I think the room was searched by Shannon and/or Battler after Shannon woke up, so it would have to have been Battler or Kinzo in that case…
I mean this is the same board where someone hiding inside a corpse is still on the table. Not ruling it out just due to some search.
(not literally inside a corpse but you get what I mean.)
So many ways to deny, but at this rate, being decisive should save you some time.
[color=red]At the time Shannon woke up - Kinzo, Shannon and Battler were the only people in the study.[/color]
This doesn’t necessarily deny your blue when it comes to the Battler and Kinzo, but… Given the other problems, one does have to wonder.
Now, then. One of you has expressed their desire to surrender in the game in exchange for a solution. Being the nice guy that I am, I’ve decided to come up with something that isn’t quite that.
The Offer
The matter is entirely simple. If you’ve participated in the gameboard, you have a right to surrender. Simply publicly post in the thread that you surrender. In exchange, you will recieve the answer for one mystery of the gameboard of your choice. The mysteries must strictly be regarding the ‘how’. So no asking ‘who’ or ‘why’. (Then again, if you were pushed to the point of giving up, I doubt you’d ask such a thing, anyway.)
I will reveal that particular mystery to you. After that, you are not allowed to post any more in the thread or give any hints or suggestions as to what the solution you found might be - be it on the thread or outside of it. Breaking this clause will result in you being banned from participating in the gameboard after this one. (Whatever it ends up being.)
At best, I will allow the exaspirated shout of “I HATE YOU DWAM” directly after I reveal a part of the answer to you.
An important note: I will reveal only the most crucial details relevant to the mystery asked. Therefore, any particular details that might assist you with the other events will be omitted intentionally, as long as they are not needed for you to understand the gist of what happened. For example, if, during the chain of events, the culprit did something that did not contribute to solving problem X but did answer a part of problem Y - it will be omitted. Likewise, the explanation for some of the culprit’s actions that might explain the way of thinking needed to approach other problems will be omitted as well. Simply put, the chances of one mystery guiding you towards the solution to another are fairly low. You will only get the basic understanding.
I strongly urge you not to take this offer.
That is all.
I hate keys.
[color=blue] The red skull key was swapped before Battler placed a key in his pocket, with the key to Natsuhi/Krauss’ room. Battler notices this later on, but says nothing because whoever had the red skull key could just claim Battler swapped them himself. Battler elected to get rid of the key to Natsuhi/Krauss’ room to make himself look a bit less suspicious. He planted that key on Kinzo during their struggle in the kitchen, and truthfully stated afterwards that he didn’t drop the key and wasn’t pickpocketed.[/color]
2 Likes
Hnnmgrgmglhl
[color=blue]The culprit is Battler. He used ‘it’, it being a trained animal. He handed it the key while pretending to vomit outside the doorstep. It also wrote the message on the study door! This counts as indirect means since an trained animal really doesn’t have much of a will of its own.[/color]
3 Likes
It took me a bit to recall I made this red:
Which would include him planting the key on someone else (since it would be ‘disposing’ the key, in a sense). Unless, of course, you wish to claim he’s the culprit. In which case, you’re faced with the problem of him getting the key in the pot.
Music to my ears.
[color=red]No animals were used (or even so much as participated) in any of the events of this game.[/color] The definition of ‘animal’ in this case, excludes humans, of course.
[color=blue]Same theory but with a robot[/color]
2 Likes
[color=red]No robots exist on the island, either.[/color]
I surrender. The witch, DWaM, wins this round, this crime was certainly only possibly with magic.
And on the final day,
He looked up to the sky
And he praised the name
Of Big Mac
Ughh, let’s go over this again.
There’s got to be others left that won’t throw in the towel, let’s try to pool thoughts.
At the moment I don’t see how it can’t be Battler.
Here’s what we know:
-he definitely put a key in his pocket
-pocket wasn’t modified ever
-he would have noticed 100% if anyone tried to steal this key
-he would have noticed losing this key in any other unintentional way, in fact
-never removed his suit until it got searched
-search was perfect
-key was metal, so can’t just dissolve or anything (the only thing that could would also destroy the pocket or leave traces)
-if not the culprit, never touched the key again
-would have pointed out if he noticed someone taking the key (not sure if confirmed but common sense)
Edit: Oh and naturally, there’s the simple fact that if the culprit isn’t Battler, they couldn’t have possibly prepared for this. There’s only so much prediction you can do, they couldn’t have known Battler would be the one to put it in his pocket, or that it would be put into a pocket at all, and how people would move afterwards. (Granted there’s always the ‘they prepared just in case it happens’ excuse but seems worth keeping in mind.)
If you have the reds and think there’s room for faulty assumptions in these, please point them out.
Even if you think they’re unlikely or don’t help.
Not for it being Battler, these things that are/seem true are of note:
-couldn’t have left the group during the critical time (also relevant for the writing)
-couldn’t have used string or something similar on the key
-lid of the pot had to be put there ‘by hand’ (not sure if it could be dropped or if Gohda’s hand can help. ^^)
-once restrained by Kinzo, unlikely to be able to pull off any suspicious action (not really predictable, anyway)
Again, feel free to expand or correct me.
I think the second case looks easier to still crack. The denials were less broad there. He most likely would have to somehow pull off all this without leaving the group though, which does get real messy real quick. If he pulled anything while in the group there are probably hints it’s possible (similar to the Kinzo scene in Pact)
3 Likes
I’ve been away for a while. Sad to say, I haven’t been deep in meditation to figure out the answers to anything, I’ve just been slacking off.
At this point, yeah, tossing around thoughts and questions might be the best way to move forward. So, Blackrune and the rest, what do you think of the following questions?
Why was the key trick done in the first place? What was accomplished by having someone pick up the key in the bedroom and then having it be found in the pot instead?
Why was there a skull painted on the key? What purpose do the skull and moon symbols really serve?
If Battler is not guilty, and it was impossible for the culprit to reobtain the key after Battler put it in his pocket, the key must’ve been switched before Battler put it in his pocket (with the substitute key Battler got somehow disposing of itself through method X). What would be the point of placing a key in the bedroom only to immediately switch it after it was found - why risk the switch when you could’ve placed the substitute there instead of the original key?
I have some thoughts i could share, but I’d rather hear your opinions first.
2 Likes
I didn’t have much time to try, and I don’t know how much I will have, either, but I’ll give it a shot. I’m not soing this just so I can surrender and have an easy solution right after. I read everything and I hope nothing of this has already been covered.
[color=blue] Kanon’s corpse was fake, it isn’t that easy to recognise a burnt body, and the people in the room didn’t bother to check it thoroughly, anyway. The body was headless, so they merely figured it out by the clothes. [/color]
[color=blue] Kanon could simply move the six heads because he wasn’t really dead, his body was hidden beneath the cart, so opening his own eyes and using a string mechanism or something else to move the others was fairly easy. [/color]
[color=blue] Kanon wrote the AH AH AH, he wasn’t part of the group, anyway. [/color]
Somnambulism hasn’t been denied yet, so…
[Color=blue] While Shannon was sleeping in the study with the others, she had a dream in which she saw Kanon, this image was intentionally created by Kanon so Shannon would open the door for him, thinking he could still be saved, while she was still sleeping. He killled Kinzo. He killed Jessica and Nanjo and carried their bodies out of the room. He put George to sleep and carried his body out of the room. The door then locked itself and Kanon placed the three bodies as seen in the story and hid. Kanon wanted Shannon and Battler to kill each other. Or he could simply kill them himself, if necessary. [/color]
Same thing can work for any of the six heads.
3 Likes
That’s good, okay, let’s flip the board.
If we take the Battler path, we assume it’s pretty clearly to make it look like Battler couldn’t have done it, since how could he pull it off without leaving the party or touching the pots?
If we take the other paths, it’s to make it look like Battler did it, who else could do it if he couldn’t have lost the key? …Which is a pretty huge contradiction. Hmm.
It’s true it’s impossible to predict who would have found the key, so we should assume that if Culprit X did it -be it one of the party or one of the corpses- they would have no idea who would pick up the key and thus the solution should still work regardless of who picked up the key.
Interesting question. It’s possible it’s just there to add flavor and to help distinguish the key that disappears into the pot. The blue key is just the opposite of the red key, different enough that we understand it has nothing to do with the key trick, but similar enough that we/Kinzo realize that they go together.
Although, I think the one thing it does end up doing is hint that Kinzo isn’t the culprit, because then he wouldn’t have fumbled around trying to open the door, but it’s not a lot.
It’s also possible it’s related to Cock Robin…somehow maybe?
That’s something that’s been bugging me and something nobody seems to have brought up, what’s Cock Robin have to do with any of this? “Ten Little Indians” is pretty straightforward, it’s a number counting down, but Cock Robin? Cock Robin is about one death, and a community coming around him for a funeral. It bothers me I have absolutely no idea how it could be relevant.
That’s a really good point. I feel like this is important.
In the Battler path, there’s no switch needed, which heavily throws things in favor of him being the culprit.
Especially considering that even if the switch happens, we still have to explain how the new key goes missing. If the culprit had some way of getting the key off of Battler, why wouldn’t they just use it to take the real key? The only possibility in that case is timing. They needed to put the red key in the pot ASAP and get the other key off later.
My intuition is to stray away from Battler being the culprit, because he’s the one the narrative implicates and there are no red herrings, but that’s not real reasoning any more than “the Butler couldn’t do it because that’s too easy”…
1 Like
The issue with this approach is that Battler started walking towards the pots, and only because Kinzo stopped him he didn’t reach them. If he is the culprit, then going near the pots would only implicate himself by giving him an opportunity to be the one who slipped the key into the pot. As such, why would Battler bother getting near the pots, assuming that he had already somehow put the key into one? It could be that he guessed correct that Kinzo would stop him, and thought that being restrained by Kinzo provided the best alibi for placing the key into the pot, but he could’ve just pretended that he’s had enough of corpses and stayed away vomiting or something without it seeming that suspicious at all. So, Battler taking the risk of implicating himself by walking to Kinzo seems unnecessary.
If only a key switch wasn’t so neatly blocked by red, I would assume that the paintjob on the keys was made to conceal a key switch by having two keys with a skull painted on them. Misleading reds is not how these boards are supposed to go, but I can’t help but ask for confirmation: Regarding the red “[color=Red]The key that Battler found in Kyrie and Rudolf’s room is the exact same one that was in the pot.[/color]”, if there are two copies of the same key (that is, their shape is identical, they open the same locks) with both having a skull painted on them, does this red deny the possibility of the key Battler found in the bedroom being a different copy of the same key as the one that was found in the pot? I would expect that red to deny that possibility, otherwise riots will ensue.
I’ve been a bit curious about the Cock Robin thing too. If there was one victim and multiple culprits, I’d take it as a hint towards there being multiple culprits who conspired to kill and bury the victim. However, the opposite is true - there are multiple victims but only a single culprit. Perhaps the culprit felt like they are Cock Robin and the victims are the townspeople, in that poem? The culprit thought everyone is conspiring against them and killed them because of it?
3 Likes
It looks like all it took to return you all to life was, ironically, to murder someone.
Now then, let’s begin, shall we?
I feel like, since I’ve killed one of you, that I should make Xak’s death not be in vain and clarify some potential paths and subsequent dead ends.
I feel like at this stage it should be important to suggest not to fall into the same trap you’d unintentionally fallen into with Pact around breaking alibis. This more or less applies for most of the seeming alibi situations. A game where Battler manages to slip away due to a harsh wordplay in red would be pretty pointless. If I’ve seemed to avoid giving definitive reds on people’s movements it’s twofold: both to keep you in a sense of confusion but also because reds about movements are still generally insufficient and can be danced around, and the whole thing becomes a mess. So I would suggest to keep on the path of reason when it comes to the alibi shindings.
Fair enough.
The issue would then be as to how Kanon managed to stay inside of the library while getting the two keys out of the room. Remember, after all, while you don’t need a key to lock the upper lock - the lower one is a different story. And both were locked.
I… don’t think one is able to control one’s actions during sleepwalking. Like neither the sleepwalker nor the outside source. I could be wrong on that. It’d be quite the task for Shannon to be sleepwalking, specifically remove the bookcase, unlock the study, let Kanon in and do nothing (all while still sleeping) and then lock the door and push the bookcase back after he left.
Of course, the underlying issue of the key still remains, even if all of this were to stand.
I’d also like to clear up a thing or two I’ve seen discussed in Discord that could potentially be taken the wrong way. All of these are related to the key problem.
At the time this red was made, it raised some brows given the wording, but I assure you there’s nothing special at work here. I was simply trying to word the red to seem more like a rule set in stone. At the time, I’d overlooked a somewhat contrived option that this left red out in the open like Battler dropping the key but choosing not to do anything about it. But at this point, that option should be denied. There is no trick or wordplay when it comes to this red. Any bizarre wording is just weirdness on my part.
While I’m on the subject of Battler dropping the key, another theory suggested on Discord (I believe by Zepfur) was that as he was giving his jacket to Shannon, the rule about Battler noticing dropping the key would stop being in effect, and that in the time before Shannon started the searching, the key dropped out, hence making her search still perfect despite the blunder.
Naturally, there is no pot and the end of that rainbow. Assume the dropping rule can be applied as liberally as you wish. (Reasonably liberally, of course.)
Speaking of Shannon’s search, I noticed that this red:
left a rather annoying possibility that the ‘examination’, given the context in which the red was given, could be taken to mean that it referred only to the coat, but not the rest of Battler’s person. I also realized ‘oversights’ is a bit too general, letting you move about to something like ‘a-ha! well of course she had no oversights - there was only ONE oversight!’ or something. So, to clarify this red definitively: [color=red]Had a key, or key-like object been present in any article of clothing Shannon had searched, she would have found it.[/color] This is what the examination and oversight parts refer to.
And speaking of the post with this red:
This one was kind of a fuck-up on my end. I couldn’t be bothered to check the narrative, which implies there’s more than one waistcoat pocket. For the purposes of the game, however, assume that there was only one waistcoat pocket to begin with for the sake of keeping things simple. It’s not a hint suggesting unreliable narration, just a mistake on my end.
(Doesn’t seem like too many people noticed so not that big of a deal but was brought up today, so…)
Next, I think it was brought up that the description of the red skull key isn’t exactly the same in two different instances of the story, thus suggesting two such keys existing or possible duplicates. Even though such a possibility won’t necessarily hep you with the problem of the key’s disappearance, you could still potentially claim something like ‘the key Battler found in the room and the one in the pot aren’t literally the same but they unlock the same thing so they are technically the same’. I want to assure you there’s no such thing at play here. [color=red]There is only, and always has been, only one key that could unlock the lock the red skull key ended up unlocking.[/color] (If this red sounds weird it’s because I couldn’t be fucked to look up which part of the lock it unlocked. Sorry fam. You have my word this one’s legit, though.)
Uh, let’s see…
[color=red]All of the events are presented in chronological order, and take place within the same timeline.[/color] Zepfur wanted to go with that narrative trick. Unfortunately, it’s not the case.
Finally, while you’re all asking interesting questions, I do advise you keep them simple and focused more on the chain of events rather than the culprit’s potential motivations. When you’re down in the dumps this much, speculation on the whys of the hows won’t get you far. The sea is endless and the explanations that could potentially wringled out many - and few if any giving a clear path to a solution. Again, while these questions are interesting, focusing on them too much won’t necessarily lead you to a solution here. My best advice is to first work towards a ‘how’ if possible and then wonder if some of the oddities of the culprit’s motivations would be able to fit with it.
(Then again, you’ve been doing that this entire time, so maybe I should just… let this play out. After all, I of all people should know players can catch an unexpected second wind from practically nothing.)
I… think that should be all, for the time being.
I just want to mention that I usually start digging into all the interesting whys and stuff because it seems like the direct approach of looking at the how is not bearing any fruit. Looking at things from a different angle can help get rid of false assumptions or otherwise broaden one’s horizons when it seems like there’s nothing but a brick wall ahead… but if that’s not going to be useful, back to beating one’s head against the wall it is, I guess.
1 Like
Nah, I feel you.
I can at best give my own take on it, really. Fact is I’m only saying what I am because in my mind I’ve already got an ideal way of reaching the truth. Hard to judge how much of the ‘whys’ here will be helpful in reaching a solid conclusion because of that. For all I know one right question could, as you say, lead to a different perspective on the situation.
And honestly, given that you appear to have hit a brick wall, any approach to keep the discussion going is good.
So, feel free to carry on as you wish. It all contributes in its own right when all is said and done. Especially in a situation like this.
Anyhow. New ideas, new ideas… I wonder if it might be possible for Battler to somehow plant the red skull key on one of the siblings in a way that makes them unknowingly drop it into the pot? Sounds pretty implausible, but might as well claim something such as “[color=Blue]Battler sneakily planted the key into someone’s sleeve, and it fell into the pot when they were examining the pots[/color]”.
I have the strangest feeling I’ve seen someone suggest a variation of this…
Oh well. As you probably yourself have realized, the issue becomes that it’s impossible to time to the keys falling out of the sleeves. But then again, you could claim the plan was to never have the key fall out into the pot to begin with, so, let’s just go with this:
[color=red]Directly before it fell into its respective pot, the red skull key was held directly by a hand. It was intentionally dropped into the pot.[/color]
A nice, decisive red, no?