View Single Post
Old 2011-01-03, 19:47   Link #205
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2008
Send a message via MSN to crazysjd89
Originally Posted by Will Wright View Post
That's not entirely true. See that's the beauty of bluffing. It's possible for him to contradict himself as much as he wants and outright violate his red because he'll tell the reader "rest assured, I have a solution" and then he'll watch the reader come up with a good theory to go around his outrageous scenario and run with it.
I should have said what I meant more clearly:

The fact that people can come up with concise answers, proves he at least had a basic idea of his solution. If he was just saying red with no idea what the solution actually was, it'd be a lot less likely that people would come up with an answer that can actually fit with all the red text.

I believe we had a debate before, and we used a puzzle comparison. To use that comparison again: We once again have a puzzle that is missing 20 or 30 pieces. The red text, in this example, are the missing pieces, but the pictures on the front are taken off. If people couldn't fit the missing pieces in, then it would be natural to assume that the pieces are part of a different puzzle and it isn't solvable and the person who gave you the missing pieces doesn't actually know where those pieces came from. But if the puzzle is solved, then it means, obviously, it is solvable, and that the person who gave the puzzle pieces must have known those pieces came from this puzzle.

Originally Posted by Will Wright View Post
The problem with that analogy is that if we assume he is just making crap up as he goes, then his red text means nothing.

For example, say he wrote the following:


I do not believe that would prove he knew how the hell that could possibly be true. He could very well be just bluffing and saying "I'll tell you when you get the right answer" knowing full well that there isn't a right answer.

He could then offer a few hints such as "banana plus wireless modem equals dragon" and we'd be trying to understand just what the hell he meant. I'm clearly exaggerating with this example, but you get what I mean.

I don't think he just threw reds randomly though. That would be stupid to assume. He had some vague idea of how to get around red(Shkanon) but he never gave too much thought about how that connected with the game itself.

He had the bare basics of the mystery ready, but he couldn't come up with a way to put it all together without making it seem like bullshit.

But, the thing is, as I said above, there are many people who came up with how 2+2=5.

However, you might be right that he didn't have a complete solution, but I think he had more then just a bare basic idea, at least. This is because, the more red that is given, the harder it becomes to, by chance, get an answer, even with a bare basic idea, eventually there would end up being some kind of impossible murder.

Let's say I were to make any random closed room, with no idea what the solution is. At first, it would be easy. There are several possible ways to get around it no matter what red I say. So I might say things like The door is locked and That is the only key to this room.

But, the more red I use, the less likely it'll be that there will be an actual solution.
crazysjd89 is offline   Reply With Quote