Sorry Guys « Gaming Outpost Discussions

Gaming Outpost Discussions » Roleplaying Games

Sorry Guys

(308 posts) (6 voices)

Started 3 years ago by JohnA1nut
Latest reply from JohnA1nut

Tags:

No tags yet.

12…7 Next »

JohnA1nut
Member

I know I said I didn't want to bring this up anymore, but all things considered, I think this could be a helpful discussion.

What would be wrong with finding out how far the player would go to NOT get involved? MJ wanted to see if I would get involved in a few of my worlds. However, in one of them, I would have resisted getting involved if I had been given the chance. What could you learn about a player then?

It's something I think referees and players should think about. This is serious, game related discussion, simply inspired by recent events, that's all.

(Doing Therapy)

Thu Mar 5 2009 11:49 pm #
M. J. Young
Moderator

Well, most of the time not getting involved is boring.

It does not have to be, of course, depending on what the player finds interesting; but really, that amounts not to not getting involved but rather to getting involved in a different way. For example, I dropped several players into a lost colony spaceship world. A couple of them put themselves to the task of getting to the story behind the world, and finding out what had happened, and possibly saving the world. One of them told the others to leave him alone, and set about using the materials present and his own psionic abilities to create a suit of light weight high density armor. From one perspective, being disinterested in what was happening in that world (which was actually bound for a close encounter of the worst kind with a star) is not being involved. From another perspective, tapping its resources is.

You and Adam both have gotten into worlds in which you have "avoided" the "story" in preference to gaining new skills. That's a perfectly legitimate choice. It's also boring for me--it generally involves me looking up information about skills, putting them together on your sheets, tracking training time for improvement, and otherwise just doing paperwork. It's the more annoying here on the forum, because it is quite possible for you to post several new skills every day and leave me all the work. If we were at my table, every time you wanted to list a new skill I would make you do most of the paperwork to put it into the shape it needed to be (that's what those Magic Skills Worksheets are for) while I ran the other players in their worlds. If you were in training to improve skills and attributes--well, the last time I had a player who was simply practicing for months to improve his skills, I came back to him every five or ten minutes, told him to roll the dice once, told him that another month had passed, and then went back to the other players.

"Getting involved" to me means "doing something interesting that is directly related to the setting and events in which you have arrived." That means "Not getting involved" means "doing nothing interesting that relates to the setting and events around you." I could send you to Sherwood Forest and you could work on your woodcraft skills and avoid the Merry Men and the Shire Reeve of Nottingham, but then what's the point of having you in Sherwood Forest? You could do that anywhere, and I've wasted a lot of effort to create a place that would have interesting connections and opportunities, all of which you are ignoring.

So be boring if you like, but if you choose that route, don't expect me to find your boring thread interesting or worth more than passing notice.

That's part of the reason why getting involved matters. I'm here to entertain you, but you're equally here to entertain me.

--M. J. Young

Sat Mar 7 2009 3:15 am #
JohnA1nut
Member

Yeah, but MJ, in the particular event, avoiding getting involved would have been a cool story. A gunfight, car chase, hostage situation? These wouldn't have been fun possibilities? Would have been a helluvalot more fun for everyone involved than what did actually happen. Then you would have seen how far I would go to not get involved. I could only imagine that being helpful to you. I'm seriously trying to have a game discussion about this. Not trying to argue, trying to learn.

(Doing Therapy)

Sat Mar 7 2009 3:25 am #
M. J. Young
Moderator
I'm not saying that that would not have been an interesting story. It is not, however, what you chose to do.

Now, you can argue that you didn't know it was Pearl Harbor, but that's not particular relevant as far as I'm concerned. Eventually you did know it was Pearl Harbor, and you could have taken action then.

You can also argue that by that time you were in traction in a body cast from a car accident--but you caused the accident yourself.

You can argue that you did not mean to cause an accident or injure yourself so, but then, what kind of idiot pokes the driver of an open vehicle in which he is secured in the back? You took a real and evident risk, and I doubt there is anyone on this board who saw you say you were going to use your TK pulse to poke the driver repeatedly who did not have the same reaction I had: that's going to be trouble, because something is going to go wrong. I mean, really, even if there had been no botch, what would happen if you were at the mercy of a driver and you kept poking him with a stick or your finger, or nudging his arm or his elbow, while he was trying to drive? Would you really do that to someone, if you were chained in the back seat of an open-topped convertible and he were driving over less than ideal roads?

If you wanted to create that story, you could have had your chance. You could have waited until you were uncuffed, and then attempted to grab a weapon and fight your way free. You could have apologized for the intrusion, said you'd been driving down the beach playing with the tide and didn't realize you'd crossed into the base, talked your way out and made a break for it. There are scores of ways you could have gotten out of there. You didn't try something that was particularly likely to get you free; you tried something that was particularly likely to get you killed, or at least seriously injured--and so you wrote the story that happened. Can't complain when things go quite predictably according to what you initiated.

Your complaint is that you seem to think that when you appeared on the beach you should have seen written in the sand, "Pearl Harbor, Japanese Attack in Two Days"; that the M.P. who accosted you should have said, "Halt! Explain what you are doing on the beach in the Pearl Harbor military compound two days before Japan attacks." I completely disagree. I think it is entirely encumbent upon you to make these discoveries. Something like this:
Now, you didn't do any of that--but that's fine. What did you learn? Hopefully you learned to ask questions, to attempt to find out where you are, and when you are, if anything at all looks familiar to you, so you know what to expect. You've not really had much opportunity to put those lessons into practice since then, but maybe you will sometime.

--M. J. Young
Sun Mar 8 2009 1:32 am #
JohnA1nut
Member

Would you really do that to someone, if you were chained in the back seat of an open-topped convertible and he were driving over less than ideal roads?

How many times do I have to say it MJ? I am no longer disputing that. However, just coming from a high-psionic world, believing myself to still have those powers, and encountering a cop as the first thing? You're damn right I could see myself doing that!!!! The only thing that really surprises me about it is that it took me so long to accept that what I said is exactly what I would have been doing. Circumstances fell into place exactly right to get me into a heap of trouble in a hurry. I don't blame you. Not anymore.

What I AM saying though is that I should have been given a short period of time to figure out where I was. From my perspective, having a guy come up to me right after I verse in, my thoughts were "Maybe they know I'm a verser. Maybe this is a special training facility for versers." That's why I didn't run. The only way I saw someone appearing out of nowhere right after I versed in would be if they were expecting a verser to arrive.

Had I been given 10 minutes to poke around and figure out where I was, THEN saw a guy in a jeep coming, my thoughts would have been "That's probably a soldier, I better get the hell out of Dodge."

See the difference?

Is being given 10 minutes to poke around and figure out where I am such a huge thing to ask? I mean really, I don't think it is. I see the point you're making, I really do. But do you see the point I am making? That's the question.

That's why I keep saying that for historical worlds, you MUST make the player aware of where and when they are BEFORE you do anything else. You can argue it any way you want, but I stand firm on this. The player's personal feelings towards that event would affect the way they reacted. In that situation, you had a perfect opportunity to see how far I would go to NOT get involved. All it would have taken would have been 10 minutes to figure out where I was first.

Better story, more fun, more information given.

Yeah, maybe I'm the 1 in 1,000 player who would have been stupid enough to put myself in traction, but still, I'm sure I'm not the only player would would actively resist involvement at Pearl Harbor.

Ten minutes to figure out where I was. That's all I was asking for.

(Doing Therapy)

Sun Mar 8 2009 3:34 am #
JohnA1nut
Member

Multiple Posts

Perhaps land the player next to an unoccupied building (Maybe the staff is all out to lunch or something, who knows?) Inside said unoccupied building, I see a calender on the wall "Date, December 5, 1941" clearly marked. Upon closer inspection, I see a half finished memo in a typewriter. "From the desk of Admiral so-and-so, concerning recent weapons tests at Pearl Harbor naval base blah blah blah...." See what I mean? Is that so much to have asked for? Give me time, I could come up with a million and one ways I could have been made aware of where I was and what was going to happen without being forced into the story at gunpoint. You would have found out something you never thought to ask, and it would have been a much better time all around. The whole purpose of the board is to teach referees. My hope with all of this is that referees will learn better ways to run worlds.

Maybe I was the 1 in 1,000 player stupid enough to land in the hospital, but I'm absolutely certain that I am not the only player who would actively resist getting involved in a situation with bombs falling all around it.

(NOT doing therapy)

Sun Mar 8 2009 4:48 pm #
JohnA1nut
Member

Three Posts, and no more

"Getting involved" to me means "doing something interesting that is directly related to the setting and events in which you have arrived." That means "Not getting involved" means "doing nothing interesting that relates to the setting and events around you." I could send you to Sherwood Forest and you could work on your woodcraft skills and avoid the Merry Men and the Shire Reeve of Nottingham, but then what's the point of having you in Sherwood Forest? You could do that anywhere, and I've wasted a lot of effort to create a place that would have interesting connections and opportunities, all of which you are ignoring.

Using Dancing Princess as an example. If the governor of New Jersey came on the news and said "My daughters are having sleeping problems. I'll give a million dollars to the person who can come to my mansion and fix it for me, but if you don't fix it, you will be beheaded." Would you REALLY go check into that? Certainly you could use the money, certainly you might even be able to figure out what's wrong, but would you REALLY go check into it? If you say yes, you're lying and we both know it. I'm forced to wonder how many players get involved in Dancing Princess because it's what they are "Supposed" to do, and not because it's what they really feel they would really do in real life.

Sun Mar 8 2009 5:51 pm #
M. J. Young
Moderator

you MUST

And that's where you lose this argument. Every. Single. Time.

I as the referee do not have to do anything to meet your expectations, or to satisfy your wishes, or to comply with your version of how things ought to be.

If you want to say that you would have preferred to have known more about the world before you encountered the first person you met, you've made that point abundantly clear. If you're trying to say that every verser needs to be told more about every world the instant he arrives so he can make intelligent decisions about what to do, that is not how the game is played now nor how it has ever been played.

My character died in one world because all the proteins were linked backwards and I could not get any nutrition from any of the food. No one told me that until after I had versed out.

I've dropped uncounted people on the dais in Quest for the Vorgo, where their introduction to the world is, "We welcome our supernatural deliverer to our humble sanctuary, when do you want to get started on your mission?" The amount of information you have available to you upon arrival in a new world is one of the flexible points the referee uses to make his world interesting. Your referee apparantly decided that the best way to let you know where you were was to engage you in a confrontation with an MP and see what you did with that. That's not a bad way to begin. It gave you contact with someone who had the answers to your questions, if you were willing to ask them. You admit you handled the scenario badly. You did. You might have had a chance to escape had you not been a jerk. You might have been questioned and released (you're obviously neither Japanese nor German). You say you should have been given an opportunity to know where you were before you were forced to get involved. The arrival of the MP was exactly that sort of opportunity, and you messed it up royally.

Do not tell the referee what he has to do. That's not your job. When you use those words, you lose the argument instantly. Any time you say to a referee or world designer, "You must", you're wrong.

--M. J. Young

Mon Mar 9 2009 2:09 am #
JohnA1nut
Member

(you're obviously neither Japanese nor German)

Actually, I am German. Cross used to be Kraus once upon a time.

you MUST

And that's where you lose this argument. Every. Single. Time.

OK, so change it to "you SHOULD" as a recommendation from an unsatisfied player.

You say you should have been given an opportunity to know where you were before you were forced to get involved. The arrival of the MP was exactly that sort of opportunity, and you messed it up royally.

I think what you're not quite understanding is that talking to the MP is a lot more involved than I would have chosen to get if I had known where I was. I guess you just don't understand my feelings towards that particular event. It's probably another one of those "You'll understand when you're inside my head" kind of things. Talking to ANYBODY there is more involved than I would have chosen to get. I honestly think that, had I known where I was, I would have been willing to fight the entire security force than talk to one of them. Better to off a few guys that will probably die anyway than prevent one of the single most important historical events in history.

I see your point. Yes, I might have been able to get out of that. I don't deny that. (Well, not anymore) With one single typed sentence, I changed what would have been something really cool into a complete crapfest for my character. At least I learned from it. I admit, it could have been handled better on my end. I ALSO think that it could have been handled better on the referee's end.

The entire point is to see if I would get involved, right? Well, what would be better? Giving me a few minutes to figure out where I am, then finding out if I would get involved of my own free will, OR forcing me into the situation and taking away my free will? I just really think it could have been handled better, on both ends. So, change that from "You MUST" to "It is highly recommended that you make players aware of their location for historical worlds."

Mon Mar 9 2009 3:01 am #
JohnA1nut
Member

Two Posts

And yes, it's a lot more straight. You COULD NOT IMAGINE how confusing and frustrating all of that was for me. Imagine a home movie of this event playing inside your head. Playing CONSTANTLY!!!!!!!!! You can't turn it off. All you can think about day in, day out, is an imaginary encounter with an imaginary MP and trying desperately to make sense of it. It literally kept me awake at night thinking about it. And then sometimes, when I did go to sleep, I would even have nightmares about it. (NO JOKE!!!!) I couldn't get it out of my head!!!!!!!!! It's now to the point where I can think clearly about it. It's a lot more straight and a lot more clear. It actually does make sense. I think this is more meant as a recommendation from a player about how NOT to run a world. I just think it could have been handled better, on both sides. I'm no longer disputing anything, really. It really does make a lot more sense. Really, it does. I just think it could have been handled better on both sides. That's all.

I think now perhaps maybe Adam did do the right thing. MJ just picked the single worst world I could possibly have been sent to at that point in my verser career. Well, if you put that into terms of what I've learned, then maybe the 3 and 30 do have the same outcome after all.......

Mon Mar 9 2009 3:18 am #
JohnA1nut
Member

Multiple posts, and it's the last

Ya know what? When we are all in Heaven, I'm going to make all of you spend time inside my head. Not a day, not a week, but my entire lifetime. However long I live, that's how long you're going to have to spend inside my head. "But John, I don't think that's how Heaven will be...." Well, since no one knows anything at all about it, and all we really have are a bunch of half-baked theories, then I say "Yes, it can." The Bible clearly says "With God, ALL THINGS are possible." Maybe I'm taking it out of context, but I'm also taking it literally, and at face value. So that means, yes, there will be round squares, 2+2 will equal 5, and all of M.C. Escher's "Impossible" drawings will be built in full on, three dimensional glory.

Maybe then you will understand why this was so hard for me to let go......

It's a lot more straight now, and I thank all involved for that. This is just the last stumbling block that I have. I'm really trying to let it go, I really am. It just won't get out of my head.

When we're in Heaven, you will understand.

Mon Mar 9 2009 4:14 am #
M. J. Young
Moderator

...talking to the MP is a lot more involved than I would have chosen to get if I had known where I was.
So there are some places where finding out where you are is more involved than you want to be, so if you're in any of those places where you don't want to know where you are, we should tell you?

I'm sure I'll come up with a good answer for that just as soon as I figure out what it means.

Oh, and I don't think that you will be permitted to threaten or punish people when you get to heaven. In fact, I think you will be very surprised at how little different you actually are than the rest of us.

--M. J. Young

Wed Mar 11 2009 2:41 am #
JohnA1nut
Member

So there are some places where finding out where you are is more involved than you want to be, so if you're in any of those places where you don't want to know where you are, we should tell you?

No, but there are ways of telling me where I am without putting me in a position where I am forced to get involved. Corny as it sounds, I think that the best opener for that would be an announcement over the P.A. system. "This is Corporeal Cross with the Pearl Harbor morning news report. The date is December 5, 1941, the temperature is a balmy 76 degrees... " Realistic, reasonable, gives them all pertinent information, and lets them decide what to do. Give the player's last name as the person reading the news. Perhaps their grandfather's divergent is the one reading it. Could be a whole other plot line to follow later in the game. I think that would be the best opener to use for that world.

Oh, and I don't think that you will be permitted to threaten or punish people when you get to heaven. In fact, I think you will be very surprised at how little different you actually are than the rest of us.

Well, they say that you shouldn't judge another person until you have walked a mile in their shoes. That way, when you judge them, you will be a mile away and have their shoes. That goes both ways. It's kind of funny. My mental illness is, medically speaking, the exact opposite of one that you have. If we put our heads together, we would be normal.

(Doing Therapy)

Wed Mar 11 2009 3:09 am #
JohnA1nut
Member

Multiple Posts

See, then you could find out other things. Would the player resist getting involved in a situation? (I would have) If they head towards the base, an MP shows up to escort them. If they try to leave, an MP shows up and tries to arrest them. You'd see how far the player would go to NOT get involved. This is just an example. I mean I honestly believe that I would have been willing to engage the entire security team rather than get arrested. That's had I known where I was and been given a minute or two to think about it, that is. I just think this could be a good refereeing style. Perhaps it's the one I'm going to use.

(Doing Therapy)

Wed Mar 11 2009 5:47 am #
JohnA1nut
Member

Multiple Posts

This is a big part of the therapy guys. Seriously. Who knows? The therapy could become something someday.

Anyway, like I was saying, If I had known where I was, I would have fought my way out.

Historical worlds are a perfect place to see how far a player will go to NOT get involved.

A situation they feel strongly about? Resisted/Accelerated involvement?

Learn more about players.

Maybe Osevens would get arrested without resistance, after a failed attempt to leave.

JohnA1nut might have emptied a full MAK90 clip at the engine block of the jeep. I know for a fact shots would be fired.

See the difference?

What could you learn about players then? Good way to run worlds, I think.

Wed Mar 11 2009 6:02 am #
JohnA1nut
Member

MP (Multiple Posts, seems appropriate.)

When the MP showed up, it was too late. If I tried to run back to my van and leave after hearing the announcement of where I was, and tried to leave peacefully, then an MP tried to pull me over, first I would stop, he gets out of his jeep, my guns would be out of sight, but within reach. He asks me what I'm doing, asks me to step out of the vehicle, etc. As long as I'm in the van, I got a fair chance to get out even now. Floor it. He has to run all the way back to his jeep, giving me a 15 second head start (Perhaps) Then, well, hey, I tried to leave peacefully, they are bringing this down on themselves if they follow me.

See the difference?

(Doing Therapy)

Wed Mar 11 2009 6:26 am #
JohnA1nut
Member

Last Post, promise (Multiple, explained above)

I just think this would be a good refereeing style.

I'm starting to ramble and repeat myself.

Realizing this is a good thing.

Last post, until someone else does.

Promise.

Wed Mar 11 2009 6:36 am #
M. J. Young
Moderator

John, I think that you are making too much of this experience.

This was the very first event in the game you played when Adam took over. You reacted badly. He could not have known that you had a problem with law enforcement officers, nor that it would extend to military police--I didn't know that, and I know you better than anyone else on this forum, I expect. He stumbled into a bad setup, you stumbled into a bad response, and you both fell into each other in a huge mess that is still giving me headaches.

We learned a lot about you from what happened--probably more than we would have learned had things gone the way you think would have been better. For one thing, we learned that you will grouse for years about something that didn't go the way you thought it should in retrospect, and that you don't like law enforcement in any form. I should have put you in psi cop world--you'd be fighting tooth and nail against the police there by now.

--M. J. Young

Thu Mar 12 2009 10:07 pm #
JohnA1nut
Member

I should have put you in psi cop world--you'd be fighting tooth and nail against the police there by now.

DO IT!!!!!!

Like I keep saying MJ, you think it's annoying to you? You only have to hear about it here. It's a lot more straight now. I just hope perhaps that referees take this suggestion to heart.

(Doing Therapy)

Thu Mar 12 2009 10:21 pm #
JohnA1nut
Member

Multiple Posts

Ya know though, for some reason, getting banged up in the crash seems like it was "Supposed" to happen. I don't know why, or how better to explain it. It's just this feeling that I get sometimes, that something was "Supposed" to happen. It's not Deja Vu, really, but I don't know what to call it.

(Doing Therapy)

Fri Mar 13 2009 12:55 am #
JohnA1nut
Member

John, I think that you are making too much of this experience.

Yeah, no joke. This is part of the therapy though. If I could let go of the past, I wouldn't be psychotic. That's what the therapy is. Teaching myself to let go of the past. This has been getting easier and easier to let go, now that I better understand what happened.

Plus, I'm trying to get an idea of my own refereeing style. What NOT to do. Yeah, you can say "It's never been done like that." if you want to, but two points. First, contrary to popular belief, you CAN teach an old dog new tricks, and secondly, just because you've been doing something the same way for 30 years doesn't mean you're doing it right, or you couldn't be doing it better.

(Doing Therapy)

Fri Mar 13 2009 4:18 am #
JohnA1nut
Member

MJ Wrote:

You say you should have been given an opportunity to know where you were before you were forced to get involved.

Finally, you admit that I was FORCED to get involved!!!!!!! What took you so long?

Sat Mar 14 2009 3:51 am #
M. J. Young
Moderator

I can see why you read that that way. That is the indirect quote version of, "You said, 'I should have been given an opportunity to know where I was before I was forced to get involved.'"

As far as whether you were "forced to get involved", I do not consider lying in a hospital bed waiting to see whether the bombs would hit you or not being involved. Perhaps you can argue that given your psychology and the knowledge you had at that time, you could not help but get involved; that, though, is exactly the point: can you be induced to get involved? Unless Adam hacked the forum and wrote posts under your name, you were not forced to get involved. You chose to get involved because you believed that the consequences of getting involved would be less bad than the consequences of not getting involved. That was your choice, and no one forced you to make it. You were put in a situation in which you thought this was the best of a bad set of options, but you still chose the one that said, "I'm going to get involved, because it is now in my best interests to do so."

Since that is what we set out to consider, we learned something. You will take the million dollars. Now we just have to haggle over the price.

--M. J. Young

Sun Mar 15 2009 8:52 pm #
JohnA1nut
Member

Since that is what we set out to consider, we learned something. You will take the million dollars. Now we just have to haggle over the price.

MJ, believe me. All of what you're saying (now) makes perfect sense. The thing is that you would have found out the million dollar question the opposite way. I would have been the million dollars ain't enough to get involved. If I had known where I was, I'm almost positive it would have been a war between myself and the security team. You would have found out that a million dollars ain't enough.

Which would be better to know? Well, my way would have been a lot more fun.

(Doing Therapy)

Sun Mar 15 2009 9:28 pm #
JohnA1nut
Member

Multiple Posts

MJ, in all honesty, I think that the very best way to handle that would have been with a (possibly difficult) willpower check. I wouldn't want to warn them, even then. If I make the (possibly difficult) willpower check, I don't warn them.

In all honesty, I think that would have been the best way to handle what happened. I remember I actually thought about it for about an hour or more whether or not I would warn them, even with the fear of versing out in that condition. I finally decided that I most likely would warn them. I think that a (possibly difficult) willpower check would have been the best way to go there, though. He's the one sitting in the hospital. I'm the one sitting here in my nice, air-conditioned apartment.

(Doing Therapy)

Sun Mar 15 2009 10:30 pm #
JohnA1nut
Member

Multiple Posts

Oh yeah, and just so you know. It's an aversion to ALL law enforcement. Police, military police, security guards, sheriffs, anyone with a badge and a modicum of authority.

I met an FBI agent once (He wasn't there for me, though) He was pretty cool. I don't know about those guys.

Oh yeah, and my character has it REALLY bad!!!! He's thinking in the back of his mind "Damn MP, couldn't even stand up to a stupid TK pulse... Where do they get these guys???"

(Doing Therapy)

Sun Mar 15 2009 10:34 pm #
JohnA1nut
Member

It would be a mistake to leave what was here.

Tue Mar 17 2009 2:53 pm #
JohnA1nut
Member

Ya want to know something, completely unrelated to Multiverser that I learned from all of this? This has helped me to see other aspects of my psychosis in different lights. I see things a little more clearly now. Some other psychotic episodes have gotten easier to deal with because of this. I see them differently than I did before. That's because of seeing this differently.

I still say I was forced to get involved though.

(Doing Therapy)

Wed Mar 18 2009 4:57 am #
JohnA1nut
Member

In another discussion, MJ wrote something along the lines of:

I'm sure that in Pearl Harbor, Adam thought the best place to start you was in the compound where you would be found by military police. He thought that would draw you into the story quickly.

Something along those lines anyway. The thing is though, did it ever occur to you that that was a story that I would NOT want to be drawn into? Let's see. If you stop the attack, The United States as we know it would be completely destroyed. We would be typing in German right now. If you don't warn them, you will most likely be killed in the attack. Why would ANYONE want to get drawn into that story? Your choices are ruin the US or get killed. Who in their right mind would want to mess with that? Did it ever occur to you that it was a story I would NOT want to get drawn into? Ruin the US or verse out..... Great options there MJ.

Thu Mar 19 2009 4:56 pm #
M. J. Young
Moderator

You are taking the phrase "drawn into the story" in a sense that is not intended.

"I discovered that I am in Pearl Harbor. I don't want to be here; I am going to fight my way out."

You were drawn into the story.

"I discovered that I am in Pearl Harbor. I'm going to attempt to explain my presence and slip out of here as quickly and unobtrusively as possible."

You were drawn into the story.

Being "drawn into the story" in a role playing game sense means that you have been made sufficiently aware of the setting elements and potential plot directions that you can make informed character choices.

In B Monster Movie World, you were drawn into the story by 1) meeting the Architect in the coffee shop and 2) seeing the giant preying mantis attack the window. At that point, you had enough of an idea of what was happening that you could begin to make intelligent choices.

In The Dancing Princess, you were drawn into the story by 1) seeing the medieval setting around you and 2) hearing the rumor that the king was offering a reward for anyone who could help his daughters. At that point you chose to immerse yourself in that medieval world.

In TerraNova Habitat, you were drawn into the story by seeing the giant shopping mall and the computerized screens and high-tech doors. Gradually you uncovered more about the place, and integrated yourself into it.

Being "drawn into the story" does not mean that we force you to choose between pre-determined options. It means that you have come to understand your situation sufficiently that you can begin to create your own options, make choices, and create a story. There is a degree to which our skills as referees are revealed in our ability to anticipate your choices--to know what you are likely to do sufficiently that we have already considered our response to that choice--but that's more a result of us getting to know you, which is what we were trying to do here.

If we did not want you to be drawn into the story, the solution would be to have left you alone on the beach, never had anyone notice you, and allowed Pearl Harbor to be bombed while you were somewhere else on the island, maybe hearing some disturbance in the distance, maybe seeing a few planes flying overhead, maybe wondering what's happening, but not having any knowledge on which to base your choices. Being drawn into the story means getting that knowledge so you can begin to make those choices.

--M. J. Young

Thu Mar 19 2009 8:25 pm #
JohnA1nut
Member

Do me a favor, quit arguing semantics, you know what I meant. It's not like it was a Girl Scout that came up to me and said "You're at Pearl Harbor, would you like to buy some cookies?" NO!!!! It was a cop. There's only 3 ways that could have ended. Getting taken into custody, I kill him or he kills me. Any way that goes, I'm more involved than I would have wanted to be, therefore, I was forced to get involved.

Being "drawn into the story" in a role playing game sense means that you have been made sufficiently aware of the setting elements and potential plot directions that you can make informed character choices.

Yeah, and my informed character choice would have been "Get the hell out of Dodge." Please note, "Get the hell out of Dodge" is not one of the three options with the cop.

Replace "Drawn into the story" with "FORCED into the story", and you would have it right.

Thu Mar 19 2009 9:01 pm #
JohnA1nut
Member

Two Posts

All I want from you MJ is for you to admit that I was forced against my will into a story that I would not want to be involved in. That's all I want from you. Just to admit that I was forced into the story. Is that so much to ask?

You picked the single worst world I could possibly have been sent to. Adam used the single worst opener he could possibly have used. Now, I'm just asking for you to admit that I was forced into the story. Is that REALLY so much to ask????????

Thu Mar 19 2009 9:55 pm #
JohnA1nut
Member

Three Posts

Don't get me wrong. In terms of what I have learned, it was the best world I've been to. As they say, "No pain, no gain." I'm not completely disappointed with the results. All I want is for MJ to admit that I was FORCED into the story!!! You put me there to see if I would get involved. How can you possibly see if I would get involved if I'm forced into the story? If it had been a Girl Scout that came up to me, I probably would have given her a silver piece for a box of cookies and left. When was I given the opportunity to NOT get involved? Talking to the MP is more involved than I would have wanted to be, therefore, the answer to that question is NEVER.

And MJ, I want you to know that I am really sorry about all of the grief I have caused over this. You say that the aspect of things getting in my head and not getting out is something everyone faces. Maybe I'm not so different. I don't know, I just wish I could get this out of my head!!!! It drives me nuts!!!!! It's not as bad as it used to be, and I have a much better understanding of it now. It just won't get out of my head!!!! It's better, but not great.

Fri Mar 20 2009 4:23 pm #
M. J. Young
Moderator

You were not "forced" into the story.

Maybe I don't take the same view of things you do.

I think perhaps if Adam Keller had determined where you lived, driven out to you, broken into your apartment, gotten the drop on you, and told you what to type while he held a gun to your head, you might be able to tell me that you were forced into the story. I don't know that I would agree. After all, for me, letting him pull the trigger is still an option, and one to which I would not be entirely averse (assuming he was holding the gun to my head). Even given that I did not want that outcome, I could see attempting to wrestle the gun from him. I could imagine typing what he dictated, then as soon as he left or fell asleep editing my post to say what I wanted to say. So even in that circumstance, I would not accept that you were "forced" to do anything at all. You were offered alternatives, and you did not like the alternatives you perceived as being available to you.

Further, I have been stopped by police who did not take me into custody, and neither of us were killed in the encounters. Thus I know that it is possible that your encounter with the MP might have ended differently. You were lost. You could explain that you were lost and ask how to find your way out of this area and back to the Mauna Loa Restaurant where you were supposed to meet friends. You could have said that you were supposed to meet Colonel Johnson at the Officers' Club and apparently made a wrong turn. You were on a military base, but it was in a peacetime level of alert, and a stray civilian was probably not all that big a deal if that stray civilian didn't make it a big deal. I think you could have driven out of there in your van, and I can see a dozen ways you could have done it. Or you could have run for it, and gotten shot; or you could have drawn one of your guns and shot your way out.

You were not forced to do anything at all. You made choices; the referee responded.

If what you mean is, "I, being who I am, could not have acted other than I did, given those stimuli," well, in that sense everything you ever do you are forced to do, and so is everyone else, and there's no sense complaining that you were forced in that sense. In role playing games, sometimes you will be manipulated--sometimes your referee or your fellow players will recognize some psychological aspect of your character which can be exploited to get you to do what he or they want. If you're going to call that "forcing", then you can use that word--but I'm not going to use that word for it, because I firmly believe a good part of the benefit that comes to us from games like this is we learn how not to be manipulated, how to recognize when someone is attempting to hook us into doing something we will regret, and how to make choices that go counter to what we would ordinarily do, because we have learned something about ourselves and the way we make our choices.

Further, no one on this board, least of all Adam, knew that you would have a problem with an MP. That was entirely surprising to everyone. You chose to do things I don't think any other player here would have chosen to do. You made the situation what it became. If you were forced into anything, you forced yourself.

--M. J. Young

Fri Mar 20 2009 8:12 pm #
JohnA1nut
Member

You were not "forced" into the story.

Yes I was.

Further, I have been stopped by police who did not take me into custody, and neither of us were killed in the encounters.

Yes, but were you ever stopped by an MP for trespassing on an army base? I think not. It's funny MJ, when I mentioned that I rolled a 15 against a 1@6 persuasion (Which even I know is a perfect roll) and expressed surprise that the MP didn't let me go, you said something to the effect of "Just because the officer likes you, he isn't going to get written up on charges of dereliction of duty by not taking you into custody." Otherwise, that 15 would have gotten me out of the jam, now wouldn't it? Now, tell me that something other than getting taken into custody or one of us dying would happen.....

Or you could have run for it, and gotten shot;

And just because I will verse out I should be eager to die? Riiiiiiiiiight..... Not to mention the fact that people have been surviving gunshot wounds for about as long as they have been getting shot. Getting shot doesn't guarantee I will verse out. Get to the base with 40 broken bones, get to the base with 4 bullets in me.... What's the difference? I'm still going to be incapacitated in a hospital when the attack comes.

or you could have drawn one of your guns and shot your way out.

So I should have committed cold-blooded murder against another human being????? You're supposed to be a Bible scholar. Now you're telling me to kill someone in cold blood. Make up your mind MJ.

That, of course, leaves being taken into custody as the only option. Or should the MP have let me go when I rolled a 15 against the 1@6 persuasion? Make up your mind on that.

You were not forced to do anything at all.

Yeah, I could have versed out after 10 seconds upon arrival, or committed cold-blooded murder..... Look me in the eye and tell me you REALLY think I should have done one of those other things. That leaves being taken into custody, which I've already established I couldn't talk my way out of. Now tell me I wasn't forced to get arrested. Or do you REALLY think versing out or murdering someone are viable options? Come on MJ, use the brain God gave you. Getting arrested was the only real option that I had there. I think deep down inside that MJ brain of yours, you really know that. Since getting taken into custody was my only real option, I was forced into the story.

Sat Mar 21 2009 7:04 am #
JohnA1nut
Member

Two Posts

Yes, I could have gotten out of that by killing the MP. That's a hypothetical situation. Let me throw a hypothetical situation at you.

If you knew 100% without a shadow of a doubt that selling your soul to Satan would solve all of your present and future financial problems, would you do it?

"No John, of course I wouldn't."

"But MJ, it will solve all of your problems."

"I don't care, I still won't do it."

See what I mean? Some lines you just don't cross, no matter what the benefit to you is. Murdering the MP was one of those lines. Now, thanks to that, I don't think I'm going to have a problem with it.

Bad example, I know. But really, I'm trying to make you see that situation through my eyes.

Sat Mar 21 2009 9:40 am #
Nikolaj
Member

John,

Mark was just stating other options for your character. He doesn't need to agree with those actions. I'm quite sure he didn't agree with your actions when you took your first TK lessons in the B-Movie world. Yet your character did them. It seems that morals are not quite the leverage you are going to need to use if you want to convince him.

There are borders. I believe they are set, but man likes to redraw them, and most if not all of us have taken a big old psychological paintbrush and drew our own borders, ignoring the absolute ones. So there's no knowing where you drew yours for MJ.

You wouldn't kill that guy, but your character would have let my character verse if he were to call the cops when your character would threaten me to give you the money in the B-Movie world. Right? So, where is that line at? (btw, I'm very calm and not angry now, just so you know) Try to be consistent, and try to respect your referee (or game master or whatever) in his decisions. Especially when he designed the game.

Sat Mar 21 2009 10:43 am #
JohnA1nut
Member

You wouldn't kill that guy, but your character would have let my character verse if he were to call the cops when your character would threaten me to give you the money in the B-Movie world. Right?

Yes, that is true, and I see the point you're making. However, I would like to point out that, being in a fit of rage and killing someone who will not stay dead is a very different thing from calmly killing someone who will stay dead.

Nikolaj, this argument has been going on for years. I have a much better understanding of it. It's just something that will not get out of my head, no matter what I do.

If it's any consolation though MJ, seeing this situation in different lights has had the unexpected side-effect of helping me see some of my other psychotic episodes in different lights. Seeing this differently has helped me to get a handle on other things in my head that won't get out. I've actually managed to get a couple of my other psychotic episodes under more control because of this. So, your frustration over this (matched only by my own, I'm sure) has helped me a great deal. I hope you at least find solace in that.

Sat Mar 21 2009 5:31 pm #
M. J. Young
Moderator

I was not running John's game at the time; but my recollection is that it was a successful Charisma check, not a successful Persuasion check. Your quotation of my comment suggests that: it was about whether the MP liked you, not about whether he accepted what you told him.

If it had been a situation in which we wanted to know whether you had talked your way out of the situation (and not charmed your way out), we would have rolled a difficult persuasion check for you, and for the MP either a will power check (for his stubborness) or an intellect check (if you were trying to get him to understand your argument).

You were forced to do one thing, John: you were forced to make a choice. It may have seemed at the time to have been a choice between several bad options, and you can argue that you took what seemed to be the least of evils, but the fact remains you had other options. Some players would have killed; some would have run. You decided that as between killing, running, and surrendering, surrendering was the best choice. I think I might have made the same choice. I think Adam might have killed the guard, John 1 might have tried to kill the guard, Kyler certainly would have killed the guard; Eric might have run (attempting to disadvantage or disable the guard so he could get away), Tristan probably would have run. Chris would probably have attempted to bluster his way through. Graeme and Kelly would have surrendered. Shawn would have run. But then, I could be wrong about any of those--including me--because you were the only person in that exact situation under those exact circumstances, so you are the only one who had to make the choice cold.

You made a choice. Since there are players who would have handled that situation differently from the way you did, you revealed something about who you are. You might hate cops but you won't normally kill one to escape arrest. You might fear incarceration but you'll choose it over a bullet in the back. Those are certainly good choices; they are not the less choices.

--M. J. Young

Mon Mar 23 2009 4:07 am #
JohnA1nut
Member

Ya know what? That's the first thing you've said here that makes sense.

I'll tell you something though. That was the LAST TIME my character will get arrested, that's for damn sure.

Mon Mar 23 2009 4:11 am #
JohnA1nut
Member

Two Posts

When you said "Would I get involved or just watch the world go up in smoke?" To me, "Get Involved" means going to the base, talking to people. To you, it means warning them of the attack. To me, "Not Get Involved" means leaving of my own free will with no resistance whatsoever. Getting stopped by an MP after 10 seconds (To Me) completely negates the "Will he get involved" question, because (in my mind) I was never given the choice to NOT get involved. To me, "not getting involved" would be walking away and pretending like I was never there in the first place. Can't exactly do that if an MP pulls up, now can you? In my mind, it seemed like that MP totally negated the entire test, because I was never allowed to do the one thing that (in my mind) constitutes "Not getting involved". Leaving and pretending like I was never there. I have a better understanding of it now.

I still say that you picked the single worst world you could have possibly sent me to at that stage in my verser career, and I know for a fact that's one you can't argue with me on.

Mon Mar 23 2009 6:06 pm #
JohnA1nut
Member

Three Posts

Tell me though MJ, do you at least understand why I define "Not Getting Involved" as walking away and pretending like I was never there? Since I was never given the opportunity to do that, (in my mind) I was forced to get involved. Do you at least understand my logic there?

Mon Mar 23 2009 6:58 pm #
M. J. Young
Moderator

To me, "Get Involved" means going to the base, talking to people. To you, it means warning them of the attack. To me, "Not Get Involved" means leaving of my own free will with no resistance whatsoever.

So we have a semantic problem.

But seriously, if "not getting involved" means that there's no risk or cost to not getting involved, then it's just PLR (Path of Least Resistance). PLR proves nothing but that you will do whatever is easiest.

So I might have dropped you on some tropical island in the South Pacific where there was a five-man listening post with really low security, and let you discover in your wanderings that it was late November with the Pearl Harbor attack looming mere weeks away. I might then have learned whether you would have stolen a boat and tried to find your way to Hawaii, fought the seas and reached Pearl Harbor, blustered your way inside, and warned command of the impending attack--whether you would have paid a price to get involved.

Non-involvement as PLR means that you will do whatever comes easiest, and that means you will make no effort to get involved. Non-involvement as a commitment, non-involvement as a philosophy of the verse, requires that you are willing to pay a price and make an effort to avoid being involved. If we do not put you in a position in which you will have to do something, "fight" at least in a figurative sense, to keep from being sucked into the story; if there is no pressure on you to become involved, no cost to you to not being involved, then we have not learned whether you are serious about not being involved. We have only learned that you will follow PLR, and that if that means it would require effort to be involved you will not be involved, and if it requires risk or effort to avoid being involved you will be involved.

So indeed we learned exactly what we wanted to learn: if there would be a price to pay to keep from being involved, you will not pay the price. You will follow PLR and get involved if that's the easier way.

--M. J. Young

Mon Mar 23 2009 11:30 pm #
JohnA1nut
Member

That's what I finally understand. If I HAD been allowed to leave, what would you have learned? I still say that I should have been made aware of where I was BEFORE the MP pulled up. It would have been the single shortest verse in history, as I engaged the security team and got cut into Swiss Cheese.

Like I told you over email though. There are any number of historical events into which I would dive head first.

The American Revolution? I'd probably engage an entire regiment of British single-handed.

Titanic? You're damn right I would warn them.

The Battle of Little Big Horn? I'd join forces with the Indians. (Assuming they didn't kill me for being white, that is.)

Any number of historical events I would dive into. Pearl Harbor on the other hand.... Not one I would want to be anywhere close to.

Mon Mar 23 2009 11:52 pm #
JohnA1nut
Member

Two Posts

The other thing is that it isn't a non-involvement philosophy, it's a "Why should I get involved" philosophy?"

Helping people in a polluted planet kill giant, mutant insects? Why should I get involved?

Princesses with a sleeping problem? Why should I get involved?

Pearl Harbor, the catalyst for the US joining WW2, and defeating Germany? That's something I don't want to touch. That specific event was one I would not want to get involved in, but as I said in the previous post, there are any number of events into which I would dive headfirst.

In My Mind I was NEVER given the opportunity to NOT get involved, because In My Mind the ONLY thing that would constitute "Not Getting Involved" would be walking away and pretending like I was never there. Since I was never given the choice to just walk away and pretend like I was never there, In My Mind I was forced to get involved. That's what I mean when I say that "Talking to the MP is more involved than I would have wanted to get." In My Mind since I was never allowed to just leave, scram, vamoose, make tracks, head for the hills, etc. I was NEVER given the choice to NOT get involved. Since I was never given the choice to NOT get involved In My Mind I was forced to get involved. Does that make sense?

And don't even think about giving me that "You could have left if you hadn't crashed the jeep" bullshit either. "Not Getting Involved" would be never seeing the MP, just getting back in my van and driving away. "Pearl Harbor? I was never there." THAT would be "Not Getting Involved."

(Not yelling, just trying to make myself completely clear)

Tue Mar 24 2009 12:24 am #

RSS feed for this topic

12…7 Next »

Reply »

You must log in to post.