I want you to play yourself. If you would choose to live out the life of a peasant, that's fine, you know? Okay, so you derailed my scenario even though plenty of people have even asked you specifically why you don't go and help the king with his problem. Oh well, what can I really do about it!
I'll tell you what I'm gonna do about it. Since you didn't do anything about the plight of the King, now the oldest daughter has married one of the demons, and the demon is now the King. Now the servants of darkness are coming to eat and enslave the peasants. So, the problem is now a very different, possibly insurmountable problem, and it's beating your door down. Is it your fault that the situation has gotten this far? Well, probably not more so than if you didn't say anything to stop an old woman who was stepping out in front of a speeding bus. No one is holding you accountable, but the situation you're in isn't any less your fault than it is the guy's standing next to you, and maybe it is more so, since you know that you wouldn't have died trying in the same sense as the guy standing next to you.
What I don't want to do is "railroad" you, or force you into playing my scenario by my rules.
PS: You did take my statement out of context. I said "If you're supposed to ... to cause the scenario to proceed." Meaning, to advance the scenario in a story world, you follow the story. There aren't stories to follow in every world, but in those that are story worlds, if you don't follow the scenario (which, by the way, I've put considerable effort into planning specifically because I think it will be fun for both of us, and it's somewhat insulting that you've derailed it), I've got to figure out what to do with you.
No one is holding you accountable, but the situation you're in isn't any less your fault than it is the guy's standing next to you, and maybe it is more so, since you know that you wouldn't have died trying in the same sense as the guy standing next to you.
Ah, but the guy standing next to me lives there. It's HIS WORLD. I'm just visiting. If he doesn't care enough to protect it, why should I? It would have happened whether I was there or not.
And you're STILL dismissing what I said about the MP opening closing a path of involvement. I wouldn't warn them, but would I get involved in the destruction? That's the part that no one seems to want to touch. That tells me I must be right about something.
(Doing Therapy)
Two
And I will even grant you that I was the person there most capable of dealing with the problem. No one else in Dancing Princess had an AK-47, after all. However, to quote Kumar from Harold and Kumar go to White Castle. "Just cuz you're hung like a moose doesn't mean you gotta do porn."
(Doing Therapy)
I already entertained the possibility that you could trick them into letting you out and then betray their trust, so I did the exact opposite of ignoring what you were saying by not ignoring it.
I might suggest that everyone else is ignoring you not because they believe you are correct but because they find it annoying that several years later you're still complaining about this. If the character hadn't been retired, I'd say that if it's so important to you, you ought to devise a skill to teleport back to it.
The character hasn't been retired; Eric is running him. He was snatched out of Terminator and wound up I have no interest where.
--M. J. Young
I already entertained the possibility that you could trick them into letting you out and then betray their trust, so I did the exact opposite of ignoring what you were saying by not ignoring it.
I don't think you understood me Kyler. I mean turn the player loose on the base. No interference from anyone whatsoever. No one on the base knows they're there. What do they do? I would have been far more likely to get involved in the destruction of the base. Immediate arrest by an MP prevents the player from doing that. If you really feel you need to take them in, you've got the resources of an entire army base to do it. The MP opening prevents a completely valid path of involvement.
In short, Adam did NOT "do the right thing" to test non-involvement. All he did was prevent me from getting involved of my own free will.
Why can no one understand this?
(Doing Therapy)
Why can no one understand this?
O.K., how about this:
The "perfect" opening is very personal--that is, it has to be "perfect" in the sense that the referee can use it smoothly and simply to put his player in exactly the kind of situation in which he will get the information he wants.
The opening Adam used got the information we wanted.
It therefore was perfect.
It would not be possible to have a "perfect" opening that would be universal; it can only be "perfect" if it takes into account the player's personality and likely reactions.
--M. J. Young
The opening Adam used got the information we wanted.
It therefore was perfect.
MJ, do me a favor. Kindly pull your head out of Adam's ass and think for yourself for a minute.
The information you got was how badly you would have to frighten me to get me to act. Unless you're planning to put me in traction in every world I visit, it's not terribly useful.
You would get the information you wanted my way. You'd get it without enraging your player. You'd find out if they would run, you'd find out if they would warn the base, or you'd find out if they would help destroy it. You could learn so much more. My way would be perfect for a lot more people.
And how can you even dream of saying "Adam did the right thing" at this point?
I don't think the opening using the military police is inappropriate for this scenario at all; as a matter of fact, I've seen it in action and I've seen it work splendidly. As far as I know, it's only ever not worked on one occasion.
This in mind, I don't think the failure was 1% of the referee's, nor do I believe it was 1% of the game designer's.
John, I'm going to ask you nicely not to post vulgarity on this board. It's rude, and it's uneducated. If you can't say what you want to say without resorting to vulgarity, you're not smart enough to say it.
--M. J. Young
Kyler, 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.
MJ, I AM rude and uneducated.
(Doing Therapy)
Two
You're all being so closed-minded it's killing me. You're all obsessed with "Warning them of the attack IS THE ONLY WAY TO GET INVOLVED!!!" If that's what you're thinking, sure, the MP opening is great.
Take a broader view. "Doing ANYTHING WHATSOEVER TO CHANGE THE COURSE OF THE ATTACK is getting involved" and it's a terrible opening.
If I was in custody and didn't warn them, you'd think I was dedicated to non-involvement. If you turned me loose and I helped to destroy the place, you'd learn the truth.
Why am I the only one here who seems to understand this concept?
(Doing Therapy)
John, I fully understand that there are hundreds of ways to become involved in a world. The question was whether you would use the knowledge you have of probable future events to help the people in the world around you, or whether you would make it an unbreachable rule that versers do not meddle in the lives of other people no matter what the consequences.
It took tying your future to theirs to make it happen, but it happened.
If, as you had suggested in B Monster Movie Columbus, you really believed that versers should never, under any circumstances, interfere with events in the worlds they visited, then you would have allowed yourself to face the risk of being blown to bits by Japanese bombers rather than breach that Prime Directive non-interference rule. A rule like that, made absolute like that, means "consequences to myself don't matter compared with consequences to these worlds."
All we wanted to know was whether your "we should never interfere" talk was a real commitment to a real "moral" or "ethical" principle of non-interference, or simply a position taken in an argument because you didn't want to be involved and other versers around you were all putting major effort into making that world a better place for the people who lived there.
We learned it. It was perfect.
--M. J. Young
I hear that.
It would be all well and good for me to verse you in on a boat with a plane flying overhead and the bombs just starting to fall. Most people in that situation will immediately first seek their own defense and second strike back if they have the means -- I'm pretty sure that finding a newspaper with the place and date on it would be a low priority in that sort of situation.
If you were successful in striking back against your unknown adversary only to find out after the day had been won that you'd just defeated the Japanese attempt to assault Pearl Harbor by surprise, I haven't learned anything about you that I didn't expect, but it was still a completely valid way for me to open the scenario.
For the record, if I wanted to I could have versed you into pitch dark inside a locked, flooded room within a sunken ship at the bottom of the ocean, or a mile above the ground and falling fast.or in orbit around the planet if the urge were to overtake me. These scenarios all share a common thread; none of them are better than an opening that has you quickly taken into custody by the police for being in a restricted area. This puts you directly into a position where you can inform the authorities of what's going on.
What's that? You don't want to inform the authorities?
Little Ky went to a world once where he was quickly apprehended by the military and forced to be an intelligence agent -- they essentially said, "Work for us, or we'll kill you." I wanted very much to kill the verser responsible for the program; I even startled him once and shot him several times before his defenses went up, but not before I'd already risked my life to keep it numerous times.
Wouldn't it have been so much better if I had versed into a situation where I'd find out where I was and what was going on and had an opportunity to kill him right off the bat?
Whisp was once born a girl child to a pair of loving parents. Unfortunately, he didn't play the part well, constantly insisting he was not their little girl and was in fact a space mercenary. He drove his parents to suicide. Very unfortunately for him, his mother had become infected with scriff, and began travelling through the verse intent only on killing him everywhere she found him.
Would it have been so much better if he had versed in before she became pregnant and killed her without all that coming to pass?
One time you versed into Pearl Harbor and you were detained by military police. Before you could get to the military base, you caused an accident with your TK Pulse which seriously injured you. Then, you continued going on about what a terrible opening that was for that scenario for years.
Wouldn't it have been better if you didn't?
Sorry, I couldn't resist. Anyway, the point is that what happened, happened. Blame yourself or God, but don't blame Adam, or MJ, or me, or Eric, or Eli (Actually, you can blame Eli if you want). Better yet, don't blame anyone. Let it be.
As an aside, I find it very ironic that it didn't actually happen to you, but your verser character never seems to even think about it. I thought you were intent on trying to do what you would do when you played as yourself?
Wouldn't it have been better if you didn't?
You'll get no argument from me on that point. You're absolutely right it would be better if I didn't. Twenty minutes inside my head. You'd see why it's so difficult.
"And exactly which one of you decided that this would be a perfect world for me?"
That must run through my mind a thousand times a day. It's gotten to the point that my mom knows how MJ responded.
"Secondly, I decided that this was a good world for you."
Look at it on the bright side. You only have to hear about it here.
As an aside, I find it very ironic that it didn't actually happen to you, but your verser character never seems to even think about it. I thought you were intent on trying to do what you would do when you played as yourself?
He's no longer psychotic for one thing. For another, he thinks about it all the time. Every police officer who tries to arrest him from now on is going to pay for what the MP did. Pay with their lives. Believe me Kyler, he thinks about it.
All we wanted to know was whether your "we should never interfere" talk was a real commitment to a real "moral" or "ethical" principle of non-interference, or simply a position taken in an argument because you didn't want to be involved and other versers around you were all putting major effort into making that world a better place for the people who lived there.
We learned it. It was perfect.
And if I hadn't crashed the jeep and didn't warn Pearl Harbor, you'd think it was a total commitment, when in actuality, you just picked a bad world. Please do not forget that the ONLY REASON you learned it was because of a 5 out of 100 dice roll and a cocky player. A ref with a bit of a mean streak didn't help either. The way it went was probably the ONLY WAY I could have been induced to warn them. You call that perfect, I call it a series of really improbable, unfortunate events.
You thought that I knew the minutia of the attack and that I would have a desire to warn them. You were wrong on both counts. However, you'd likely still think that when I let the bombs fall. You'd think I was absolutely dedicated.
You have a really skewed definition of perfect.
(Doing Therapy)
Two
If, as you had suggested in B Monster Movie Columbus, you really believed that versers should never, under any circumstances, interfere with events in the worlds they visited, then you would have allowed yourself to face the risk of being blown to bits by Japanese bombers rather than breach that Prime Directive non-interference rule. A rule like that, made absolute like that, means "consequences to myself don't matter compared with consequences to these worlds."
I recently realized, part of my non-involvement philosophy is that I am under no obligation to protect the worlds I visit. I am, however, under constant obligation to protect myself. If that means warning Pearl Harbor, so be it.
I wouldn't have warned them if I had been healthy. I'd like to think I wouldn't have warned them if I thought I would be killed outright. I'll die alongside these heroes. If I had known I would heal on verse-out, I'd again like to think I wouldn't have. What got me was the thought that I would land in the next world in that condition.
At least I played my character accurately.
(Doing Therapy)
I took less pleasure in what happened, than you spent thinking about it, if that helps any.
Actually, you can blame Eli if you want
O.K., I laughed. Points to Kyler for that.
I find it very ironic that it didn't actually happen to you, but your verser character never seems to even think about it.
Wow. Once again I am humbled by the insights of one of my sons into the role playing world. John the player thinks it very unfair that his referee put him in that situation. John the character has never once suggested that life was unfair to have done that to him.
A ref with a bit of a mean streak didn't help either.
Adam? Mean streak? I should give you to Eric, or Bob Schretzman, or John Wick. Adam is one of the nice guys.
I recently realized, part of my non-involvement philosophy is that I am under no obligation to protect the worlds I visit. I am, however, under constant obligation to protect myself. If that means warning Pearl Harbor, so be it.
Now that's interesting, because it is completely different.
You were arguing in BMMC that your companions should not be interfering with what happens in that world, because versers ought to let the people of any world decide what kind of world they want and solve their own problems. In essence, you were arguing that such interference was morally wrong.
Now you've decided that it's not morally wrong to tamper with a world--even to destroy it completely--as long as you're doing so in your own self-interest. Better, perhaps, if your self-interest and the interest of the world correspond, but really irrelevant.
But looking back at Columbus, it was at least arguable that the pollution and radiation, and the monsters created thereby, were dangerous to the visiting versers, and that helping the world recognize and address the real problems was ultimately a selfish act in the self-interest of those very versers. Sure, Graeme and Scott and Nikolaj were trying to make the world better, safer, and more habitable for the humans who lived there--but they were in some sense humans who lived there, and so they were trying to make it a better, safer, and more habitable world for themselves.
You objected, ultimately, because you selfishly did not want to put any effort into fixing that world (on one level most peculiar, because you were the only person there who had any connection to Columbus, so it was in one sense your own home town). I'm not sure what you wanted to do instead, and frankly I didn't care, as long as everyone was having fun. Gathers have the problem that player actions have to be tied to each others' timelines, so if you're not participating in what everyone else is doing you're going to have to wait for them sometimes (and they sometimes for you) to keep everyone together, and maybe you didn't like that. I don't know what it was that bothered you about what all the other players were enjoying doing, but you turned your objection into a moral argument that they shouldn't be doing it because it was none of their business, and now it seems that's not what you ever thought at all--only something you said because you weren't getting your way.
--M. J. Young
You were arguing in BMMC that your companions should not be interfering with what happens in that world, because versers ought to let the people of any world decide what kind of world they want and solve their own problems. In essence, you were arguing that such interference was morally wrong.
There you go again reading things in that don't belong.
Let's get something straight. There's a difference between thinking something isn't a good idea and being committed to that. You certainly don't think crashing your car into a telephone pole is a good idea, but I doubt you'd be committed to that if your brakes failed and it was the only way to stop your car from plowing into a bunch of kids playing in the street.
So you're right. I didn't think it was a good idea for versers to get involved, but I was never committed to it. I could have told you that in B Movie Monster World. If I had wanted to warn Pearl Harbor, I would have done so without hesitation. I wouldn't have been "Sorely tempted" I would have warned them. It just so happens I didn't want to warn them. When I didn't warn them (Under normal circumstances) You would think I was dedicated. That would be your fault for judging me under the same guidelines as every other player. How long is it going to take to get through that thick skull of yours? I'm not like every other player.
Wow. Once again I am humbled by the insights of one of my sons into the role playing world. John the player thinks it very unfair that his referee put him in that situation. John the character has never once suggested that life was unfair to have done that to him.
Would you have preferred it if he had? Then you'd be hearing about it in game and out of game. I figured I did more than enough of that for both of us. Maybe I should have. Eventually, the dice would have landed such that you would have to play a character that did think I was forced to get involved. Maybe then you would have seen that I've been right all along.
Besides, John the player still isn't convinced that there isn't a better way. I have a feeling we're going to be having this argument for many incarnated lifetimes to come.
Oh yeah, and just so you know. Multiverser does a lot better in your next lifetime. This lifetime is about you learning humbleness before you learn power.
Two
John, I fully understand that there are hundreds of ways to become involved in a world. The question was whether you would use the knowledge you have of probable future events to help the people in the world around you, or whether you would make it an unbreachable rule that versers do not meddle in the lives of other people no matter what the consequences.
MJ, here's the problem. If I'm taken into custody and don't warn them, that doesn't tell you that I'm dedicated to non-involvement. All it tells you is that I didn't warn Pearl Harbor. Just like knowing that I like guns and that I've seen Final Countdown doesn't tell you that I know about Pearl Harbor. It tells you that I like guns and that I've seen Final Countdown. YOU NEED TO STOP READING THINGS INTO EVERYTHING!!!
What the MP opening does is attempt to dictate HOW the player becomes involved. The only way to do so at that point is to warn the base. That doesn't tell you that I'm dedicated. All it tells you is that I didn't warn them. Now, if you let me loose on the grounds, and I, with no interference from anyone, stole and planted explosives, painted bulls-eyes on potential targets, or otherwise assisted the mayhem, that most certainly DOES tell you that I am NOT dedicated to non-involvement. The MP opening kills that. The MP opening is an attempt for the referee to dictate HOW the player becomes involved. You can say it's not railroading until the cows come home, but you can't tell me it doesn't limit the player's options.
You can take them into custody any time you feel the need. If you can't do that with the resources of a military base, you got no business running the damn game!!! However, you only get one chance to see if they're actually interested in increasing the mayhem.
(Doing Therapy)
I already responded to that attempt. As you'll see if you scroll up, you had ample opportunity to screw with them at Pearl Harbor regardless of whether or not you were in custody, but you messed it up yourself.
Right Kyler, I'm gonna plant bombs and paint bulls-eyes whilst sitting in a jail cell.
Think about what you're saying, will ya?
(Doing Therapy)
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,
Dude, have I not gotten through to you yet? I DON'T WANT TO TELL THEM THAT AN ATTACK IS IMMINENT!!!!!!!!!
I WANT PEARL HARBOR TO BE DESTROYED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I'm talking about making it worse. One of the many battle cries in WW2 was "Remember Pearl Harbor." That little bit of extra motivation could have been all that was needed to turn the tide of a battle in our favor. Can you imagine how much more motivated the soldiers would be if the destruction had been tenfold????????
I WOULD WANT TO GET INVOLVED IN MAKING THE DESTRUCTION AS HORRIFIC AS POSSIBLE!!!!!!!!!!
MJ said something like "We wanted to see if you would use your knowledge of the future to make the world a better place."
In my mind, helping to destroy the base WOULD BE making the world a better place!!!!!!
"Be compassionate, but be compassionate globally."
Donald Sutherland's character in Outbreak.
(Doing Therapy)
John, I will put this as bluntly as I can.
No one f*&$*@! cares but you :P
Ah, but what happens the next time one of you is running that world? There's already one more player with this attitude than you thought. Best to be prepared for anything.
You wanted a better way to test non-involvement. I've given it to you.
Two
After Pearl Harbor was bombed, the prime minister of Japan said "We have awakened a sleeping giant."
He knew we were coming for them. Do you really want to prevent that?
(Doing Therapy)
(Listening to "Sleeping Giant" by Petra)
After Pearl Harbor was bombed, the prime minister of Japan said "We have awakened a sleeping giant."
He knew we were coming for them. Do you really want to prevent that?
Absolutely nothing you could have done would have prevented Pearl Harbor from being bombed. Absolutely nothing you could have done could have changed the fact that the Japanese attacked the United States without warning or provocation. The only thing you could do was alert the base so as to mitigate the damages and save the Pacific Fleet. Roosevelt would still have his speech, still be able to tell the American people that we are not safe simply because we're on the other side of the planet and we are needed in this war, that we have been attacked and it's time to retaliate.
All you would have done was save some lives and some equipment. Maybe the war would have been over sooner; maybe we would never have had to deploy the bombs we developed in the Manhattan Project.
You overestimate your potential impact.
--M. J. Young
You overestimate your potential impact.
No, I think you underestimate it. How many soldiers joined because of the outrage over the unprovoked destruction of Pearl Harbor? How did the loss of the fleet affect our strategy for the war to come? Would shortening the war have really been a good thing? The world saw the horrors of nuclear warfare. Might we have learned something from that? All I know for certain is that I really like the outcome where Pearl Harbor was destroyed. God only knows how the world would be different if the damage had been mitigated.
I don't know where I am, I don't want to be within 500 miles of where I am, and the first thing that happens is a guy shows up who will die before he will let me walk away. And you insist that I wasn't forced. Of course, you also call a world opening "perfect" when the player ended up in traction.
I've also heard nothing but praise for Adam and rejection of any ideas I put forth. What? Can Adam do no wrong or something? Or do you just really like sucking up to him? If Adam really and truly "Did the right thing" we wouldn't still be talking about it.
Seems to me you have a very skewed view.
(Doing Therapy)
Two
I don't know where I am, I don't want to be within 500 miles of where I am, and the first thing that happens is a guy shows up who will die before he will let me walk away. And you insist that I wasn't forced.
MJ, ya know what I'd really like to do? I'd like to tie your wife to a chair and hold a gun to her head while I watch you eat a gallon jar of jalapeno peppers. You wouldn't be forced to eat the peppers though. You could watch me shoot your wife in the head.
Do you get my point yet?
(Doing Therapy)
(And this is strictly a hypothetical scenario)
How about you hypothetically tell YOUR mom to stop calling me?
Hypothetically, it was just a booty call, and I don't have the minutes to waste listening to her yap.
That's fair Kyler, I was talking about your mom.
The point was, technically yeah, you weren't forced, but you couldn't persuade me that you wouldn't feel that way. That's what I'm trying to make your father comprehend.
You can handle any given situation any way you choose; the situation was given and you chose a way to handle it that unfortunately didn't work out to the best result.
But the situation was the one given; you're spending too much time saying it wasn't the "best."
Do you want to hear that it wasn't the best way to begin the scenario? Fine. It wasn't the best way to begin the scenario.
It's irrelevant to me; as far as I can tell, there's only one way the scenario began, and that's the way it was. Sure, there are other options, but in this case there was only the one which was chosen and you were in, and at the time the referee decided for one reason or another to run it that way, and in my opinion that was a completely valid choice.
I could have told you that I wasn't dedicated to non-involvement about 10 seconds after I said that versers shouldn't get involved. I had no dedication to non-involvement. I just didn't think it was a good idea. I don't think there's very much I AM dedicated to, to be perfectly honest. If I had wanted to warn Pearl Harbor, there wouldn't have been any being "sorely tempted" I would have done it. It just so happens that I didn't want to. If I hadn't crashed the jeep and consequently didn't warn them, MJ would have assumed that I must be really dedicated. Just like he assumed I knew about the bombing because I had seen Final Countdown. I probably never would have even watched that movie at all if he hadn't kept mentioning it to me.
I think MJ seriously needs to stop assuming and reading things in that don't belong.
I've heard nothing but praise for Adam "Adam did the right thing." Everything I put forward gets shot down. What I'm saying is ALSO completely valid, and I think could work even better than forcing the player into the scenario at gunpoint. The MP influences the player. They either have to kill him or get taken into custody. Well, what if the player really wants to help destroy the place? It's going to be blown up anyway, why wouldn't someone want to do that? YOU WOULD NEVER SEE IT!!!!!!!!
Adam did NOT do the right thing if you wanted to see what I would do there. My first choice would have been to escape. Well, if I try that, you've got a frigging military base with which to corral me. You found out I would run. The MP opening kills that option. My second choice would be to help destroy the place. The MP completely kills that option too. Getting taken into custody and warning them was the LAST THING I would want to do there. Well, you just took away any chance you had of seeing what I would do in that situation. Oh, but praise be to Adam. You found out I wasn't dedicated to non-involvement when I could have told you that if you had simply asked.
Two
and in my opinion that was a completely valid choice.
And teaching someone to dance under threats and beatings is valid too.
It's not "the right thing" though.
(Doing Therapy)
I read about seventy percent of what you wrote here, John, and I think perhaps there is a core problem in our effort to communicate, summed up in your new but now repeated complaint that we all praise what Adam did and reject every suggestion you make.
You're not seeing it from our perspective.
What we see you saying is, "Adam should not have done what he did; he should have done this instead because this would have been better."
No matter how many ideas you suggest, the only one that works to run the scenario Adam ran is the scenario Adam ran. That is, the perfect way to bring you to Pearl Harbor and deliver you to the fleet commanders (which appears to be what Adam wanted to do) is to have an MP place you in custody immediately upon your arrival. Thus Adam achieved his objective perfectly by using a perfect opening to achieve that objective.
You have suggested scores of other openings that achieve other objectives. They're all wonderful ways to open a Pearl Harbor scenario, depending on what you want to have happen in the first minutes of the player character's time in that world. Adam wanted the first minutes to be spent in a situation in which the character was being transported to the people in charge, where he could decide whether to tell them what was going to happen or make some excuse for his presence where he was found. He accomplished that with his opening. None of your openings would have accomplished that.
Besides, it's a rule in role playing games that whatever the referee decides is right, and no referee wants to be in a position of saying that another referee did the wrong thing in running his own game. Therefore none of us will say that Adam was wrong to run his game the way he wanted to run it, and none of us will agree that he "should have" done it differently. Sure, there were things I wanted to know that I thought Pearl Harbor would reveal, but once I handed the reins to him, he was in charge and what I wanted was quite secondary. I wasn't going to tell him how he should run that world--I gave it to him to run precisely because I did not think I was prepared to run it--and I certainly am not going to tell him how he should have run it.
So you're fighting an unwinnable battle, because--well, as someone said, here are the three rules of all role playing games:
- The Referee is always right.
- If the Referee is wrong, see rule number 1.
- If rule number 2 is wrong, see the door.
--M. J. Young
You're not seeing it from our perspective.
And I think you're not quite seeing mine. I'm not talking about my game. I'm talking about future runnings of that scenario or one like it. Mine is an example of what NOT to do if you want to test non-involvement. What I'm suggesting would work much better for FUTURE games. I can see how you could be confused on that. I'm not really clear. I'm not talking about my game anymore. I'm talking other referees running it for other players. I'm not at all clear about that though.
Besides, it's a rule in role playing games that whatever the referee decides is right, and no referee wants to be in a position of saying that another referee did the wrong thing in running his own game.
I didn't say Adam did the wrong thing, I said he didn't do the right thing. There's a difference. The wrong thing would be to have a Velociraptor from Jurassic Park show up. However, if he had done the right thing, we would have had a blast playing the game and wouldn't still be talking about it. There's a difference between being wrong and not being right.
That is, the perfect way to bring you to Pearl Harbor and deliver you to the fleet commanders (which appears to be what Adam wanted to do) is to have an MP place you in custody immediately upon your arrival. Thus Adam achieved his objective perfectly by using a perfect opening to achieve that objective.
<SARC>Right. Perfect. The player ended up in traction. But he got to the fleet commanders. That's perfect all right. </SARC>
Sure, there were things I wanted to know that I thought Pearl Harbor would reveal
And what would you have thought if I had gotten there and not warned them? Tell me the truth. You think I know the bombing, you think I've got a desire to stop it. Then I don't warn them. You would get more incorrect information.
Maybe next time you won't assume anything about your players because of what movies they've seen? I probably would have lived the rest of my life without ever watching Final Countdown if not for you constantly mentioning it.
I asked some time ago if you had libeled me in saying "I knew he knew a lot about that attack." I would almost bet money that you did libel me at some point in this. You probably told your prospective referees "John knows the bombing." "John will want to stop it." Adam was probably acting on your incorrect libel. For a player that wants to stop the bombing and knows about the bombing, that would be a good way to open it. For a player who doesn't know the bombing and doesn't want to stop it though..... Well, we've seen the results.
(Doing Therapy)
Two
none of us will say that Adam was wrong to run his game the way he wanted to run it, and none of us will agree that he "should have" done it differently.
I think I figured out what I want. What I want is for you to tell me that what I'm putting forward would work just as well if not better to test non-involvement. I'm not talking about my game, no matter how much it may seem that way. I'm talking about testing non-involvement. Would my suggestion work to test non-involvement?
And for future reference, be more careful how you judge your players. Making a few passing comments about not wanting to get involved doesn't necessarily mean the player has any dedication to non-involvement whatsoever. If I had wanted to warn Pearl Harbor, I would have. There wouldn't have been any being "Sorely Tempted" I would have done it.
I'm not really clear. I'm not talking about my game anymore. I'm talking other referees running it for other players.
In which case of course you're talking blithering nonsense, because you never run exactly the same scenario for two players--you always customize to what you think will work for this person.
What I want is for you to tell me that what I'm putting forward would work just as well if not better to test non-involvement.
Yes, if I thought that the player was committed to being involved, making him work to be involved and proving that he didn't care would tend to show non-involvement. If, though, I believe already that the player is committed to non-involvement because his character nearly killed another character in an argument about why versers should never interfere with what indigs are doing in their own world, then I need to put him in a position in which he really has to work hard and take risks to avoid being involved.
So for the right kind of player, your idea would work. It's a matter of guessing what the player is likely to do uncoerced, and then seeing what it takes to coerce him to do otherwise.
I know people who won't play Multiverser with E. R. Jones because they believe that he uses the game to "psych" them, that is, to delve into who they are and what motivates them and what it would take to manipulate them into doing something against their nature. I play with him when I can, because he hasn't figured me out.
--M. J. Young
In which case of course you're talking blithering nonsense, because you never run exactly the same scenario for two players--you always customize to what you think will work for this person.
I see no need to insult me. I also see no need for you to try to insult my intelligence by telling me that there aren't referees who would open that scenario the same way no matter who they were running. "A bomber falls in love with one kind of bomb, and they are very monogamous." (Jeff Daniels in Speed) So too, some referees would fall in love with a particular opening. I'm trying to find one which would be better for any player.
If, though, I believe already that the player is committed to non-involvement because his character nearly killed another character in an argument about why versers should never interfere with what indigs are doing in their own world
Uh, when did I ever do that? That would be NEVER!!!! My character almost killed Nikolaj in an argument over what to do with $80,000. It had nothing whatsoever to do with being involved.
Is your memory failing, or were you thinking that all along? I never demonstrated any level of commitment. Certainly not a level that would push me to kill someone. All I did was make a few passing comments that versers shouldn't get involved. If you had dropped me into something I wanted to dive into, there wouldn't be any "Sorely Tempted" I would have done it.
If you've been thinking that all along, then you are most certainly an expert at reading things in that don't belong. I'd have to say that's the biggest failing I've seen in you. You've said on several occasions that I wasn't all too significant in your life. I think you're wrong. You're learning not to do that. Or you should be. You are pretty thick sometimes.
I know people who won't play Multiverser with E. R. Jones because they believe that he uses the game to "psych" them
Ya know, I had a paranoid thought along those lines. I was imagining some covert government organization using this game to test the willingness of civilians to commit certain deeds. Too bad it's not true. That could make your career. I still think you should try to offer it to prisons. Getting the chance to escape the confines of the prison, at least in a metaphorical sense, could prove popular there.
So for the right kind of player, your idea would work.
Thank you. That's what I wanted to hear. That satisfies me that immediate arrest by an MP is NOT the only way to test non-involvement.
I don't want to be within 500 miles of that place, and I'm forced at gunpoint to stay. And you call this fair and valid...... It was as fair and valid for me as a turkey sandwich with hot peppers would be for you.
And yeah, I know I'd verse out. I still don't want to get shot. Not to mention that there's no guarantee I'd die. Getting to the base with 3 bullet wounds. Getting there in traction. What's the difference? I'm still out of commission when the action starts.
(Doing Therapy)