Skip to main content

Want to organize a murder?

With Halloween fast approaching, thoughts turn to dark deeds and slightly strange parties. I gather murder mystery parties are very popular at Halloween. In case you fancy that kind of thing, I thought I'd mention my ebook of mystery events, Organizing a Murder.

Organizing A Murder contains twelve different mysteries to solve with your friends. It's a downloadable ebook, so you can get it straight away - ideal for those last minute parties - and it makes a great resource because you can print off elements like answer sheets and clues straight from the 118 page ebook to set the scene for your crime.

There's huge variety. Not all the mysteries are murders, and the events are graded on three different levels, from those suitable for children from around 9, up to complex mysteries that need all the cunning of an adult player. Settings vary too, from a traditional country house to a starship in deep space.

Also unlike the party kits, there's a lot more variation in the way the each mystery is played out, from a simple treasure hunt, to a complex mystery with witness statements, clues and evidence to sift through. And because the players are all detectives, as individuals or teams, it's much simpler to organize as there's no need for costumes and embarrassing play acting. This approach means that any number of players can take part in one of these events.

Want to see what it's like? You can download the contents, introduction and part of one of the simpler mysteries for free by RIGHT CLICKING HERE and selecting "Save Target As..." or "Save Link As..." to download.

You can buy it at £10.99 (or $22.99) from the Organizing a Murder website, but as you've been kind enough to read my blog, you can buy it at a discounted rate of just £10. Just click here to go to the discounted page.

Sales pitch over - and have a suitable maniacal Halloween next week.

Comments

  1. Thanks, this might be very useful for someone's birthday. One of my daughters once had a murder mystery party from one of those websites you mention, and it was pretty good on the whole. The only problem was that one guest did not turn up so her role had to be taken by one of the others, and another guest did not like the game so spent the evening reading a book. But, those impediments apart, pretty good. So we might do it again (not for Hallowe'en, though, that's too exciting on our street as it is, avoiding all the rampaging micro-trick or treaters).

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Why I hate opera

If I'm honest, the title of this post is an exaggeration to make a point. I don't really hate opera. There are a couple of operas - notably Monteverdi's Incoranazione di Poppea and Purcell's Dido & Aeneas - that I quite like. But what I do find truly sickening is the reverence with which opera is treated, as if it were some particularly great art form. Nowhere was this more obvious than in ITV's recent gut-wrenchingly awful series Pop Star to Opera Star , where the likes of Alan Tichmarsh treated the real opera singers as if they were fragile pieces on Antiques Roadshow, and the music as if it were a gift of the gods. In my opinion - and I know not everyone agrees - opera is: Mediocre music Melodramatic plots Amateurishly hammy acting A forced and unpleasant singing style Ridiculously over-supported by public funds I won't even bother to go into any detail on the plots and the acting - this is just self-evident. But the other aspects need some ex

Is 5x3 the same as 3x5?

The Internet has gone mildly bonkers over a child in America who was marked down in a test because when asked to work out 5x3 by repeated addition he/she used 5+5+5 instead of 3+3+3+3+3. Those who support the teacher say that 5x3 means 'five lots of 3' where the complainants say that 'times' is commutative (reversible) so the distinction is meaningless as 5x3 and 3x5 are indistinguishable. It's certainly true that not all mathematical operations are commutative. I think we are all comfortable that 5-3 is not the same as 3-5.  However. This not true of multiplication (of numbers). And so if there is to be any distinction, it has to be in the use of English to interpret the 'x' sign. Unfortunately, even here there is no logical way of coming up with a definitive answer. I suspect most primary school teachers would expands 'times' as 'lots of' as mentioned above. So we get 5 x 3 as '5 lots of 3'. Unfortunately that only wor

Which idiot came up with percentage-based gradient signs

Rant warning: the contents of this post could sound like something produced by UKIP. I wish to make it clear that I do not in any way support or endorse that political party. In fact it gives me the creeps. Once upon a time, the signs for a steep hill on British roads displayed the gradient in a simple, easy-to-understand form. If the hill went up, say, one yard for every three yards forward it said '1 in 3'. Then some bureaucrat came along and decided that it would be a good idea to state the slope as a percentage. So now the sign for (say) a 1 in 10 slope says 10% (I think). That 'I think' is because the percentage-based slope is so unnatural. There are two ways we conventionally measure slopes. Either on X/Y coordiates (as in 1 in 4) or using degrees - say at a 15° angle. We don't measure them in percentages. It's easy to visualize a 1 in 3 slope, or a 30 degree angle. Much less obvious what a 33.333 recurring percent slope is. And what's a 100% slope