[Kylon99]

Originally Posted by Renall

EDIT: No, the statement works for all of them, just for a certain kind of "true" and a certain emphasis on words.

For instance if I say "You can't go in there!" it doesn't necessarily mean you aren't able. However, the place I'm telling you not to go might be filled with poison gas, which would kill you. What I mean is that you can't go in there safely, which for certain interpretations of a red statement could be entirely true.

Likewise, if I say "You can't go in there!" I might not mean that no one can, but that you personally cannot.

Err... I might have accidently hijacked your list of examples for another purpose... 8) But I was trying to talking about how people get around the red...

What I was saying was that if you consider the red as having to work within the context of the story. Or maybe I should say it that the red has only to be true for the game/story itself and does not need to be true for 'reality.'

If you take that into account then the first set of statements I listed could be effective reasons why the red is true. But then the last two won't be effective statements that keeps the red true...

There is no way to cross the river ahead. You physically cannot cross.
There is a bridge across the river ahead, but it's out of service, blocked, collapsed, or otherwise inaccessible. You cannot cross by circumstance.
There is a way to cross the river ahead, but it requires such incredible skill that I do not surmise you are capable of doing it, and my assertion is correct. You cannot cross because of a personal trait, though others might.
There is a perfectly accessible and crossable bridge, but if you go across you will be shot and killed because the other side of the bridge is under quarantine or lockdown. You can cross, but my warning asserted upon you a moral imperative not to cross with the implicit warning that doing so would be dangerous.

With this set, the red is true because there are story reasons why you can't cross the bridge. Again, this won't work if the story is reality but if the author controls it then that's fine.

In terms of why the red is true, in order of the list above:
1. The author has decided the story will not feature a bridge.
2. The author has decided the story features an impassable bridge.
3. The author has decided the character cannot cross the river due to lack of swimming ability or fear of water, etc.
4. The author has decided the story features a bridge that is sufficient to dissuade and/or deter the character from crossing.

Of course there's no way of telling which one it is without the story itself... but maybe, I'm starting to think that it doesn't matter which one. At least with Beatrice's games, i.e. EP1-4. I wouldn't bet on Lambdadelta's games.

Ok, with the last two though:

You can't cross the river "ahead," but you can take a turn-off and cross it a little ways down the road. You are only temporarily unable to cross.
There is no river ahead. You cannot cross something that doesn't exist to be crossed.

1. The red is insufficient to declare this impossible. In this case, it's because of an addition to the line, 'ahead.' Sometimes it could be due to an omission like, "midday." A new red would be needed, like, "You can't cross the river at any point!" If this is not brought up then there is the possibility that the red can be broken this way.
2. I believe the red is also insufficient in this case, so this is another way to get around the red.


This is meta-gaming at its best... but then we don't call them Meta-Battler and Meta-Beatrice for nothing. 8)