Writing Courtroom Trials

[Westeford]

I'm almost finished with my first game. It's a short story based on the Danganronpa series. Basically six people are trapped inside a school. The only way to escape is to kill one of the hostages without getting caught. Basically there are four phases.
1. Set up
2. Exploration (Exploring the school and developing the cast until the murder happens.)
3. Investigation (Investigating the murder, gathering evidence.)
4. The Trial (Find the killer and prove their guilt.)
I am currently writing the trial phase, however I'm stuck.

I think I have my facts straight, and I know how I want the trial to end. But I'm having trouble getting to that conclusion.

The main gameplay during the trial consists of the characters presenting their testimony then the player selects the problematic statement then presents the evidence that contradicts the statement.

I think my main issue is that the contradictions are either too obvious or too obscure.
A lot of the time it feels like the conclusion is too obvious for a trial.
Other I have trouble making the discussion flow well.

One thing I notice in Danganronpa or Ace Attorney, is that the discussion sometimes goes in the wrong direction, but still gets some details correct.
(For example in the first trial of Danganronpa V3, they discuss how the killer could've killed the victim using a projector screen to pry a door open then throw the shot-put ball. Then they find out that the killer didn't do that. But they end up confirming the murder weapon and writing off a suspect. [I probably missed a few points, but I hope I made sense.])

I hope I got my point across. I guess what I'm asking for is any tips and things I should keep in mind while writing.

[Mammon]

The contradictions are either too obvious or obscure? So it's like Danganrompa or Ace Attorney, then.

I believe that one thing they do is make something really obscure when you get into the trial but then somewhat too obvious halfway the trial by behaviour, new evidence presented by one of the others who also investigated, or something like that. Make the real culprit impossible to predict before the trial begins, even if the reader knows that the first suspect is innocent. It's not the real culprit that's the twist, but the new evidence one needs to connect the dots.

[Katy133]

I think a good piece of advice with writing a fair play mystery game is Justin Alexander's Three Clue Rule.

Basically, the Three Clue Rule is this: "For any conclusion you want the PCs to make, include at least three clues."

An example of using this in an Ace Attorney-inspired game would be this:
(1) The player searches a location for clues.
(2) There is a Deduction they need to collect for the future trial.
(3) They have a chance to collect this Deduction through THREE possible clues they can find here.
(4) At the trial, if they have at least ONE clue, they can present it to make the desired Deduction.

[Kuiper]

A few things:

First off, I think it is perfectly fine to have "obvious" contradictions. If you want the case to ascend in difficulty (starting off easy, then gradually becoming more and more difficult), simply place your obvious clues closer to the beginning of the case. This can give the player the chance to become familiar with the basic gameplay systems.

In arranging your contradictions from obvious to obscure, you also place your "hardest" contraditions closer to the end of the case. This is a good thing, because the later that the "hard" problems come up, the more time you have to foreshadow them, dropping small hints and clues along the way that will collectively prepare the player for the hardest final challenges of the case.

[Kinjo]

Interesting essay Katy, I'd second giving that a read.

I'd like to add that there are some useful rules Ace Attorney tends to follow:
- each clue is used at least once (so the player can use process of elimination: which one hasn't been presented yet?)
- some deductions can be solved by presenting more than one clue (so the player is rewarded for being clever)
- the total number of clues is kept to a minimum (so there's nothing unnecessary to confuse the player)
- there is a wide variety of clues (so it's easy to figure out when a clue is irrelevant to the current topic)

The discussion "going in the wrong direction but still getting some details correct" is basically misdirection at its finest. You've got a witness who saw the suspect commit the crime, but you know the suspect has an alibi, so what does that mean? Is the witness lying, or was someone pretending to be the suspect? There should be clues in the witness's testimony to help us figure that out.

Basically, you have to think about it from the inside out. You know the answer to your mystery, but there are characters in the story who will misinterpret everything. You just need to imagine the different possibilities that could happen, and let the characters come up with theories themselves. The player's clues will determine what's fact from fiction.

You've got a good start because you know how you want things to end. Just work backwards and invent new reasons for characters to talk about different topics, which each touch upon the critical details of the crime. Then go back and foreshadow these reasons into the pre-trial story.

Also, I think it's better for a mystery to have a solution that's "too obvious" than "impossible to solve." Most people aren't very good at mysteries, and as a mystery writer you start to pick up on a lot of things most people wouldn't notice. So even if it's really obvious to you, it still might be difficult enough to entertain the average player. Better to have someone say "Woohoo, I solved it! Let's do another one!" than "There was NO way I could have figured that out! Unfair!"

[Ezmar]

Also, I think it's better for a mystery to have a solution that's "too obvious" than "impossible to solve." Most people aren't very good at mysteries, and as a mystery writer you start to pick up on a lot of things most people wouldn't notice. So even if it's really obvious to you, it still might be difficult enough to entertain the average player. Better to have someone say "Woohoo, I solved it! Let's do another one!" than "There was NO way I could have figured that out! Unfair!"

I agree with this. People appreciate a mystery that is difficult to solve, but only if they solve it. Alternatively, most mysteries that players wouldn't be expected to solve are usually in stories where you "solve" the mystery by continuing to read. In a more "storytelling" format, there's more leeway to make a mystery confusing, as the only real limitation is what details the reader can remember. But if it's in a game like Danganronpa or Ace Attorney, the player's problem solving skills are also a part of the equation, and they need to not only be able to keep track of the information, but also to process and synthesize it. Good games like this are all about how to gently guide the player so that they discover the answer you're leading them to, without them feeling that they're being fed the answer.

The biggest issue there is that it requires a good amount of playtesting to really do it well, since there are so many different experiences people have, but it's a good concept to keep in mind anyway.