Who Has to Prove It? Turning the Burden of Proof into Story Actions
A character’s accusation should not automatically give the player a string of investigation tasks. Use an evidence assignment table to clarify who submits material first, which alternatives count, and which story action cannot proceed without enough support.
Assign responsibility for proof before opening investigation paths
In a fictional archive dispute, establish responsibilities first to keep players from running errands for every accusation: whoever wants to change the status quo must first submit material supporting their reasons. The player can choose whether to help, question a gap, or make a separate claim. Every request needs an explicit outcome if the evidence is insufficient. “Go find out first” must not become an endless source of new tasks.
The claimant explains the basis for the claim, the custodian supplies records in their possession, and the chair determines how far the material supports a conclusion. Investigative work can be negotiated; the burden of proof cannot be handed entirely to the player just because they are capable.
The following example, “The Rain Harbor Archive,” is an original fictional teaching scenario, not a real user case, a tested result, or a description of product features. Its allocation of the burden of proof is for story design only and does not represent rules for handling real disputes.
Archivist Shen Qi is accused of removing physical pages from the old ferry landing’s paper register. The allegation does not concern removing the entire register or altering its text. Inspector Lu Heng asks for her reading pass to be deactivated, suspending all her archive access privileges. He claims, “She entered the storeroom before the pages were removed.” This remains to be established. When the pages were removed and when their absence was discovered are separate questions, and neither is currently settled. The player is merely a visitor researching family relocation records. Each expression of suspicion should not force them to find keys, chase down the night watchman, and rummage through wastepaper.
Break an accusation into claims with separate responsibilities
“She entered the storeroom, so she removed the pages, and her archive access should be restricted” contains three steps: whether she entered, whether she removed the pages, and whether the material justifies a restriction. Even a reliable entry record cannot establish the latter two on its own.
First, have Lu Heng withdraw his request to deactivate her reading pass and replace it with: “I only ask that Shen Qi’s access to this register be suspended until the handover meeting ends.” Restricting access to one volume does not affect her other archive access privileges. The director sets the procedure: the meeting will consider the request first, then address the handover. If approved, the restriction takes effect when the decision is made and ends when the meeting closes. No restriction applies before the decision.
Shen Qi may simply point out, “Entering the storeroom does not prove I removed the pages.” This does not oblige her to account for her entire evening. If she goes further and says, “These pages were already missing before I went in,” she has made a new factual claim and should explain its basis.
Questioning Lu Heng does not mean the player has promised to prove Shen Qi’s innocence. Volunteering “I can prove the former archivist removed these pages” does give the player a new claim to support. Options should state clearly what the player is accepting.
Use an evidence assignment table to specify material, alternatives, and consequences
The table below can be reused directly. Each row centers on one factual claim. Where an action is requested, specify the request and its consequences separately, without judging whether a character is good or bad.
| Claim and request | Who takes responsibility first | Material needed | Acceptable alternative evidence | What happens if it is insufficient |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Shen Qi entered the storeroom that evening | Lu Heng explains the basis; the attendant supplies the record | The relevant page of the entry log explicitly recording Shen Qi’s entry that evening | A key handover slip independently recording that the attendant accompanied Shen Qi into the storeroom that evening; it still requires checking | The claim that she entered that evening remains unsubstantiated |
| Shen Qi removed the disputed pages; restrict her access to this volume from the decision until the handover meeting ends | Lu Heng | A specific record linking Shen Qi to the act of removing the disputed pages | An eyewitness account that identifies the person, the volume, and the act of removing pages, and allows the missing pages involved to be checked | Do not approve this restriction on access to the single volume |
| The disputed pages were already missing before Shen Qi entered the storeroom | Shen Qi explains the basis; the conservator supplies the record | A damage record made before her entry | Conservation working notes with a verifiable date, volume number, and positions of the missing pages | Do not adopt the claim that the pages were missing earlier |
Alternatives must answer the original question. A slip recording only the collection of a key cannot establish actual entry, much less the removal of pages. “Everyone thinks she is suspicious” cannot supply the missing link between a person and an act either. Two documents copied from the same rumor do not count as independent support. The first row addresses only whether she entered that evening. Establishing whether the pages were already missing before her entry also requires checking the evidence for the timing.
After the table, add an agreement on who retrieves what: “Lu Heng requests the entry log. The player may voluntarily find the conservator for Shen Qi, at the cost of delaying their research into the relocation records.” Dialogue can explain who acts, why, and what they give up.
Play through a handover meeting so declining to investigate also moves the story forward
During the first round of deliberation on the request, Lu Heng submits the entry log. The director confirms that Shen Qi entered the storeroom that evening, then points out: “This page answers who came in. You are asking to restrict her access to this volume, but you still lack support for the claim that she removed the disputed pages.” Lu Heng is responsible for filling that gap. It cannot be rewritten as a mandatory player task.
The player has three actions: ask for a decision based on the existing material, accept Shen Qi’s request to find the conservator, or ask whether Lu Heng personally saw the pages being removed. These affect the dispute’s progress, the player’s involvement, and the precision of the statement, respectively. They are not three entrances to the same errand.
Suppose the player accepts the request. The meeting briefly adjourns without starting the handover business, and Shen Qi’s access to the volume remains unrestricted during the break. The conservation working notes the player brings back are dated earlier than the entry time recorded in the log and carry the same volume number, but do not identify the positions of the missing pages. The director can establish only that the volume was previously damaged, not that the disputed pages were already missing then. An investigation need not produce a favorable conclusion. The gap in the notes should be shown when they are obtained, not suddenly appear when they are submitted.
The second round is still deliberation on the request. Lu Heng admits that he did not see any pages being removed; he only heard paper rustling. With insufficient material, the director declines to approve the restriction on this volume and then begins the handover business. The restriction never took effect. Shen Qi can still access the volume, and her overall archive access privileges were never suspended. Doubts remain, and the player can return to the relocation records. Suspense need not end when the request does.
If the player declines to find the conservator, complete deliberation using the existing material and then continue the handover meeting: neither the claim that the pages were missing earlier nor the requested restriction on the volume has sufficient support. No one is thereby declared a liar, and refusing extra work does not automatically cast the player as someone covering for Shen Qi.
Allow exceptions while setting boundaries on transferred responsibilities
When material is inaccessible, change how the characters cooperate. If the conservation working notes are locked in the director’s office, the director retrieves them and Shen Qi provides clues for locating them. Demanding sealed originals from someone without access turns a clear assignment into an impossible task.
The player may also volunteer to investigate the whole case, but the scope should be explained first, and they should be allowed to hand back unfinished portions. A comprehensive investigation in a detective main storyline should not become the default entry point for every side dispute. To portray an abuse of power, the director could order the player, who is still merely a visitor, to gather evidence for Lu Heng that Shen Qi removed the disputed pages, forcibly transferring the accuser’s investigative work to the player. This is not the player proving their own innocence or supporting their own claim. The narrative must make the coercion and transfer of responsibility visible; it cannot also present this as a fair procedure.
Also guard against an endless stream of added accusations. If Lu Heng changes his allegation to say Shen Qi swapped the cover, give it a separate row and require him to explain the new basis. Completing an old task should not grant an unlimited license to assign more.
Finally, check two routes: can the player reach a clear interim outcome without accepting the investigation, and can they see the specific gap if they investigate but bring back ineffective material? Both routes must work for the division of responsibilities to make a difference to the story. It subjects requests to scrutiny of their basis and makes clear who is responsible for the work. It does not guarantee that this scene reveals the truth or that every character accepts the outcome.
