition.
◆ The player will start out with 15 points. I prefer to look at them as chips, though - such as the ones you’d use in poker.
◆ The player will make a blue regarding one of the mysteries of the gameboard. Upon doing so, they will bet a certain number of points. Then, one of two things will happen:
◇ I will say PASS, in which case the player gets the points he bet back, and has the amount he bet added to his total, as well. (So, if the player has 15 points, bets 3, then upon a PASS, they’d have 18).
◇ I will respond with red denying the blue OR reason why that line of reasoning doesn’t make sense. If this happens, the player obviously loses the amount of points they bet. (So, player has 15 points, bets 3, gets a red, ends up with 12.)
◆ Of course, you may think – “well, if DWaM just uses some sort of wordplay, then the player will always lose points no matter what!” Thankfully, I’m not that evil. The player will then be given an opportunity to provide more blues regarding that particular theory, in order to try and circumvent that particular red - without the cost of points. When the player is satisfied that particular avenue of reasoning has been closed off, they lose the points and agree to the LOSS.
◇ So, for example:
PLAYER: BET: 3. The killer was hiding in the bathroom.
GM: But person X searched the bathroom, didn’t they?
PLAYER: Person X was an accomplice!
GM: There are no accomplices.
PLAYER: The killer found someplace in the bathroom to hide!
GM: There were no hiding places. If he was hiding in there, person X would’ve seen him.
PLAYER Ngh. I conceed. LOSS : -3 [Moves on to next theory]
However, should the player try to use this system to fish out more information that they should get out of that particular line of reasoning; for example, if during that discussion, they’d said:
PLAYER: Fine, he’s not in the bathroom. Blue: He was hiding in the closet!
In that case, I would require points to be bet on before I responded to such a blue.
Of course, those particular instances are up to my own discretion, so you could arguably trick me into giving you more info during this encounters than you should. Conversely, if you feel like your blue is still within limits of your original theory, state your case and I might reconsider, you never know. I’m only human.
The game is played until:
◆The player runs out of points (resulting in his defeat; in which case the gameboard will simply switch to a traditional red v blue and open to everyone).
◆ All the mysteries are solved. In which case, there are also different things that may happen:
◇ If by the time all mysteries are solved the player has 30 or more points, they win.
◇ If they do not, the game is draw.
◆ It’s worth noting that the game will not have over 15 mysteries or something like that. Meaning that even if the player gets everything right from the get-go, if he bet only 1 point per theory, they still don’t win.
The main reason for this is that the point of this game is have the player both be willing to risk in order to gain information (or just progress), and be confident enough in their theories and strategically choose which avenues to close off and when - investing low points over simple basics one needs to cover, to high points when they think they’ve got a really solid theory.
Of course, that’s all up to the player, really.
Some general notes:
◆ Shooting off multiple blues regarding multiple mysteries of the gameboard isn’t allowed. Likewise, it is not allowed to just try and shotgun different blues for one mystery, pretending like it’s one blue and trying to lower the amount of points spent.
◆ There is, however, and exception – you may try to solve the entire mystery in one blue. However, you would have to wager at least over half of your points. You would only get back the amount of points you’d bet, and if I respond to one thing with red and you end up conceding to it, then you lose all the points and I’m not required to answer any other blues regarding the other mysteries you brought up. If I’m the one that ends up conceding and the particular part of the blue I had an issue with passes, then I toss out another red, until I eventually pass the entire thing through and you win, or you concede one element and the entire thing falls through.
The reason for this strange rule?
Well, if you were to bet all 15 points at the beginning of the game and shoot one blue that gets it all right…
Well, that should be rewarded with a win, shouldn’t it now?
Conversely, however, I had to ensure the player wouldn’t exploit this to get more information than allowed, hence the “over half points rule”.
◆ You’re allowed to, obviously, place more than one bet per post. It’s just convenience. But evidently risky.
◆ I’m allowed to state general reds at any stage of the game; without necessarily being prompted to do so by a bet. A clause that’s good to have around, just in case.
Obviously, this is just for those curious – there’s nothing in these rules relevant to solving the game or anything that makes this game in specific appropriate for this type of approach. You have my word on that.
So to answer your question - he did not, since forming a theory like that wouldn’t have really been all that beneficial to him.