With how atrocious the quality of this is, this had to have been intentional at some point. Can we not hold ourselves to a higher standard than this?
I'm amazed that none of these comments are mentioning the subject line of the post is a reference to "Stop! Hammer time!"
This has the same solution as the original. You ask them "which door would your brother say leads to certain doom?" and then you take that door.
Am I missing something? If you ask brother A, he would say his brother likes small butts. If you ask brother B, he would also say his brother likes small butts. How do you differentiate?
It works the same as the original puzzle. If you ask the lying small butt brother, he'll lie and say his brother would say he likes small butts. If you ask the truthful big butt brother, he'd say his brother would say he likes big butts, because he knows his brother likes small butts and would lie about it.
Essentially the negatives work out so that each brother answers with the kind of butt they themselves like, which you can then use to determine which is truthful (though at this point that somehow seems less important).
I feel like the truthful brother would say his brother likes small butts, because that's the truth.
Yes, but you're not asking him what his brother likes, you're asking him what he would say he likes, which is what flips it. You're basically making sure the answer is a lie regardless of which brother you ask.
The truth is that the whole setup is moot if it's one of the door-guards that tells you the rules, since they might be lying about the whole thing. There needs to be a trusted third-party involved, who knows about the guards but doesn't know which one's lying and which one's telling the truth.
True. It seems there are different versions of the puzzle, but from a quick search it was popularized by the movie Labyrinth, and there they get around it by having a second set of guards who don't know the answer explain the setup.
I really like this idea, and now I want to put it in a session. Like, we go through the whole 2-brothers riddle, but it turns out that the one explaining the rules is the one lying.
Maybe both doors lead to "death"/encounters, maybe the players are free to just walk past the brothers without consequence, maybe a third more interesting thing happens.
The person telling the story could always tell lies, which would mean his brother would only tell the truth.
So it’s the same as always?
Which door would your brother say leads me out and then go through the other one?
•
No, you could be doomed both ways, or safe both ways, or there may be more or fewer than two doors, more or fewer than two brothers, they may not be brothers, maybe none of them are truthful etc
When your conversation partner is chaotic/* you can't trust what they say
Or the person telling the story lies some of the time in which case it's not a riddle and you're just talking to a normal person
I've never liked it when the Two Brothers riddles are worded like this. Either the "always telling the truth" brother is the one saying the riddle, and you know who to ask which door is safe or its the "always lying" brother, in which you don't know what the actual riddle is (as the one they just told you is a lie) and both doors probably lead to the certain death.
(I should probably add that I get the refrence in the post, I'm just being nitpicky)
I am invisioning a snake coiled into a spring shape saying "dOn'T sTeP oN mE" and I really want to smash it