Sherlock Holmes (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
howdull) wrote in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png)
snowblindrpg2017-04-08 03:41 pm
howdull) wrote in snowblindrpg2017-04-08 03:41 pm
[network] @309_W1C_2DZ; text;an analysis of board games; night of 226 [open] cw: mention of drug use
[Sherlock hasn't really been talking to John and Mary the past few days, not since the whole monster fiasco that led to them getting separated and then finding one another again. It's sort of become an unspoken agreement just to keep moving towards the trap door.
But the endless moving, the waiting, the sleeping in houses that are locked down, is boring. And Sherlock Holmes does not do well with being bored. He's been restless all evening, pacing through the little house they've taken shelter in, taking his violin out only to tune it fretfully and then replace it without playing it, perhaps indulging in one or two of his remaining tablets to take the edge off (John and Mary don't need to know), and finally emptying his backpack to reorganise his supplies. Which leads him to noticing the murder mystery board game he collected some time ago and didn't pay much attention to.
The more he reads the rules, the more annoyed he gets, finally turning on the tablet to type a furious article. It would be something he published to the Science of Deduction, but he doesn't have access to his website here. So it gets published to the open network. Sorry, everyone.]
An analysis of the true perpetrator, and why the rules are pointless distractions, in Spyglass: A murder mystery game for all the family
On the surface, Spyglass appears to be a simplistic game intended for parents to push at their children to gain them an hour of uninterrupted peace, little more than a distraction for the dull-witted with minimal thought placed into execution or design. Digging further into the game sadly reinforces that initial impression, for it not only displays poor design choices, it actively teaches children to ignore blatant evidence and rely solely on guesswork for the solution to a crime.
As some of these children will undoubtably be the police officers and detectives of our future, it's hardly a surprise that our law enforcement agencies are in such dire straits when this is likely the first building blocks for their eduction in deductive reasoning. The players are taught to rely only on deducing which cards have not been played, rather than to look at the overwhelming truth staring them in the face.
The victim and the perpetrator are the same person.
Let us examine the evidence as we are intended to do, in the role of detective called after the 'murder' has taken place. We are presented with an array of weaponry - a gun, a knife, a candlestick, a rope, a wrench, and a lead pipe - of which we can easily rule out three immediately. A gun, a knife, and a rope, all leave distinctive wounds that would be impossible to conceal. As there is an element of mystery, and we, as detectives, apparently do not know which weapon caused the fatal blow, we can eliminate those from the pool of potential weapons. This means that the victim must have been killed by blunt force trauma, inflicted by the candlestick, the lead pipe, or the wrench.
Now we must look at the suspects and location of the crime. Each of the suspects, and the victim, are named for a colour. While it is not impossible for such surnames to exist, it is so unlikely as to be beyond reasonable doubt, that so many people with such surnames would all come together on the same night, with no anomalies to be found. No Mr. Jones alongside Mrs. Peacock, only Colonel Mustard, and Miss Scarlet. The inference that can be taken from this naming scheme is that, fairly obviously, these are pseudonyms. There are several reasons why all guests at a party might choose to hide their identities and, while not all of them are illegal, most are seen as at least socially immoral or scandalous. Thus, it can be further inferred that those present would be nervous of anyone discovering their attendance at such an event.
When combined with the location, a large house with a sealed cellar and several secret passages between rooms, the likelihood of this being a criminal enterprise grows exponentially. Very few houses require secret compartments or passages, unless they are to be used for hiding illegal wares, drugs, or trafficked humans. It is, however, impossible to determine the nature of the criminal activity without actual analysis of the scene, and so we must content ourselves with merely knowing it was criminal.
This is where we receive our concrete evidence that this is not a murder. Seven criminal cohorts, who have evidently been working together for some time based on the secured location and coordinated pseudonyms, would not commit a pre-meditated murder and allow themselves to be caught so easily. The body would be disposed of, along with the murder weapon, and all parties would remain silent on their involvement. A crime of passion is, by its nature, not a particularly subtle affair, and evidence of it would have been noted by the other members of the party. They would then have either assisted in a cover-up, or have turned on the clumsy murderer to protect themselves. None of these situations came to pass.
It is most likely that Mr. Black suffered an unfortunate accident, a fall which resulted in a head trauma from a nearby cabinet or step. The witnesses could all attest this being an accident, but fear to be found for, with their criminal backgrounds, would most likely have records which would positively identify them and could lead to an arrest. Thus, they flee, leaving the blundering police force to assume the worst - a suspicious death with many suspects. Unable to look past the surface of the scene, blood, and many potential weapons uncovered; they pick a suspect, a location, and a weapon at random in order to 'solve' the case.
In conclusion, this seemingly innocent attempt to arrest the attention of malleable minds, is truthfully a crime against the development of true deductive reasoning.
-- Sherlock Holmes
But the endless moving, the waiting, the sleeping in houses that are locked down, is boring. And Sherlock Holmes does not do well with being bored. He's been restless all evening, pacing through the little house they've taken shelter in, taking his violin out only to tune it fretfully and then replace it without playing it, perhaps indulging in one or two of his remaining tablets to take the edge off (John and Mary don't need to know), and finally emptying his backpack to reorganise his supplies. Which leads him to noticing the murder mystery board game he collected some time ago and didn't pay much attention to.
The more he reads the rules, the more annoyed he gets, finally turning on the tablet to type a furious article. It would be something he published to the Science of Deduction, but he doesn't have access to his website here. So it gets published to the open network. Sorry, everyone.]
On the surface, Spyglass appears to be a simplistic game intended for parents to push at their children to gain them an hour of uninterrupted peace, little more than a distraction for the dull-witted with minimal thought placed into execution or design. Digging further into the game sadly reinforces that initial impression, for it not only displays poor design choices, it actively teaches children to ignore blatant evidence and rely solely on guesswork for the solution to a crime.
As some of these children will undoubtably be the police officers and detectives of our future, it's hardly a surprise that our law enforcement agencies are in such dire straits when this is likely the first building blocks for their eduction in deductive reasoning. The players are taught to rely only on deducing which cards have not been played, rather than to look at the overwhelming truth staring them in the face.
The victim and the perpetrator are the same person.
Let us examine the evidence as we are intended to do, in the role of detective called after the 'murder' has taken place. We are presented with an array of weaponry - a gun, a knife, a candlestick, a rope, a wrench, and a lead pipe - of which we can easily rule out three immediately. A gun, a knife, and a rope, all leave distinctive wounds that would be impossible to conceal. As there is an element of mystery, and we, as detectives, apparently do not know which weapon caused the fatal blow, we can eliminate those from the pool of potential weapons. This means that the victim must have been killed by blunt force trauma, inflicted by the candlestick, the lead pipe, or the wrench.
Now we must look at the suspects and location of the crime. Each of the suspects, and the victim, are named for a colour. While it is not impossible for such surnames to exist, it is so unlikely as to be beyond reasonable doubt, that so many people with such surnames would all come together on the same night, with no anomalies to be found. No Mr. Jones alongside Mrs. Peacock, only Colonel Mustard, and Miss Scarlet. The inference that can be taken from this naming scheme is that, fairly obviously, these are pseudonyms. There are several reasons why all guests at a party might choose to hide their identities and, while not all of them are illegal, most are seen as at least socially immoral or scandalous. Thus, it can be further inferred that those present would be nervous of anyone discovering their attendance at such an event.
When combined with the location, a large house with a sealed cellar and several secret passages between rooms, the likelihood of this being a criminal enterprise grows exponentially. Very few houses require secret compartments or passages, unless they are to be used for hiding illegal wares, drugs, or trafficked humans. It is, however, impossible to determine the nature of the criminal activity without actual analysis of the scene, and so we must content ourselves with merely knowing it was criminal.
This is where we receive our concrete evidence that this is not a murder. Seven criminal cohorts, who have evidently been working together for some time based on the secured location and coordinated pseudonyms, would not commit a pre-meditated murder and allow themselves to be caught so easily. The body would be disposed of, along with the murder weapon, and all parties would remain silent on their involvement. A crime of passion is, by its nature, not a particularly subtle affair, and evidence of it would have been noted by the other members of the party. They would then have either assisted in a cover-up, or have turned on the clumsy murderer to protect themselves. None of these situations came to pass.
It is most likely that Mr. Black suffered an unfortunate accident, a fall which resulted in a head trauma from a nearby cabinet or step. The witnesses could all attest this being an accident, but fear to be found for, with their criminal backgrounds, would most likely have records which would positively identify them and could lead to an arrest. Thus, they flee, leaving the blundering police force to assume the worst - a suspicious death with many suspects. Unable to look past the surface of the scene, blood, and many potential weapons uncovered; they pick a suspect, a location, and a weapon at random in order to 'solve' the case.
In conclusion, this seemingly innocent attempt to arrest the attention of malleable minds, is truthfully a crime against the development of true deductive reasoning.
-- Sherlock Holmes
cw: suicide
Though there is still plenty of room for misinterpretation of the facts. For instance, your own conclusion that the perpetrator and the victim are the same person. Have you considered that this may still be deliberate, that Mr. Black's death was self-inflicted, but not an accident? A final act meant to cast suspicion on the others in the group.
cw: suicide
no subject
Where does the game say the death took place in the house anyway? That might give us another clue.
no subject
[He likes that Kunsel is taking this seriously, it's more than most people do.]
no subject
I suppose that means we have to assume that the death took place there, and that there was no tampering after the fact. Otherwise the game would mention it, possibly include the location of the actual crime as one of the variables to be determined.
[He makes a face to himself. This is a terrible thought exercise.]
If this were a real scenario, I still wouldn't want to rule murder out. Hell, I wouldn't want to rule out even the gun, knife, or rope simply because we obviously can't trust the forensics team here to have even looked at the body. If we treat it as the game it's supposed to be, though, and assume that the information we're presented with is accurate and all that we need to identify the perpetrator, I can't argue with your conclusion except for the sake of argument itself.
[Which is really what he'd been doing here, but only serves a purpose for just so long.]
no subject
[Of course he's right, he always knew it.]
Though further investigation would have to be undergone if this were a real case, and murder could not be ruled out then, we must assume that we have all relevant information to solve the case or the game would be immediately unplayable and less than useless even as an exercise in deduction.
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject