Mmmm… witch rank…
Welcome one and all to a, what should be, a relatively simple Umineko-themed gameboard! It does not feature any major spoilers, but fair warning - there is a joke in there that alludes to a revelation that comes along in EP4 (but you might not pick up on it immediately, so… just consider it fair warning if nothing else.)
The game’s rules are relatively simple.
◈ The story is told through two reliable points of view. ‘Reliable’ meaning that they are earnest in their narration and essentially feature an objective point of view - meaning, no fantasy scenes. It also means, there’s no room for tricks that would be blatantly obvious or just instantly caught in real life (ie, there being a giant hole in the wall that they happened to miss or something of the sort.)
◈ 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. Simply explain how the murder was committed. No need for a who or a why - although they are definitely possible to reach.
Finally, a few guarantees:
◈ There is only one culprit.
◈ The culprit must be someone mentioned in the story.
◈ There are no accomplices allowed.
◈ An ‘accomplice’ being defined as someone that willingly and knowingly helps with the execution of the culprit’s plans.
I think that should be all… Oh, and apologies for the potentially bizarre looking formatting or some badly-worded parts. I generally write these things relatively quickly and don’t bother proofreading too much aside from making sure the important stuff is there. I also tired out a new format that… didn’t really work out too well thanks to Word. But you be the judge.