[M] Endless Nights - Daybreak

[Gamer2002]

@up
I would like this one to be confirmed in actual red without me having to look in other people solutions, but even if

Spoiler : :

Phoenix Wright was still dying from the poison, killed by Tap. Enigma simply finished him off a bit earlier and this is why technically it was Tap who killed Phoenix Wright, and Enigma could remain an accomplice.
Or the pain caused by the poison will force Phoniex Wright to commit suicide with gun. Enigma will shoot Phoenix's head afterwards.

[Zohar the Shiny]

Spoiler : :

"All those who were shot were also killed by being shot." - Enigma, post 9, page 146 of this topic.

In response to your other idea... There is only one culprit. The culprit is the one who kills.

I could give you another relevant red here, but isn't it more fun this way?

[Gamer2002]

Okay, now I'm mad.

Spoiler : :

Phoenix Wright has been shot with gun that shots poisoned darts and thus his cause of death falls under being shot. Enigma shots his dead body.
Phoenix Wright already has been shot before he woke up, but not immediately fatal. He doesn't notice it after waking up, because he is on morphine and Owen gets his attention. Enigma shots his dead body.
There is some sort of device set up by Tap that will shot Phoenix Wright before Enigma shots him.

And now, to calmly rethink this.
Phoenix Wright has been already murdered. He is still alive, and will be shot in head in 20 minutes by Owen. This will be accomplished by a human being. Everybody else is dead and I may need some real fancy playword to even make Enigma alive.
Well, Tap's dead body could be hanging on some strings and be moved like some sort of puppet. He set up the device that moves him and makes him shot. His body pulls the trigger. So it was acheived by a human being. Nah, this suck and doesn't explain how there is a conversation, excluding recording. But there is already red declaring that Owen did not predict conversations.

Okay, about my accomplice theory. Enigma never showed his sprite in the story section (that starts with our arrival). The real Enigma, who is a woman, also had not showed up with her sprite at any point. Either of those doesn't fall under red definition of being featured in story. By this definition, Enigma could speak through the radio and he/she still wasn't featured. Enigma is a mere accomplice, so him existing outside of story until the finale doesn't violate Knox 1st. This is why Enigma is still alive despite everybody featured in story, excluding Phoenix Wright, being dead.

I don't think there is need for more theories about how Phoenix has been murdered - he already was shot and doesn't notice it.
The reds state:
Phoenix Wright is being shot in 20 minutes.
He will die.
Anybody who has been shot dies from being shot.
Phoenix Wright has been already murdered.

Therefore

IT IS IMPOSSIBLE FOR PHOENIX WRIGHT TO NOT BE ALREADY SHOT WHEN HE HAD BEEN DECLARED ALREADY MURDERED

THE ACT OF SHOOTING THAT WILL MAKE PHOENIX WRIGHT DIE HAPPENED BEFORE HIS MURDER HAD BEEN ANNOUNCED

CHANGING THE WAY PHOENIX WRIGHT HAS BEEN MURDERED WILL VIOLATE THE RED ABOUT HIM BEING ALREADY MURDERED

SHOOTING ALIVE PHOENIX WRIGHT AFTER THIS DECLARATION WILL VIOLATE IT

IF ALL REDS ARE TO BE TRUSTED PHOENIX WRIGHT MUST DIE FROM PAST SHOOTING

[Ferdielance]

Was it ever confirmed in red that...

Spoiler : assumption :

...the story really begins in the Chateau, and isn't a continuation of some earlier set of events, such as the intro sequence?

If the intro sequence doesn't matter for reds, why was it shown?

One thing to bear in mind is that when we get the declaration that Phoenix Wright has already been murdered, we're outside of the story - the story has already ended. There's no need to posit poison; just assume he was shot and instantly killed in the story, and afterwards we see his meta-self in the meta-Courtroom being confronted with the facts. Think of that person who is told "you were killed" as the idea of PW, not the PW who was in the story.

Death doesn't behave in obvious ways in these meta-sequences, which is almost, but not quite, a cheat.

I do wish the blurred lines between meta-world and the story had been made a bit clearer, if only because of the nature of the solution. This is doubly true when we have some players who weren't here for the very earliest rounds when the whole crazy EN/Umineko mythos was being solidified.

In an EN, a Game Master or player can metaphorically "die" outside of a story (gameboard) by being defeated. A character who is alive in a story can be dead outside of it, and vice versa. It's as crazy as it sounds.

[Bad Player]

I actually have a red about that, which I was gonna post.

Spoiler : red~ :

Story refers to the EN and not to the floor or level.

[Ferdielance]

We should make a FAQ of all the weird storytelling assumptions and conventions in these ENs. Some of them are borderline unfair unless you have those shared assumptions...

Alternatively, we should make more non-standard ENs that openly follow a different ruleset.

[Bad Player]

Alternatively, we should make more non-standard ENs that openly follow a different ruleset.

ENs already follow non-standard story/mystery rules. Applying another layer of non-standardness would just be mind-boggling xD

[Gamer2002]

But I've already covered everything.

Spoiler : :

To make it clear:
Enigma piece had sprite and is part of the story, he can be dead. Real Enigma, who is a woman, never showed own sprite and isn't part of the story by red definition of being featured in story. She is alive and can act as an accomplice and shoot dead Phoenix Wright without violating any reds. Anybody from out of the story can be an accomplice without violating Knox 1st.

As for the last part being meta-world...
This is room E and we have In 20 minutes, I will walk in here and directly shoot you in the head. We are in room E and Owen will also be there in 20 minutes.
Anything the detective sees is really what's happening. Phoniex Wright saw courtroom and said it is courtroom. This is Room E that does look like a courtroom, Phoenix isn't hallucinating or dreaming until he gets killed. He sees the reality. In Umineko it was always clear whatever the detective was in reality or in magic world, so any hidden shenanigans with it is cheating.

More than that, we have following reds:
Everyone in this story, besides Phoenix Wright, has been killed. - Phoenix Wright wasn't killed.
You will die. - Future tense, Phoenix Wright is not dead yet, he will die in the future.
All of the following have been murdered: BBlader, BP, DWaM, Blackrune, Tap, Hershel, Maya Fey and Phoenix Wright.
- whatever murdered Phoenix Wright already happened.
For me it is pretty clear. Phoniex Wright was shot, he is still alive, he is going to die from being shot. Breaking this is a logic error.

Even if it is meta-world and Phoenix Wright is going to be shot there... Then alright. Phoniex Wright was shoot by Tap after being knocked out. After that Tap died. Enigma or whoever will shot Phoenix Wright in meta-world and by Knox 2nd I have no means to deduce nor any reason to care about whatever happened there. Demanding from me to solve mystery about whatever happened in meta-world is breaking the rules.

EDIT: Corrected some errors. It's late in my timezone, I'm too tired for this.

[Ferdielance]

I do think that the exact circumstances of that last murder scrape dangerously close to Logic Error when you consider the timing of the reds, so Gamer has a legitimate point here.

Spoiler : confirmationr :

You've got most of the right ideas, though delayed deaths don't really need to factor in, but it's not Tap who's the mastermind. I think the exact timing of Phoenix's murder is something that is vague, and not as central to the heart of the solution as you've justifiably made it. I can confirm that you're right about Enigma's sprite meaning that he can be both killed and involved in the story itself.

The question is when he was killed, and what that means for the story, and when he's alive.

The meta-world stuff stretches Knox a bit because it calls on the existence of prior EN episodes in order to make sense. Whether it's a Knox-breaker is iffy. I think Enigma did literally stick to Knox here, but it definitely stretches, and there's one thing that's just plain underclued.

[Zohar the Shiny]

Spoiler : :

It's true that the last scene is rather unfair. Just consider that, while the story follows chronological order, any two frames can be separated by an unspecified amount of time - even when no "break frame" is provided. On the other hand, I think that the "meta-world" explanation is unnecessary, if you follow that explanation.

Additionally, there's one (maybe two, depending on how you see them) other aspect of the mystery that is nigh-undetectable within the story itself; you'll almost certainly need to make some underlying blue statements to figure that one out.

[Ferdielance]

If there's no meta-world superimposed over room E at the end, the part about Phoenix having already been murdered really does strike me as Logic Error-ish, unless you're very generous with either timing interpretation or totally unclued, unforeshadowed, undetectable poisons (which violate Knox), or slow-bleeding wounds we were never told about (also silly).

A simple fix would have been to add a gunshot and fade to black before making that red, but it's a little late now. I still like this EN, though, overall - it's pretty balanced if people attack it as a team, even if it's very hard for any one person to spot every piece of wordplay. A good "classical" EN hinging on words and tricks, even if the meta-nastiness is a little strong.

[enigma]

Spoiler : Explanation of why the EN is how it is MAJOR SPOILERS :

Well, a lot of the issues of these EN are intentional. With it I had a certain set of goals. The main idea of which resolved around the idea of establishing a continuity to the EN's. For example, besides the obvious fact that this works as a direct sequel to my last EN with foreshadowing in Hersh's EN and taking established elements from previous EN's (such as the punishment which was a call back to DWaM's EN), there was the usage of simple cluing that required knowledge of the series. For example, BB was heavily clued. All of the characters follow the sprites of who they were in previous EN's (Togami!Rune, Ace Hobo, Battler!DWaM). All except BB (Kuzuryu in BP's, Badd here). They also have their usual names. All except BB. In fact, if you pay attention, I imply the fact that BB died in a previous EN.

Rune: "I've been in these before. We go to a party... Sloppy writing... And then everyone dies."

Rune: "Sometimes there's grape juice (BP's EN)... Sometimes there's pigeons (Kwando's EN) and one time BP was into ponies! (DWaM's EN)."

That was all paraphrased but you get the gist. Rune states that everyone died at these EN's! And since BB was in BP's EN... Well. You get the gist. While it's my personal belief that after an EN all the pieces are killed and the world is ended, you can just assume everyone died off screen in all these... Or just take it as a clue towards a possibility and assume that they didn't all die at all! As long as you have the idea in mind. (Also, fun fact, I specifically mentioned ones in which Rune was a character in because, you know, other wise it would make no sense.)

Of course, it would be horrendously unfair if I ONLY relied on the references to prior EN's. Which is why I specifically highlight two names for BB during his intro... With neither of them being BB. A sort of hint through omission, I suppose.

(Speaking of hinting, did you know that chateau is actually french for "castle", not mansion? Also, what mansion has towers!? That's more of a castle thing...)

Back on track, how does my goal of tying the EN's into a continuity tie into the flaws of the EN? Well, it's all to do with the characterization of the "piece" Enigma. I wanted to portray him as angry, aggressive, sadistic and just an all-around terrible guy. Mainly due to his punishment for failing last time. Furthermore, he's got a major grudge against Phoenix Wright. And, since he's the one writing the story, this all had to show in the EN. As a result, the writing is much more bitter and aggressive. It's a sort of... parody of the typical EN. Or, to quote myself, a "farce". Which is a reason for the rather rushed atmosphere and the melodrama. I mean, "welcome to hell". That's just silly.

More importantly, though, this EN was supposed to be "unfair, yet solvable" if that makes any sense. Or, to put it another way, it had to come across as and use the sort of tactics as an unfair, broken EN to match the "cheating, scheming" nature of PiecEnigma and to work more with the idea of him creating a story specifically to break the player and Phoenix Wright. However, in a more... meta sense, for me to actually make an unfair or unsolvable EN wouldn't be fun for everyone and would just leave a bad taste in my mouth. After all, it is my philosophy that EN's should be "fun before complex or challenging", or to put it simply, you shouldn't aim to beat the player but to entertain them. If they had fun, if they enjoyed the EN, then you've won. This is, however, completely the opposite of my piece and so I was struck with a dilemna. My response, then, was to make an EN which was fair, solvable and fun but presented with all the trappings and elements of an unfair, logic error-y, cheating EN. I feel that I succeeded in this respect considering that it was solved within a day or so and no-one is calling for my head on a stick.

Any feedback that could be provided on how well this worked, or how well I achieved my goal would be appreciated but overall I'm quite happy with how it all worked out. In any case, I just hope you all had fun. The solution trial will be made and be posted up as soon as I get my internet back.

(Also, I will note that the Phoenix Wright being already murdered was an accident brought on by copy pasting and rushing due to having...like... 5 seconds left before I was kicked out of the cafe I was grabbing wifi from... Still, if you remember that this is a direct sequel to my last EN and Phoenix died in that... It works out. Especially since all the characters do acknowledge the existence of previous EN's and, considering the premise, I figure anyone could guess Phoenix died somewhere in another EN.

Still, my apologies. That was just sloppy worksmanship on my part.)

I think Enigma did literally stick to Knox here, but it definitely stretches, and there's one thing that's just plain underclued.

Would you mind telling me which thing you specifically refer to? I thought I put clues (some requiring previous EN knowledge, but each thing should have had one clue towards it that didn't... even if tying the EN's together was the point) towards all the tricks and such, so maybe it's something that was a little too obtuse with what I intended as a clue or maybe I just made a mistake...

[Ferdielance]

In my opinion, the underclued thing was:

Spoiler : that trick :

...referencing a character death in an otherwise unrelated previous EN that hadn't been played for over a year via a nearly transparent name change that requires suddenly expanding the context of the Red Truth.

Without awareness of prior ENs, the BB puzzle was nearly impossible to fully solve, and it wasn't as well set-up as the enigma culprit solution, which actually was clued to some extent, as were the Eye/I thing and the chateau/mansion switch. For one thing, the solution isn't the (reasonable) "it's someone else with the initials BB," it's "it is another BBlader who we're calling BB arbitrarily to avoid breaking any reds about non-repeated names!"

Name trickery is messy, and what happened with BB here strays very close to a Logic Error when you put it together with the reasoning that also requires people from prior games (enigma, for example) to be the "same person" who died. If he's the same person, you have a double identity in violation of in-thread red. If he's a different person, what does BB stand for? Billy Budd? And if it does stand for BBlader, you're caught on the other prong of that in-thread Red - 2 people, same name.

More generally: Even given prior EN knowledge, it's very risky to create "outs" for Red Truth to apply to events not clued in the game itself. "In my next EN, I say in red that Phoenix Wright is dead, because he died in ENs by other authors and I implied a shared universe!" Eventually, we hit a point where every EN requires knowledge of every other EN.....

Other than the BB thing, though, it struck me as basically fair and well thought-out. Just remember that we have new players as well as old!

I think a good rule of design is that a puzzle should have an "aha" moment, as opposed to a "oh come on, really, that's kinda cheap" moment. The culprit's identity was a good "aha" for me - it all fit. The accomplice... less so.

(BP's most recent was a giant string of "aha" moments in a neat package with no "oh come on" moments, which is why it's my current favorite. But this latest has some good stuff, too!)

[enigma]

Spoiler : On that thing... :

I see. I felt that combining the fact that "ACE HOBO" sets a precedent for people to only be called by what they are identified in red as, on top of the fact that BBlader's red specifically brings up two names (on top of the fact that the reds all use the characters nametag name except for BBlader) all served to imply that BB doesn't refer to him, and from there it's a simple logic jump to assume that there exists some BB out there who isn't in the mansion. (Also, I figured any new player would have seen BP's EN since it was the last one which was.... incredibly presumptuous of me.)

Perhaps it would have been better if I included a line more explicitly saying that nicknames or such don't count in reds or something...

Anyhoo, I'm still glad you found some good stuff in the EN. Speaking of which, how did you feel about it as a solvable "unfair mystery"? And what are your opinions of it as a "farce" or "parody" of the EN "genre"?

[Ferdielance]

Spoiler : hmm :

The problem is that saying that one name works doesn't imply or clue that another name doesn't. For example, if I identified a pigeon as Columba livia, and said names were not shared and there is only one Columba livia, and then referred to "C. livia," and THEN said I meant something else by C. livia than that pigeon... I'd better have a well-clued alternative like "a human named Carl Livia" or something. If I said, no, this is a second pigeon, but I'm using the taxonomic abbreviation instead of the full specific epithet, so it's "not Columba livia," that would show that I don't know how abbreviations work.

Nicknames are one thing - if you'd pulled a trick with ACE HOBO and BP being different people, that's workable. But BBlader calls himself BB in white, and to make BB in red refer to another BBlader who isn't even in the story is a wild stretch. I pretty much needed Enth and BP to see that to have any chance of spotting the rest.

I think that as Rules Lawyering ENs where the central twist is "unfair" wordplay goes, this is as strong as they get. It didn't play as all that deconstructive or parodic to me, though - not because it wasn't funny (much of it was), but because ENs are almost all parodies now. When was the last "serious plotline" EN? Do any of them take plot and character development very seriously? I know H did, but any others?

DWaM already parodied the Red Truth itself, so there's not much to deconstruct there. A really good EN parody satire would have to deconstruct the whole idea, and then... put it back together again. I have an idea for how to do this.