A forum for discussing and organizing recreational softball and baseball games and leagues in the greater Halifax area.
Violence is always the answer
-
This post did not contain any content.
-
R RPGMemes shared this topic
-
This post did not contain any content.
-
This post did not contain any content.
-
This post did not contain any content.
-
This post did not contain any content.
-
Then, rip both of them in half and knock down the safe door so that everyone after you immediately knows the safe route
-
This post did not contain any content.For years, I had my own headcanon for the Labyrinth movie. In the scene, the young Sarah correctly solves the riddle, passes through the correct door, says "This is a piece of cake!" and then she immediately falls down a pit of doom. This confused me, because she got the answer right, so I reasoned that the guards were both liars, and because they both participated in explaining the rules, they were lying about the rules. It was only a few years ago that I read in an interview that the Labyrinth dropped her down the hole because she said it was a piece of cake. It was her arrogance that set her back, not that she got the riddle wrong. But now it still bothers me that the liar, whichever one he is, helps explain the rules of the scenario. If he *always* lies, then she can't trust that either of them ever tells the truth. The rules have to be described separately, like on a sign or by a disinterested third party. Or you could phrase it differently, like "One of us will answer your question truthfully, and one of us will answer your question dishonestly." That way you avoid saying that they *always* lie, and specify that the lie will only be in response to the one question. Fuck, I've had too much coffee. How the fuck did I get up on this soapbox? Why are you still reading? Go do something productive.
-
This post did not contain any content.Alternate solution: 
-
For years, I had my own headcanon for the Labyrinth movie. In the scene, the young Sarah correctly solves the riddle, passes through the correct door, says "This is a piece of cake!" and then she immediately falls down a pit of doom. This confused me, because she got the answer right, so I reasoned that the guards were both liars, and because they both participated in explaining the rules, they were lying about the rules. It was only a few years ago that I read in an interview that the Labyrinth dropped her down the hole because she said it was a piece of cake. It was her arrogance that set her back, not that she got the riddle wrong. But now it still bothers me that the liar, whichever one he is, helps explain the rules of the scenario. If he *always* lies, then she can't trust that either of them ever tells the truth. The rules have to be described separately, like on a sign or by a disinterested third party. Or you could phrase it differently, like "One of us will answer your question truthfully, and one of us will answer your question dishonestly." That way you avoid saying that they *always* lie, and specify that the lie will only be in response to the one question. Fuck, I've had too much coffee. How the fuck did I get up on this soapbox? Why are you still reading? Go do something productive.> Go do something productive. No.
-
“So, you’re telling me I could have just greater restoration’d the guards rather than killing them? My god isn’t going to like this.”
-
I mean, the Barbarian asked the one question and didn't gain anything from it. Knowing which one is the liar doesn't... help anymore.
-
I've only heard it with one question, that's the whole point. Otherwise you just ask a guard some trivial question (e.g. What color is the sky?) to determine which is the liar, then just ask which is the safe door. The whole point is to get the information you need from a single question.
