#i hate that thing and this is the last fangan it will ever appear in

[av-multifangan]

Hello! If you don't mind, I have a few questions about the trial mechanics because DROS' format is fascinating to me :D

-Who picks which side the protagonist takes in a Debate Scrum? The writer (venus) or the player (accirax)? If it's the player, how is the possibility that they pick the "wrong" side accounted for? Or are all Debate Scrums made in a way that, no matter what the player picks, the trial can progress more or less normally?

-For things like Nonstop Debates that require using truth bullets/notes, is there always only one correct answer like in canon (beyond backroutes in V3)? Or does the existence of things like synthesizer bullets and the format itself mean there's some flexibility in what answers are admissible? If the latter is true, is it possible for the trial to take different paths depending on the decisions of the player, or not? (I know the FAQ says all the trials except the last were written in advance, but I'm unsure if that just refers to the actual events like the victim, killer and method, or if it also extends to the progression of the trial itself :v).

-Which minigames do you find the most fun to write (so, make the template for the player to answer) and which one do you find the most fun to play (as in, try to find the answer to)? Asking just for funsies :)

Hello! This is a longer question so read below:

Debate Scrum/Scrum Debate

The answer to this question changes based on the Trial! At first, all Scrum Debates had a decisively winning side, and the protagonist was always directly assigned to the correct/winning team. Sometimes what you argued in the Scrum Debate would be proven wrong during the rest of the Trial, sometimes it wouldn't.

However, at some point, I (Venus) had a Scrum Debate that was more so based on emotional stances than the logic of the case; the correct answer, for which neither side was arguing, was deduced immediately after the mechanic. For that one, I prepped two different versions of the Scrum Debate, with the protagonist on either side. Accirax got to choose which went into the story, and the timelines reconverged shortly after. Eventually, this stemmed into letting the protagonist be straight-up wrong about the Scrum Debate at times, as long as it didn't matter too much.

The longest divergence we've had for opposing Scrum Debates is that, one time, the following three mechanics after a Scrum Debate were different until the timelines reconverged. This was probably excessive and a mistake, but I did it anyways.

For some Scrum Debates, though, we still lock the protag into a side, usually when we're confident in what they would choose. For example, in One Shot Chapter 1, I locked Ellis into defending Jeff/attacking Vivi because, based on the prologue and out-of-text discussion, it seemed very clear that Ellis would side with Jeff over Vivi, at least at this point in the story.

2. "Correct" Answers

Yes, Trial mechanics have correct answers. I write them on my prep docs in brackets; Accirax writes them like normal, complete mechanics like a psychopath. (Hey >:( -A)

Occasionally, we'll accept "wrong" answers (like if two pieces of evidence basically indicate the same thing). Since we write in person together, the rule of thumb is that there is a correct answer, but if a "wrong" answer gets to you the right point of logic, it's okay. However, even if a solidly logical answer would send the Trial in the wrong direction, it's wrong.

All of the Trial text (ignoring editing and within mechanics) is written in advance except for key scenes where the protag may need to speak/offer emotional input. In these scenes, we have transitions between mechanics roughly planned out, but not prewritten. Notably, all of our Chapter 6 Trials primarily follow that model with only a few transitions being prewritten. No live writing occurred in the One Shot Chapter 1 Trial.

3. Minigames

Venus:

I like writing Nonstop Debates and Puzzling Pieces the most. It's best when I get to write characters talking to each other and interacting rather than having to come up with phrasings out of nowhere. I also think Third Party Analyses are satisfying to write because you get to mentally check off each part.

For favorite to play, it's definitely Puzzling Pieces for me. I think it's really fun looking at how the words are laid out in the hint and figuring out what kind of speech (ex. noun, verb, adjective, adverb) each slot must be and systematically solving the sentence that way. Also, I'm very good at them, which helps.

Freestyle Feuds are fun for both, but only if I'm in the rhyming mood.

Accirax:

Barring some mechanics that aren't in One Shot, I'll have to be boring and say that my favorite mechanics to write are also Nonstop Debates and Puzzling Pieces. I, too, like writing the characters talking to each other and throwing in some jokes, and I also like how it's only a mechanic I invoke when already know what the end goal is. With something like a Debate Scrum or Third Party Analysis, I occasionally reach the point in the Trial where it should go, but I have to fumble around for what the actual answer is as I write it.

In terms of my favorite to play, I actually really like Lie Detector. I find it really satisfying to need to back up my deductions with two pieces of evidence instead of the usual one. Otherwise, Freestyle Feud is pretty fun?

I would have Nonstop Debate in contention but with SOMEONE'S decision to have Synthesizer Bullets AND Time Bullets active at all times, there are too many options and I'm really bad at figuring out the right answer :( (/j)