Don’t really have too much to say about this one, admittedly. I started it up a bit ago. It was originally designed to be one-on-one, but the system I’d placed around the game itself didn’t really gel smoothly enough. So, I’m bringing it here, open for everyone. Rune and Zepfur played some of it, and so they would have some extra guarantees. But, for the time being, I’ll ask them not to give out the reds they recieved at the time (assuming they’ll play) and see if there are theories that can be constructed to even require me to hand those out. (The nature of the previous iteration of the game allowed for a certain kind of repetition system, y’see, so there were some free reds to be handed out.)
No worries, however - the advantage they would have is slim either way. Just making sure and ensuring room for more fun theories.
The rules are same as they’ve been through the past two games.
◈ The game will be played through a traditional red v blue, with a few minor adjustments.
◈ Firstly - I refuse any and all requests when it comes to repeating something in red. Meaning repetitions like ‘the culprit had to enter through X’ or anything of the sort is out of the question. I am more than happy to clarify things you might’ve found confusing within the narration and would like a clarification on. But the general rule of thumb is that you’re free to believe whatever you wish - as long as it’s believable and makes sense within the narrative.
◈ Secondly - I am not obligated to respond to all blues, should I find them to be insufficient or do not hit all the necessary points to formulate a complete explanation for what happened. Meaning shots in the dark like ‘the murder happened at X instead of Y’ or ‘the culprit used X to get into the room’, which don’t explain the entire thing and potentially run into problems when explaining other parts of the case aren’t sufficient enough. Simply put - no room for shots in the dark. A blue must be a solid theory. It doesn’t need to be perfect, just needs to answer the key mysteries of the case.
◈ Thirdly - when responding, I am not obligated to use red. I am also allowed to ask questions and use reasoning of my own to counter your theories. It’s generally more interesting to use what’s in the story against the players and save the red for the necessities. But we’ll see how this one plays out.
◈ The victory conditions are simple. Who is the culprit? (This, naturally, involves explaning how they did it, as well, given the circumstances.) I am fairly lenient when it comes to victories - as long as the basic concept is understood by the players, I will concede.
The gaurantees are exactly what you’ve come to expect:
◆ The culprit must be someone mentioned in the story.
◆ The culprit is the one who kills.
◆ There is only one culprit.
◆ The culprit is a human.
◆ There are no accomplices.
◆ An accomplice is someone who willingly and knowingly assists the culprit in the execution of their plans.
◆ The POV can be trusted. The perspective character, of course, can be decieved. But there are no deceptions such as glaring omissions like “the ceiling was secretly not there”.
◆ For the purposes of the game, no master keys exist.
◆ No supernatural occurrences exist on the island, and no supernatural occurences were used to commit any of the murders.
◆ Oh, almost forgot - the fact that there is no Maria is entirely intentional but has no bearing for the story. I just never know what to do with the kid so I always figure it’s easier to just take her off the board.
The difficulty is lessened quite a bit from the previous game.
That should be about everything, so without further ado:
Well I can share what I know if others want it… Otherwise I think I’ll lean back for a bit and see what others do first. Due to the previous format it’s not like I got any hard guarantees on any of my theories, but I did have quite a lot of time to think about it when DWaM got busy.
Here’s a haphazard theory that tries to explain everything but probably forgets a number of key details. I was pressed for time so I didn’t have too much time to double check stuff with the narrative.
[color=Blue]George is the culprit. He murdered everyone in gruesome ways so that the two remaining survivors, Battler and Shannon, would kill each other. He was motivated by jealousy and despair - he knew he was going to die soon, and that Shannon had never really gotten over Battler. He expected Shannon and Battler would get together after he died, and he refused to accept that.[/color]
[color=Blue]The first closed room can be explained with a separate burning rope holding up something that would close the window behind George when the rope burns away and releases whatever mechanism was set up to close the window.[/color]
[color=Blue]The second closed room would require a more general trick. I’ll be super lazy here and say it’s possible to set the chain from the outside, perhaps by setting up a mechanism using string or some other flammable material, and then setting it on fire to dispose of it. Flame-resistant stuff would’ve been used to keep the fire from spreading too much. The burnt residue could perhaps be disposed of by using a sheet of paper on top of which the residue would fall, which could then be disposed of if the gap between the floor and the door was sizeable enough.[/color]
[color=Blue]There’s no closed room for Eva and Hideyoshi’s corpses, so nothing to explain there. Neither does it seem like there’s anything to explain about Gohda’s corpse. The six heads in the library seem like business as usual as well. Some trick was used to make them open their eyes, but that’s irrelevant for now. All six of them being secretly alive all along is always an option, as long as they’re not willingly following the culprit’s murder plan.[/color]
[color=Blue]Regarding the writing appearing in the study door, perhaps George and Shannon parted ways while searching, allowing George to write HA HA HA there. Or perhaps he had written it in advance but just covered it with a sheet of paper printed with the same color and texture as the door, that he could remove at some opportune moment, perhaps even remotely with yet another string trick because we haven’t had our fill of those yet.[/color]
[color=Blue]The locked room of Kinzo’s study is the main reason to suspect George in the first place. The food was drugged with Shannon’s sleeping pills. George was the only one who didn’t eat at all. Though the George culprit theory runs into the obvious problem of the study becoming yet another locked room. However, depending on how exactly the bookcase is built and which direction the door opens to, this too can be explained. George simply moved the bookcase just enough to be able to get through the door, and then moved the bookcase back from the other side while holding the door open. The autolock of the door locks the door behind him when he closes the door after relocating the bookcase.[/color]
[color=Blue]George’s death at the end was simply suicide. He stabbed himself a couple of times and died in Shannon’s arms.[/color]
I wonder if Blackrune came up with something similar.
[color=red]The chain to Rudolf and Kyrie’s room cannot be set from the outside (regardless of the attempted method).[/color]
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. [color=red]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.[/color] In other words, you’re left with needing at least one of them to be dead. (Given the discovery of Kanon, Rudolf and Kyrie).
[color=red]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![/color] 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.
Regarding Kyrie and Rudolf’s closed room, [color=blue] the chain had not been set properly at all (a number of tricks you could try here: the chain was already cut and the two halves were glued together, the chain was expanded/contracted back to the proper size, etc. Take your pick from Chain of the Impaler ) This is why Kinzo kicked the door down - he knew the chain wouldn’t offer significant resistance. [/color]
With respect to Battler’s missing key: [color=blue] there were two keys with a red skull painted on them. The one battler found in his parents’ room, and the one in the pot. The culprit, Kinzo, pick pocketed Battler’s key while he was restraining him from approaching the pots.[/color]
The eyelid trick: [color=blue] Kinzo had attached strings to the eyelids of each head, and angled them such that he could discretely pull on the string, slowly lifting the eyelids. It would be pretty impossible to see the strings in the total darkness. [/color]
[color=red]The chain was set properly and had not been tampered with in any way.[/color]
[color=red]The key that Battler found in Kyrie and Rudolf’s room is the exact same one that was in the pot.[/color] Kinzo, while restraining Battler, prevented both of them from approaching the pot. Therefore, as he was restraining him, the two were far from the pots when the key was found. So, even if Kinzo can somehow pickpocket the key off of Battler, he’s too far from the pots to simply place it in.
[color=red]During this scene, had anyone who was at the door (this would have included Shannon, George, Battler, Jessica, Kinzo and Nanjo) attempted to make any actions, they would have been noticed by the others at that time.[/color] This, of course, includes tugging on a string.
Then instead, [color=blue] Kinzo pickpocketed Battler earlier, when he was distressed after seeing the bodies of Hideyoshi and Eva. He stealthily placed the key in one of the pots since he was the first to approach them.[/color]
Must be another window trick then, if the chain was truly set properly. [color=blue]A heavy but compact weight was tied to a string and attached to the bathroom window. The weight was flushed down the toilet, and the string burnt leaving no trace of the contraption. [/color]
Lastly, [color=blue]Kinzo didn’t have to make any actions to lift the eyelids. The strings were tied to an egg timer or some other timed device, and lifted on their own. [/color]
I shan’t allow it. [color=red]Had anyone tried to pickpocket Battler, Battler would have immediately noticed it.[/color]
Such conviction. Alas. The windows in the bathrooms, you will recall, are slightly different than those in the actual main room. [color=red]The window in the bathroom can only be locked and unlocked by hand.[/color]
It would have been impossible for Kinzo or anyone to have guessed the precise timing of them entering, though. Remember, they moved at their own pace around the mansion and it was their choice of when they would get to the library, if at all. So merely setting an egg timer and letting it ride would’ve been unreliable and the timing impossible to nail down.
Not gonna be that easy… then, [color=blue]lets adjust the weight trick using one of the windows in the main room.[/color]
And let’s say that [color=blue]Kinzo set the mechanism off via the light switch. He was able to flip the switch without anyone questioning what he was doing, so if he tied the contraption to the light switch, he could time it with their entrance.[/color]
The first room gave you the leisure of being able to burn your objects after use. This time around, though, you will have no such comfort. [color=red]Had any objects been used to weigh down on the windows in the main room of Rudolf and Kyrie’s room so they would close without the culprit doing so themselves from inside of the room, the object or some trace of it, would have remained. Shannon would have seen such an object or trace of it as soon as she had entered the room. Nobody of the six (Shannon, George, Battler, Jessica, Kinzo, Nanjo) would have had a chance to approach any of the windows before that moment.[/color]
[color=red]The light switch was a perfectly ordinary light switch and led to activation of no other contraption but the ceiling light to the library, which was out of use.[/color] Naturally, [color=red]the ceiling light had not been altered to trigger any sort of mechanism upon the flicker of the light switch.[/color] (Since you could claim that, while the switch was perfectly ordinary, the light had been tempered with so that when the bulb was meant to be “on”, the mechanism triggered with it, thus creating no contradictions with the red.)
[color=blue]The mechanism was instead set to trigger when the door was opened. Maybe a string was broken when the door opened, or it was set to trigger when a key was inserted into the locks.[/color]
Returning to the key issue, sure, maybe the key battler initially found in Kyrie and Rudolf’s room was the same key in the pot. But [color=blue]The key was swapped with another similar looking key while Battler was grieving, before he had put it in his pocket. Kinzo then took this key off Battler as described above.[/color]
Fair enough, had mentally restricted it to just before he was “restrained” by Kinzo. Then let’s try: [color=blue]Battler simply dropped the key while vomiting after finding Hideyoshi and Eva’s bodies. Kinzo saw his chance, picked up the key, and put it in one of the pots.[/color]
A library string trick would have probably been done with some weight behind the bookshelves. sliding down slowly once the door was opened. (just to actually give an explanation for how that would work.)
[color=blue]Kinzo went in to Kyrie and Rudolf’s room ahead of the rest of the group. He took this opportunity to close the bathroom door, which he left open. This way he’d be out of their line of sight while he was “searching for traps”[/color]
Desperate blue, but I’ll [color=blue] repeat the logic for every window in the main room. Let’s say a piece of the furniture would block the rest of the group’s line of sight while Kinzo closed the window. [/color]