Why do people never just report all this at the start so you can solve their problem for you? I swear, some games I’m tempted to use hot pokers on the idiot nobles giving us the job (or the DM, that’d work too).
Ask two witnesses for statements and you’ll get three different descriptions of those present, two opposite ones of who did what and another for people that weren’t even there.
Some day I’m going to write the scene where the hero goes to an underworld denizen for the next lead, and that person just gives it to him.
"Wait, really? That’s it?"
"Sure, yeah. It’s this guy."
"You’re just… telling me? Voluntarily?"
"Why not? I’ve got no attachment to this creep."
"I’d been expecting to have to threaten you with imaginative physical violence, but… yeah, I guess this way is better."
The threat interrogation scene is one of those things that keeps popping up because people are so over-exposed to them, writers script them without really giving them any logical thought.
The Abbot’s case is not like that. Somebody he knew and admired for over twenty years has died; these people will never get to know her as he did, and his testimony is likely to give them the wrong impression about her. He knows he *should* reveal this information, but he doesn’t *want* to. So he’s in conflict.
In the face of this direct confrontation, that conflict is resolved.
I think you guys are forgetting the very valid reason to keep you lips light about you in this interrogation situation: ACAB.
The job of cops is to punish wrongdoing not protect the innocent. Sure you might be innocent of murder, but most nobles are nowhere near innocent nor clear of wrongdoing.
The other valid reason is, brains don’t like remembering every detail when asked for information. Asking the right questions does matter a lot for what answers you might get back. The priming effect is real. (Though video game logic requires specifically to worded answers for specifically worded answers, I don’t think that was applied here)
> Asking the right questions does matter a lot for what answers you might get back. The priming effect is real.
For the benefit of later readers: You wrote this before my reply below, but it was still awaiting moderation. In other words, neither of us ignored the other.
I’m trying to walk a line between the Behind The Scenes stuff I used to love as a kid, and letting the work speak for itself without me imposing a particular reading on it – or worse, giving something away. And I don’t know where that line is; I’m kinda feeling my way around.
What motivated me this time is a *profound* antipathy for the scene where the detective says, "Anything else?" and the cooperative-but-dim witness says, "Well, now that you mention it… " Pardon my shouting, HUMAN MEMORY DOESN’T WORK THAT WAY. Not without an additional trigger, leading, or some introspection on the witness’ part.
"now that you mention it" is basically the writer confessing that they decided they wanted the information divulged right at this moment, but they couldn’t figure out an elegant way to do it.
Back, some games I ran, the DM didn’t even know all the details, until the players figured them out, that is… (Yes, I knew who did it, and how and why, but sometimes the way the players figured it out was a LOT more creative than what I’d come up with!)
That is normal, as a DM you prepare one or two paths to the goal and then a good group will find more, you just have to go with the flow of your players and improvise a bit. Though I also had to pull a group of players though the plot by the nose.
I hereby nominate Cadugan for Poirot, Lucas for Captain Hastings, and Captain Carruthers for Inspector Japp. It has the classic trope of the real detective remaining relatively quiet.
Rich, I hope you and your collaborator have a classic "I have gathered you all here because one of you is the killer!" moment. Else I will be quite cross with you, sir!
I’m drawing on your statement to say the the drawing room was the first room drawn, in drawer’s drawing room. Bit of a drawn out statement.
And if a second, smaller architecture business room were drawn concurrently, would it be a withdrawing room with drawing room with the drawing room also?
Your Gnu fact of the day:
This reminds me of how in certain circles, when a player is about to win a hand, another player may interrupt by slamming a blocker card on the table.
This is often accompanied by the cry of "I Gnu it!"
Well what do you know, I’ve finally caught up! I will have to re-read the whole thing again (in my experience, a good story is often revealed to be even better when you already know the plot — and I’m sure that this is one of these), but I’ll coast along for a bit before I go back.
Thank you Rich for sharing this labour of love, and please don’t worry when you can’t keep up with your self-appointed schedule: I’ll be waiting patiently, as I know from the comments that most (if not all) of your fans will. I’d rather read a good story infrequently than a sloppy one frequently!
Now, my two cents on the artwork: I have to say that I much prefer your current style of drawing (the "pencil-sketchy" look) over the inked and shadowed style. Don’t get me wrong, the latter does look very good, but I find it lacks, I don’t know, personality? (not sure that’s the right word) compared to your usual style. It’s a bit like 2D vs 3D (with the pencil-sketchy type being 3D); both look good,but 3D has more presence.
P.S.: sorry, couldn’t come up with any gnu jokes, my head feels too woolly these days…
And on the expressions of the Abbott, from worried personally and trying to deflect, to puzzled and concerned, and downcast and… I find I feel sympathetic toward him, losing someone he enjoyed and liked and respected (from what he says), right after an argument that now cannot be resolved between them.
It does seem weird to me that they haven't yet asked why Maula is believed to hav edone it, or even Cadugan's "why do you think it wasn't just an accident?"
Pick up your copies of YAFGC Volumes 1 - 5 at our online store. Multi-book bundles and sketch editions available.
Dun dun Duuuuuuuuhhhhhh…!!!
Why do people never just report all this at the start so you can solve their problem for you? I swear, some games I’m tempted to use hot pokers on the idiot nobles giving us the job (or the DM, that’d work too).
Then the detective could not come back to say, "Oh, just more thing…" Yes, I grew up on Colombo in the 1970’s.
Is a classic thing indeed, the witness will never remember an exact detail until is asked about it…then willl remember every little detail
This has a basis in reality. Eyewitness reports are notoriously untrustworthy for this reason.
Ask two witnesses for statements and you’ll get three different descriptions of those present, two opposite ones of who did what and another for people that weren’t even there.
There was a book that had a cop go by the opposite of that the witnesses said, and of course caught the killer…
Awesome – which book was that?
t!
t!- I’ve been racking my brain to recall 🙁 There’s a similar spoof of eyewitnesses in Chris Moore’s Bloodsucking Fiends.
Some day I’m going to write the scene where the hero goes to an underworld denizen for the next lead, and that person just gives it to him.
"Wait, really? That’s it?"
"Sure, yeah. It’s this guy."
"You’re just… telling me? Voluntarily?"
"Why not? I’ve got no attachment to this creep."
"I’d been expecting to have to threaten you with imaginative physical violence, but… yeah, I guess this way is better."
The threat interrogation scene is one of those things that keeps popping up because people are so over-exposed to them, writers script them without really giving them any logical thought.
The Abbot’s case is not like that. Somebody he knew and admired for over twenty years has died; these people will never get to know her as he did, and his testimony is likely to give them the wrong impression about her. He knows he *should* reveal this information, but he doesn’t *want* to. So he’s in conflict.
In the face of this direct confrontation, that conflict is resolved.
t!
I think you guys are forgetting the very valid reason to keep you lips light about you in this interrogation situation: ACAB.
The job of cops is to punish wrongdoing not protect the innocent. Sure you might be innocent of murder, but most nobles are nowhere near innocent nor clear of wrongdoing.
The other valid reason is, brains don’t like remembering every detail when asked for information. Asking the right questions does matter a lot for what answers you might get back. The priming effect is real. (Though video game logic requires specifically to worded answers for specifically worded answers, I don’t think that was applied here)
> ACAB
The Abbot does not hold that viewpoint.
> Asking the right questions does matter a lot for what answers you might get back. The priming effect is real.
For the benefit of later readers: You wrote this before my reply below, but it was still awaiting moderation. In other words, neither of us ignored the other.
t!
May I just quietly note that I love reading your thoughts and reflections every bit as much as the strip itself?
I am emphatically present, checking regularly, and mine is a reverent silence. This is your hour, t!, and man, are you ever shining. 🙂 Shine on, sir!
> I love reading your thoughts and reflections
Thank you. That’s very encouraging.
I’m trying to walk a line between the Behind The Scenes stuff I used to love as a kid, and letting the work speak for itself without me imposing a particular reading on it – or worse, giving something away. And I don’t know where that line is; I’m kinda feeling my way around.
What motivated me this time is a *profound* antipathy for the scene where the detective says, "Anything else?" and the cooperative-but-dim witness says, "Well, now that you mention it… " Pardon my shouting, HUMAN MEMORY DOESN’T WORK THAT WAY. Not without an additional trigger, leading, or some introspection on the witness’ part.
"now that you mention it" is basically the writer confessing that they decided they wanted the information divulged right at this moment, but they couldn’t figure out an elegant way to do it.
This is why Haigh says "since."
t!
We talked about this during "The Little Librarian." You have my utmost sympathy, and my complete understanding.
This said…congratulations again, and know that my quiet is about letting the stage, and the show, be yours and Rich’s. Rock on.
I also love reading the metastory. 🙂 it causes me to think more, without feeling any less
Back, some games I ran, the DM didn’t even know all the details, until the players figured them out, that is… (Yes, I knew who did it, and how and why, but sometimes the way the players figured it out was a LOT more creative than what I’d come up with!)
That is normal, as a DM you prepare one or two paths to the goal and then a good group will find more, you just have to go with the flow of your players and improvise a bit. Though I also had to pull a group of players though the plot by the nose.
I hereby nominate Cadugan for Poirot, Lucas for Captain Hastings, and Captain Carruthers for Inspector Japp. It has the classic trope of the real detective remaining relatively quiet.
Rich, I hope you and your collaborator have a classic "I have gathered you all here because one of you is the killer!" moment. Else I will be quite cross with you, sir!
Be of good cheer. The first room created for the Abbey was the Drawing Room.
t!
How appropriate!
I’m drawing on your statement to say the the drawing room was the first room drawn, in drawer’s drawing room. Bit of a drawn out statement.
And if a second, smaller architecture business room were drawn concurrently, would it be a withdrawing room with drawing room with the drawing room also?
I will withdraw now.
Why is the room spinning?
t!
Well, t! is still standing, so let’s call it a draw.
That’s the Sleeping Beauty suite. Otherwise known as the Spinet Room.
Your Gnu fact of the day:
This reminds me of how in certain circles, when a player is about to win a hand, another player may interrupt by slamming a blocker card on the table.
This is often accompanied by the cry of "I Gnu it!"
Tauremil in the library with a candlestick!
Well what do you know, I’ve finally caught up! I will have to re-read the whole thing again (in my experience, a good story is often revealed to be even better when you already know the plot — and I’m sure that this is one of these), but I’ll coast along for a bit before I go back.
Thank you Rich for sharing this labour of love, and please don’t worry when you can’t keep up with your self-appointed schedule: I’ll be waiting patiently, as I know from the comments that most (if not all) of your fans will. I’d rather read a good story infrequently than a sloppy one frequently!
Now, my two cents on the artwork: I have to say that I much prefer your current style of drawing (the "pencil-sketchy" look) over the inked and shadowed style. Don’t get me wrong, the latter does look very good, but I find it lacks, I don’t know, personality? (not sure that’s the right word) compared to your usual style. It’s a bit like 2D vs 3D (with the pencil-sketchy type being 3D); both look good,but 3D has more presence.
P.S.: sorry, couldn’t come up with any gnu jokes, my head feels too woolly these days…
Can we get a chorus of Huzzahs for how well in the last two strips Rich has captured the Pondering Detective look?
t!
Huzzah indeed!
Definite huzzah!!!
And on the expressions of the Abbott, from worried personally and trying to deflect, to puzzled and concerned, and downcast and… I find I feel sympathetic toward him, losing someone he enjoyed and liked and respected (from what he says), right after an argument that now cannot be resolved between them.
Cue the note on the piano 😉
Or the Monk theme.
It does seem weird to me that they haven't yet asked why Maula is believed to hav edone it, or even Cadugan's "why do you think it wasn't just an accident?"