Salamence wrote:Well I kinda need more evidence. Like, right now, I only have the murder weapon and autopsy report.
There will also be another piece of evidence revealed later on which I have planned out. And I also plan for another piece of evidence, I just have no idea what it will be and how it will affect the case.
I dunno how I would get help for that without like revealing the whole setting for my case
Spoiler : Long Response :
I'd say plan out your trial and how you want that to end, and that way when you're working out cross examination topics, you'll know better what sort of evidence will be needed.
Normally evidence is only relevant to trials, or getting information from witnesses in investigation scenes, so if you're only up to the investigation, don't worry just yet. You can edit things afterwards.
For the longest time I only had 1 piece of evidence added, until I worked out what might be more relevant later on.
(I know it's hard to explain and I'm being vague, but hopefully if you plan things out in more detail, those specific elements like what evidence you'll need will become more clear.)
It's also worth noting that your mystery should determine what evidence you use, rather than the reverse. While you might expect a murder weapon to be among a case's usual evidence, my last case, for example, didn't feature one at all. I ultimately deemed it unnecessary for the contradictions I was planning or the casebuilding I was doing. Determine what you'll prove before you come up with things to prove it; you could even make a compelling case with just two or three pieces of evidence, provided you use them right.
bigwins wrote:It's also worth noting that your mystery should determine what evidence you use, rather than the reverse. While you might expect a murder weapon to be among a case's usual evidence, my last case, for example, didn't feature one at all. I ultimately deemed it unnecessary for the contradictions I was planning or the casebuilding I was doing. Determine what you'll prove before you come up with things to prove it; you could even make a compelling case with just two or three pieces of evidence, provided you use them right.
Well, from what I've seen, you're a prodigy casemaker legend and can make anything work, and you will soon probably join the ranks of DWaM with a mask
But yeah, I honestly do recommend planning out your mysteries more seriously instead of ad libbing it through the case. It ultimately just strengthens the quality of your case, I feel.
Yeah, as stated above, the most optimal approach is planning ahead with the order of:
Mystery ----> Cross-Examinations ----> Evidence
As a side-note, though, one shouldn't worry about the number of evidence their case features. Just use as much as the case actually requires. I remember years and years ago "pages of evidence" was used as a way to judge how "epic" a case is, but the truth is, it doesn't really matter all that much. If the case won't actually use the evidence in any meaningful way, you're better off just mentioning it in the case, but keeping it out of the court record.
P. S.
DJJ6800 wrote:
Spoiler : :
I don't think you should be talking when it comes to not meeting expectations. After all, Dragon's Turnabout featured no actual dragons and Turnabout Curtain did not feature actual curtains. And I'm willing to bet that your newest case won't feature a tape recorder despite the promo image.
Spoiler : :
Exchuse me, a fake dragon in a painting totally counts for a title
And do you not see these glorious curtains???
I shall not have you slander my new feature presentation, Turnabout Tape Recorder, in this way
As I've mentioned, unless the evidence has a pre-planned use for it somewhere in the trial itself, it won't make the case more interesting by default. The only thing I can suggest is, again, to go from "vague ideas" in cross-examinations to fully-fleshed out. Clearly have it as "Witness gives testimony of X. Defense points out that Y element in that testimony doesn't make sense by presenting Z." This will tell you what evidence will be used for those contradictions (Z), and by extension, what evidence you should have and use.
What makes your case interesting isn't the amount of evidence. It's primarily the mystery (second only to the characters; but those two could switch places depending on what you're going for). The cross-examinations help push the case forward. By pointing out contradictions, the revelations that follow either help unravel a part of the mystery, or deepen it. The only reason evidence is there is to make those contradictions possible to point out. Hence, evidence by itself doesn't make the case interesting.
(As a suggestion, you probably shouldn't triple-post. If your post is the last in a topic, always better to edit the new stuff in there. Otherwise papa Enth will get u)
