I keep saying "Does MJ make it a habit of blaming the victims of his own incompetence?" I do think you had more than enough reason to know that Pearl Harbor would be a terrible world. You just didn't read it right. I probably would have sent me there too. Not because I thought the player knew the scenario or because I had any notion of what they would do. Just because I would have taken inspiration from Final Countdown. I've been doing the same thing. I've heard a saying "Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity." This made me think of Adam. He was either sadistic or stupid. Then I realized, I was in fact blaming the victim of my own incompetence. I blamed Adam for giving me the single most appropriate botch in that situation. I blamed MJ for sending me to a bad world. It wasn't caused by malice, it was caused by stupidity. My own stupidity. I could so see myself doing that though. That world either went 100% completely wrong or 100% completely right, depending on how you look at it.
You will never convince me though that there isn't a better way to test non-involvement. Give me some time. I'll give you the better way.
You will never convince me that Adam "Did the right thing" there. So you killed a fly with a bazooka. Was the dead fly worth the collateral damage? I don't think it was, but that's for you to decide.
If anyone, especially Adam and MJ are still reading here, I'd love to hear back from you.
(Entering Dextroland)
Yes
I find the question offensive and beneath you.
--M. J. Young
Which question? That was supposed to be an explanation/apology.
I say again, which question was offensive and beneath me? You have no idea MJ how close this is. Not answering me is just going to impede that effort.
(Doing Therapy)
Which question?
I keep saying "Does MJ make it a habit of blaming the victims of his own incompetence?"
--M. J. Young
Yeah, and I admitted to the same crime. Blaming you and Adam for my having a terrible time in that world. I think you should go back and reread the original post. Lots of good stuff there.
I almost wish I had time to put into such an endeavor, but I'm afraid too much of my time has already gone to forum posts and e-mail today, and I've got to run.
--M. J. Young
I didn't say when you should reread it. Is today a better day?
There are no better days. Every day I try to figure out what it is that I don't really have to do, so I can get to the things I do have to do. I'm afraid that reading posts and e-mails from you about past game sessions has fallen into the category of unnecessary.
Sorry.
--M. J. Young
Look at it like this, if you reread that and give me your thoughts, you will, in all likelihood, never have to read another. Ten minutes now will save you hours later. You do want this to end, do you not? Your decision.
I probably would have lived the rest of my life without ever watching Final Countdown if you hadn't kept mentioning it to me. Who woulda thunk it woulda ended us up here?
Two
READ THEM BOTH!! THEY'RE INTERESTING!!!
Another reason why I don't like your idea of divergence. Under my idea, somewhere out there, there is a version of me who is the long suffering, down-on-his-luck game designer, and there's a version of you who is the petulant rookie gamer who does nothing but waste my time.
I just thought that idea might give you a modicum of comfort to think about.
Look at it like this, if you reread that and give me your thoughts, you will, in all likelihood, never have to read another.
I don't believe that, because there have been quite a few "last" discussions on this already. Besides, it's four thirty in the morning and people are complaining that I'm still working; it's been a very long day.
--M. J. Young
I think this is the latest I've ever seen you here.
You gotta admit, at least the posts are short and not unpleasant to read.
What I was trying to tell you is that I have lived through the scenario before. I had a situation some years ago when I thought someone was being a sadistic jerk, and it took me years to realize they were actually showing me grace. I crashed a jeep. I wasn't lobotomized, I didn't break anything that wouldn't heal, and I really didn't have all that bad of time. I was shown mercy and called it sadism. I've had that happen before. Since you're not interested in rereading it, I thought I would just transfer the gist of it down here.
I woulda thought you'd be jumping for joy. It's cleared in my head!!!
I don't believe that, because there have been quite a few "last" discussions on this already.
Understood. So how about a compromise? Give your thoughts on this, and I'll prove it. What do you have to lose?
(Doing Therapy)
I suppose that means it really was all your fault; but it doesn't matter to me whose fault it is as long as people aren't pointing fingers and complaining about it. It's over.
--M. J. Young
I suppose that means it really was all your fault;
Not ALL my fault. I didn't pick the world, and I didn't pick the opening. I AM however taking my full measure of responsibility for what WAS my fault. I shouldn't have called Adam sadistic. I shouldn't have called you incompetent. Perhaps next time you won't assume that the player knows the scenario about the movie he analyzed. I am taking responsibility for it. You said once that it was 1% your fault, 19% Adam's fault, and 80% mine. I'd say more like 15%, 15%, 70%.
It's clear in my head. I'm just getting it clear in yours. I said I would prove I could drop it. I didn't say exactly when. Don't reply and this will be it.
(Doing Therapy)
Mistake
(And no, it was about the Terminator)
(Doing Therapy)
Mistake
It was a funny thought I had about how a divergent me would have run through a certain world. Too close to not dropping it though.
(Doing Therapy)
MJ, you and I seem to have life philosophies which are exactly the opposite of each other. I'd like to offer a piece of advice which has served me well. Following this advice would have saved you a lot of trouble, at least once that I know of. When in doubt, assume that the other person knows absolutely nothing about the topic you are discussing. If it turns out that they are in fact an expert on the topic, all the better. But unless you know for a fact that they know about something, assume that the other person knows NOTHING. That's served me well.
(Doing Therapy)
I don't treat people like idiots, until they act like idiots.
--M. J. Young
There's a difference between treating someone like an idiot and assuming they don't know something. Would you feel like I was treating you like an idiot if I were to assume that you don't know how to diffuse a nuclear bomb? What if I knew you had seen all 7 seasons of MacGyver? Would you feel like I was treating you like an idiot if I still assumed you didn't know? Well, I bet we would both feel like idiots if I assumed you did know how and brought you to diffuse one that was counting down and you didn't have a clue how to do it.
Sometimes I felt like you were saying "How could you not know anything about a historical event? You've seen a fictionalized movie which is loosely based on it for god's sake!!!!" Who was the idiot? Me for not knowing or you for assuming that I did?
(Doing Therapy)
Two
mistake
(Doing Therapy)
MJ, I will grant you that there was no way from the Final Countdown analysis that you could have surmised my true feelings towards the event. What bothers me is that you tried to surmise them at all. You of all people should know that just because a player/referee is playing a character who is a Klansman doesn't necessarily mean he has any kind of racist feelings. It's just a role. Likewise, in all writing, the author is playing a role of sorts. You don't agree with the actions some of your storybook characters take, I'm sure. So, from Slade, I should surmise that you are a follower of Odin? Likewise, how can you surmise that my feelings are to stop the bombing just because a wrote an analysis of a movie about people who wanted to stop the bombing?
Don't get me wrong. If I was in your position, I probably would have sent me there too. However, I would have done so with no preconceived notions of what the player would do, what they knew about it, or what their feelings were towards the event in question. My logic would have been more like "Let's put him here and see what happens." That's half of what pissed me off about it. That you assumed my feelings and level of knowledge from that analysis. I just had to get that off of my chest.
(Doing Therapy)
Mistake
If anyone is still reading this, and I don't begrudge anyone who isn't, I've got something else to say here.
Even shortening the war wouldn't necessarily be a good thing. The US was in The Great Depression. World War Two is what pulled us out of it. What good would that have done if it had only lasted for 6 months? It pulled the citizens together in a way nothing else could have. What about the advances in technology? Not just in improved methods of killing each other. Nothing like a massive war to advance medical technology. Rosie the Riveter never gets her place in the spotlight, so Women's Lib is set back 20 years. Are you going to fix all of this for them, after you shorten the war by saving the Pacific Fleet?
MJ, you personally would be slitting your own throat by stopping Pearl Harbor. Your wife is a registered nurse, correct? So, since medical tech is set back, she's not as skilled and efficient and doesn't save as many lives. She also doesn't get paid as much, because women never proved themselves in the workforce. None of that really matters, however, because it wouldn't be socially acceptable for her to work and you not to. I bet stopping the bombing doesn't seem like such a great idea to you anymore. I daresay, Pearl Harbor and World War Two could very well have been the best thing that ever happened to this country.
Do you really want to risk all of this to save Pearl Harbor? That was a critical point in history. Who in their right mind would want to touch that? And yeah, I risked all of this to save myself. I could hardly be said to have been in my right mind at the time, however.
(Doing Therapy)
John, every moment in history is a critical moment.
I don't know if you've been following my series on Frequently Asked Questions About Time Travel, but the central and most subtle joke in the film is something very like that. I discuss it in Frequently Asked Questions About Time Travel part 2: delay, but the short version is this. In the original history of the world, Ray goes into the cozy to pick up drinks, comes back, the trio drink their beers, Pete goes to the gents, and when he returns they leave to catch last orders at another pub. They happen to have left a piece of paper on the table when they left, on which was an idea that ultimately made them rich and famous. Then from some point in the distant future Cassie happens back to that pub seeking a time leak she's supposed to repair, and decides as long as she's there she's going to take the opportunity to meet Ray, because he is going to be famous. So when he has the drinks and crisps and is headed back to his table, she calls his name and he stops to meet her. As he explains the butterfly effect to her, he points out that since she has delayed him he's going to get to his table five minutes later. She teases that this means he's going to drink his drink five minutes later, go to the bathroom five minutes later, and the entire universe is going to collapse. But then, he goes back to the table, tells his story, and Pete goes to the gents' something slightly more than five minutes later, and falls into the time leak, initiating all of their adventures from that point forward, including the complete annihilation of time in the end. So the joke is that everything happens ultimately because Cassie delayed Pete's trip to the gents'.
It is always the case with historic worlds that the changes you make can have serious repercussions to the future. That's part of what makes the game interesting.
--M. J. Young
It is always the case with historic worlds that the changes you make can have serious repercussions to the future. That's part of what makes the game interesting.
In this case though, we can kind of predict and gauge what the repercussions would be. I don't know about you, but I kind of like the history where Pearl Harbor was destroyed.
What would you do if your meddling at Pearl Harbor was directly responsible for the world going to hell in a hand basket? Winning the war in 6 months. The Great Depression just gets worse. (You of all people know how bad that is) Women's Lib not only gets set back, but because of the Depression, more and more women are forced into prostitution to survive. Women's Lib gets set back so far that, by 2011, it's Muslim Iraq as far as women are concerned. Doctors are still working with 60s medical tech. Because the war was slowed down, technology never advanced to the point where we landed on the moon. That was certainly a critical time for rocket design. You think your monochrome monitor and 400 baud modem are state of the art, NOW. You are responsible for that. What would you do? Seriously, what would you do? Might you be wishing you had just let the place be destroyed?
I, who (normally) would let the place be destroyed, am in no way responsible for anything, good or bad, that comes out of it. Admittedly, I stopped the bombing, something I swore I would never do. Two things. First off, I might not be dedicated to non-involvement, but I'm also under no obligation to protect the worlds I visit. That's half of the non-involvement philosophy, now that I think about it. I'm under no obligation to be a hero. Secondly, it proves that anyone can be induced to do anything. You could in fact be induced to murder your wife, no matter how adamantly you try to deny it. I would have been that adamant about warning Pearl Harbor a week before I started that world.
And just to be clear, this is in no way intended as argumentative or anything of the sort. It's really intended as a friendly discussion about how history can be changed, using a known, salient example. I'm enjoying myself. Kind of reminds me of when we used to talk time travel.
(Doing Therapy)
Two
Different topic, different post.
I just think that's rather hilarious. My character is seeking a double barrel shotgun to complete his Verser's Survival Pack. With that, he will have a 9mm pistol, a 9mm sub machine gun with a grenade launcher, a laser pistol, a crossbow, a blacksmithing hammer and a double barrel loaded with an explosive round and a flare on-person at all times. He can attack with projectiles, lasers, explosives, glue, tear gas, set the thing on fire and even beat it with a 3 pound sledgehammer. What enemy would he NOT be able to engage with that arsenal? But he's under no obligation to be a hero.......
(Doing Therapy)
It's been three weeks. I hope this is it. I would very much like this to end. For some reason, I feel compelled to say "I played my character accurately. You gotta give me credit for that."
(Dextroland)
Two
Also, if you define "Getting Involved" as "Warning the base of the attack", sure, the MP opening would be good. Take a broader view. If you define "Getting Involved" as "Doing anything whatsoever to alter the course of the attack" then it's terrible. I would have been much more likely to try to increase the destruction than save them. I get caught setting a boobytrap. Realistic, I'm in custody. It's a MILITARY BASE!!!!! You've got the resources of an entire military base with which to collar your wayward player. You don't have to take them in on the spot to get them into custody!!!!!!
(Dextroland)
Relax, John, we're not laughing with you.
Consider yourself lucky, I was thinking of having him proposition you.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAAAHAHAAHAHAAHAHHAHAH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I love you guys. I just wanted you to know that.
(Dextroland)
I don't think anyone took me seriously, and I think you're dismissing something completely valid here.
I would have been much more likely to "Get Involved" in the destruction of Pearl Harbor.
The MP opening completely kills that as a course of action.
It doesn't tell you that I'm dedicated to non-involvement, all it tells you is that I didn't warn Pearl Harbor.
If I had been turned loose and helped to destroy the place, that's not dedication to non-involvement, and you would completely miss the chance to see it with that opening.
I think you just don't like being proven wrong, that's why you're dismissing this.
FACE IT MJ!!!! I HAVE PROVEN YOU WRONG!!!!!
Does it completely kill that as a course of action? Absolutely not, I insist.
If you had been fully cooperative, and insisted that an attack was imminent, it's possible that they may have released you from holding once the attack commenced, especially if you had convinced them that you could mitigate the danger. This also means that you would have been inside the compound from the start.
Then you could have assisted in the destruction of Pearl Harbor.
If you hadn't been so intent on derailing the scenario, it would have been your choice how you played it. However, you attempted to derail it, and you succeeded. You brought the reprucussion upon yourself with your assaults on the MP. Live with it and move past it.
If you had been fully cooperative, and insisted that an attack was imminent
Ah, but Kyler, I want the place to be destroyed. The last thing I would do is warn them. So I'm in custody, I can't do anything. I'm stuck.
If you had told me where I was and turned me loose, it's within the realm of possibility that I would have taken direct action to help the Japanese destroy the place. Getting involved in the destruction.
If you REALLY insist that you have to take the player into custody, what referee worth his salt couldn't accomplish that with the resources of a 20th century military base?
The MP opening is NOT the ONLY way to test non-involvement, and in fact, prevents the player from taking a completely reasonable course of involvement.
(Doing Therapy)
two
If you hadn't been so intent on derailing the scenario,
It just occurred to me. People have repeatedly said "Derail the scenario" then insisted that I "Wasn't railroaded." Kind of a contradiction in terms, dontchathink?
(Doing Therapy)
It isn't, no. If there's a scenario, you can either follow it or derail it. If you're being railroaded, it means that you don't have any options.
If you're supposed to go to the castle and talk to the King to cause the scenario to proceed, and you instead to go out into the countryside and live as a hermit, you've derailed the scenario.
If you're going out into the countryside and you fall unconscious for apparently no reason and wake up in the castle, you've been railroaded.
You were still in control of your character's actions and managed to effect a change in your situation, so I would say that you were not being railroaded. You were in a situation that you didn't have complete control over, but you still had enough control to mess up the scenario.
If you're supposed to go to the castle and talk to the King to cause the scenario to proceed, and you instead to go out into the countryside and live as a hermit, you've derailed the scenario.
What am I "supposed" to do? I'm "supposed" to do what I feel I would do in a given situation. In Dancing Princess, I wouldn't go to the castle. I would try to make a life as a peasant. I have no desire to become a king, and I came out of that with a decent amount of money and skills which have proven more valuable. It's not my concern what happens to those princesses. You have to wonder how many players go to the castle because it's what they are "supposed" to do, and not because it's what they feel they really would do. I did what I felt I really would do. That's what you told me to do.
Either you want me to do what I'm "supposed" to do, or you want me to play myself.
And I still think you're dismissing what I said.