Danganronpa: The Tragedy

I wonder if it's too late to create a second character
 
Kiseichu said:
I thought I was senpai :-:
*Silently cries in corner with all her newly bought BL Doujinshi*
Click to expand...
N-nono! Don't get me wrong I-I mean you'll be my all time #1 Senpai *rains glitters*
 
<p><a href="<fileStore.core_Attachment>/monthly_2016_08/image.png.c3ca16931a43e56375a466aa4475c872.png" class="ipsAttachLink ipsAttachLink_image"><img data-fileid="147371" src="<fileStore.core_Attachment>/monthly_2016_08/image.png.c3ca16931a43e56375a466aa4475c872.png" class="ipsImage ipsImage_thumbnailed" alt=""></a></p>


I did it I finished the sloppy lineart for the SHSL Traps i DID IT

 

Attachments

  • image.png
    image.png
    417.6 KB · Views: 24
Kiseichu said:
Omg, I can imagine Nao's clock rubbing against Chess's back, and I wonder how soft Nao's legs feel...
*Starts having dirty thoughts*
Click to expand...
latest
 
Hoo boy, maybe I tried to to advance the trial too much at once. It's just, so little was happening...

Kiseichu said:
I think I just got an idea
Click to expand...
Do tell.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Ryik said:
Hoo boy, maybe I tried to to advance the trial too much at once. It's just, so little was happening...
Do tell.
Click to expand...
To be honest, I wish the trial wasn't going as it is. First debate is always something simple, like how the victim got murdered. I mean, I've got a theory, and a hint dropped in the trial makes it so I could present that theory, but the posting order made it so I had to sit on the bench.


Questioning everyone's alibi at this point is too soon. You need to establish how a crime happens first, then you can start thinking about who could have committed said crime. If we established, say, she died because someone drowned her in a toilet stall, we would have to assume that person is physically capable. Then we analyze alibis and come to the conclusion only someone like... I dunno, Chess or something was the murderer.


The above is all a bunch of hokey, by the way, wasn't being serious. I'm just using an example I made up to support my point.


EDIT: I mean, I've been rewatching the trials lately. Accusations happen somewhere around the middle once they think they've figured out a crime, but then evidence is presented as to why that person can't do that crime in that way and the debate continues on how the victim was murdered. 's very formulaïc, actually.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Ammokkx said:
To be honest, I wish the trial wasn't going as it is. First debate is always something simple, like how the victim got murdered. I mean, I've got a theory, and a hint dropped in the trial makes it so I could present that theory, but the posting order made it so I had to sit on the bench.
Questioning everyone's alibi at this point is too soon. You need to establish how a crime happens first, then you can start thinking about who could have committed said crime. If we established, say, she died because someone drowned her in a toilet stall, we would have to assume that person is physically capable. Then we analyze alibis and come to the conclusion only someone like... I dunno, Chess or something was the murderer.


The above is all a bunch of hokey, by the way, wasn't being serious. I'm just using an example I made up to support my point.
Click to expand...
I thought the crime was a given, since we actually had characters witness Kyoko's death. There was a struggle, the mirror broke, she got a large shard of glass stuck in her neck and bled out/suffocated, and the killer ran before anyone saw her die. The wound on her head may have contributed, but it's redundant.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Ryik said:
I thought the crime was a given, since we actually had characters witness Kyoko's death. There was a struggle, the mirror broke, she got a large shard of glass stuck in her neck and bled out/suffocated, and the killer ran before anyone got there. The wound on her head may have contributed, but it's redundant.
Click to expand...
Her head got smashed into the mirror, which caused the glass to break and a shard of it to stab itself into her neck. It'd explain the head wound.


But we can't debate this if it can't be brought up.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Ammokkx said:
To be honest, I wish the trial wasn't going as it is. First debate is always something simple, like how the victim got murdered. I mean, I've got a theory, and a hint dropped in the trial makes it so I could present that theory, but the posting order made it so I had to sit on the bench.
Questioning everyone's alibi at this point is too soon. You need to establish how a crime happens first, then you can start thinking about who could have committed said crime. If we established, say, she died because someone drowned her in a toilet stall, we would have to assume that person is physically capable. Then we analyze alibis and come to the conclusion only someone like... I dunno, Chess or something was the murderer.


The above is all a bunch of hokey, by the way, wasn't being serious. I'm just using an example I made up to support my point.


EDIT: I mean, I've been rewatching the trials lately. Accusations happen somewhere around the middle once they think they've figured out a crime, but then evidence is presented as to why that person can't do that crime in that way and the debate continues on how the victim was murdered. 's very formulaïc, actually.
Click to expand...
I admit I fucked up with the posting order thing, but hang in there Mr. Harem.
 
Ammokkx said:
we can't debate this if it can't be brought up.
Click to expand...
I thought it counted as common knowledge.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Ryik said:
I thought it counted as common knowledge.
Click to expand...
No, head wound is something that you need to have investigated the body about. And we haven't explained HOW it got there. Every detail is important in trials.
 
Kiseichu said:
It does, anything observable within the bathroom (And victim's body) is common knowledge.
Click to expand...
...A head wound is something you'd need to have touched the victim's body for to see. Neither of my characters have done that. The glass shard is obvious, naturally. But if you used a glass shard as a murder weapon, you'd cut yourself. The only one with a cut on his hand is Yaeger, but Arisu and Shiori can back him up it's because of the knife.
 
Ammokkx said:
how the victim got murdered.
Click to expand...
I suppose I took this as cause of death.

Kiseichu said:
It does, anything observable within the bathroom (And victim's body) is common knowledge.
Click to expand...
I believe I labeled that piece of evidence as "readily observable within the bathroom, but not at a glance". (aka had to have been there)

Ammokkx said:
...A head wound is something you'd need to have touched the victim's body for to see. Neither of my characters have done that. The glass shard is obvious, naturally. But if you used a glass shard as a murder weapon, you'd cut yourself. The only one with a cut on his hand is Yaeger, but Arisu and Shiori can back him up it's because of the knife.
Click to expand...
I disagree. If the head wound had blood, it would have stood out against her light pink hair.


You don't need to cut yourself with a glass shard to use it as a murder weapon either, and backing people up isn't valid with certainty unless you have 5 people doing it, because of the group killing rule. No one asked how thick the glass is either, so we don't really know how sharp it could be. (thick enough=it'd break before cutting you if you don't hold it by a pointy end) Bringing up a cut on the killer's hand would be a good question to ask IC.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Ryik said:
I suppose I took this as cause of death.
I believe I labeled that piece of evidence as "readily observable within the bathroom, but not at a glance". (aka had to have been there)


I disagree. If the head wound had blood, it would have stood out against her light pink hair.


You don't need to cut yourself with a glass shard to use it as a murder weapon either, and backing people up isn't valid with certainty unless you have 5 people doing it, because of the group killing rule. No one asked how thick the glass is either, so we don't really know how sharp it could be, (thick enough=it'd break before cutting you if you don't hold it by a pointy end) but I think we should stop this discussion since it should be happening IC, lest we "solve it" twice. Bringing up a cut on the killer's hand would be a good question to ask IC.
Click to expand...
Well. I would have asked all of this in the IC, but I couldn't. And you were saying 'the murder was obvious' whilst I, obviously, still had questions. So it's not as obvious as you may think.
 
Ammokkx said:
Well. I would have asked all of this in the IC, but I couldn't. And you were saying 'the murder was obvious' whilst I, obviously, still had questions. So it's not as obvious as you may think.
Click to expand...
I mean, we know she had the glass shard in her neck, and that it was what killed her, so...


In any case, @Kiseichu can we ask stuff our characters should know but we didn't ask explicitly, such as the thickness of the glass shards or if there was condensation on the gallon of milk in the boys bathroom?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Ryik said:
I mean, we know she had the glass shard in her neck, and that it was what killed her so...
In any case, @Kiseichu can we ask stuff our characters should know but we didn't ask explicitly, such as the thickness of the glass shards or if there was condensation on the gallon of milk in the boys bathroom?
Click to expand...
Explaining how the shard got there is top priority, then. We all knew Maizono had a knife in her in the first trial, but it was quite the journey to discover how that knife wound up inside of her.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 3 (members: 0, guests: 3)
Back
Top