Approximately one-hour interactive hospitality mystery presented at Venetian Soda Lounge.
Who Killed Dr. Funk? turned Venetian Soda Lounge into a playable mystery inside the Rufus Hightower Universe. Guests investigated the apparent murder of Dr. Archibald Funk by gathering information from cocktails, physical props, recorded testimony, environmental media and a live character.
The experience was designed so guests could take part without being required to perform. A group could actively solve the case, follow only a few clues, or simply enjoy the atmosphere while the mystery went on around them.
From the Case File
Case date
July 18, 1934
Victim
Dr. Archibald Funk, scientist and inventor
Scene
Rear workshop of The Crooked Palm
Investigating
Burlington Police Department, Det. Mercer
Guest brief
One hour. Two questions: who, and with what.
The Design Challenge
How can a hospitality venue become an interactive story without stopping normal bar service or forcing every guest to become an actor?
The Experience Structure
How the hour ran
01
Arrival
Guests entered a venue in which Dr. Archibald Funk had apparently been murdered and Rufus Hightower was missing.
02
Investigation
The room held different categories of evidence distributed across drinks, props, media and character interactions.
03
Suspects
The investigation involved Rufus Hightower, Anna Bell Darrow, Al Whitaker and Sir Reginald Ainsworth.
04
Corroboration
No single clue solved the mystery. Guests compared information from several sources and worked out which accounts agreed and which contradicted one another.
05
Resolution
After roughly an hour, guests presented or compared their conclusions and the solution was revealed.
The Board
Four suspects, five weapons
Rufus Hightower
Freelance aviator and pilot
Missing, person of interest
Anna Bell Darrow
Bartender
Questioned. Last known location, The Bali Hai
Al Whitaker
Mechanic and co-pilot
Questioned. Last known location, The Crooked Palm
Sir Reginald Ainsworth
Industrialist and investor
Questioned. Last known location, Burlington Civic Hall
Candidate Weapons
Printed on every guest case file. Order the five, cross out what the evidence clears.
1Poison
2A knife
3His own machine
4A blunt blow to the head
5Heart attack
How the Story Was Delivered
Eight storytelling systems
Cocktail Evidence
Details carried in the drinks helped guests identify or eliminate the possible murder weapon.
Recorded Payphone Testimony
Each suspect had a number. Guests dialled the venue's payphone for that account, then recorded on the case file where the suspect said they were and whether the story cleared them.
Television and Video
Environmental media supplied additional story information without requiring a formal presentation.
Photographs and Documents
Images, correspondence and expedition records let guests establish relationships, movements and motives.
Display-Case Evidence
Physical objects were presented as in-world evidence rather than as decorative props.
Telegraph Messages
Short transmissions introduced time-sensitive information and tied the mystery to the larger expedition mythology.
Menu Clues
The hospitality materials themselves participated in the investigation.
Live Character Interaction
An actor provided information, responded to guests and moved the experience forward without turning every guest into a performer.
Design Principle
The room did not pause so the story could begin. The story was already hiding inside the room.
discovered, not announcedWhat the Experience Proved
Findings from a working room
·A cocktail program can carry functional story information.
·Guests will compare evidence when clues are distributed across different media.
·Physical controls such as a payphone create stronger engagement than explanatory signage.
·A live performer can guide pacing without controlling every guest interaction.
·Participation works best when it is voluntary.
·Environmental storytelling can coexist with ordinary hospitality service.
·A fictional character can move between film, props, drinks, games and live performance.
·A mystery gives guests a clear reason to inspect details they might otherwise overlook.
·Story works best when it is discovered rather than announced.
·Guests need a satisfying ordinary experience before optional mythology is added.
·Live moments should briefly alter the room rather than stop the room.
·Zero-proof drinks deserve the same presentation and narrative weight as cocktails.
Experience Design Components
What the build required
Narrative Design
A central murder, multiple suspects, motives, alibis, contradictions and a final evidence-based solution.
Guest Agency
Guests decided which evidence to inspect, how deeply to participate and when they were ready to form a conclusion.
Transmedia Storytelling
The mystery was communicated through audio, video, print, physical props, cocktails and live performance.
Hospitality Integration
Story elements sat inside the existing operation rather than being staged as a separate theatrical production.
Environmental Design
The room worked as crime scene, evidence archive and performance space at the same time.
Technical Integration
Recorded media, the interactive payphone, television content and practical environmental elements were wired into the guest experience.
On the Night
The room running
Guests dialled the phone for each suspect account, read the board, compared notes and ordered drinks, all at the same time. The bar never stopped serving.
Guests dialling for suspect testimony, case files open in front of them.
The live character working the desk beneath the Crooked Palm projection.
The room watching, mid-investigation.
Numbered tables, printed case files, ordinary bar service running throughout.
Two guests reading the evidence board by phone light.
Working the case together, which is what the corroboration design was for.
Photographed during Who Killed Dr. Funk? at Venetian Soda Lounge.
The Evidence
What was in the room
Production materials from the show. Guests handled the case file, read the reports and worked the phone against them.
The guest case file. One hour, five weapons, four suspects, one accusation.
Burlington Police Department case report. Victim, Dr. Archibald Funk.
Suspect report. Rufus Hightower, marked missing.
Suspect report. Anna Bell Darrow, last known at The Bali Hai.
Suspect report. Al Whitaker, mechanic and co-pilot.
Suspect report. Sir Reginald Ainsworth, industrialist.
County medical examiner report.
Correspondence from Funk to Hightower, 1932.
The workshop, with numbered evidence markers.
Funk's machine, one of the five candidate weapons.
The crew in 1929. Funk, Whitaker, Hightower.
Tampa, 1930. Crates marked for Funk's scientific gear.
Funk refusing Ainsworth, 1933. Motive, filed under history.
Produced for Who Killed Dr. Funk? at Venetian Soda Lounge.
Solution and clue logic
Design Breakdown: Solution and Clue LogicContains spoilersRevealHide
The solution was designed to be reached by elimination rather than by discovery of one decisive object. That distinction shaped every clue in the room.
Al Whitaker killed Dr. Funk.He rigged one of Funk’s own inventions to do it. His motive grew out of resentment at being treated as the overlooked sidekick, and out of his belief that Funk was exploiting Rufus.
The other suspects were built to absorb suspicion in different ways. Rufus Hightower was the central red herring: his disappearance read as flight, which is the most available explanation in the room and the one guests reached for first. Anna Bell Darrow could be cleared through her bar alibi, which gave guests an early, satisfying elimination and taught them that alibis in this room were checkable. Sir Reginald Ainsworth stood as a credible second suspect with means and motive, keeping the field open after Anna Bell was ruled out.
The drink evidence pointed at the weapon rather than at a person, which is why it could sit in plain sight all night without collapsing the mystery. Recorded payphone accounts and environmental evidence then let guests test each suspect’s story against the others.
The intended path ran suspicion, elimination, deduction. Guests began with Rufus because absence looks like guilt, cleared Anna Bell on a verifiable alibi, weighed Ainsworth on motive, and were left with the person nobody had been watching. Al had been present all evening as background rather than as a suspect, which is exactly what made him the answer.
No single clue completed the case. Corroboration did. That was the design goal: a room in which a group has to talk to each other to finish.
My Role
Who Killed Dr. Funk?
Experience concept
Story and mystery development
Character and clue design
Prop and environmental integration
Media production
Hospitality integration
Technical implementation
Live-event production
Photographs above were taken during the event. The documents below are the printed production materials guests handled on the night.
