MJ, here's why I say Adam "Didn't do the right thing" to test my character's dedication to non-involvement. Please, read, not skim, to the end.
I made, as I recall, a few passing comments about why versers shouldn't get involved. At least, to me they were passing comments. You apparently took them far more seriously than I really intended them to be. If I had wanted to warn Pearl Harbor, I would have started spilling my guts as soon as I got there. Guess what? Adam just completely blew the opportunity to make me work to get involved.
It just so happens that I did not want to warn Pearl Harbor. I don't remember what prompted it or why, but many, many moons ago, I got it into my head that The United States would certainly lose World War 2 if Pearl Harbor were not completely destroyed. That I didn't want to warn them had everything to do with that, and nothing whatsoever to do with a non-involvement philosophy. I say again, if I had wanted to warn them, I would have done so without hesitation.
So, my idea. Drop the player in the middle of nowhere. PA announcement. Tells them where and when they are. No influences. See the player's initial, unfettered, uninfluenced reaction. What do they do?
If they decide they want to warn the base, the referee is in a position to make them work for it.
If they decide they want to help destroy the base, you can play that by ear and see where it goes.
If they try to flee, you've got the resources of an entire military base with which to take them into custody. What referee worth his salt couldn't pull that off? You could send a flipping SEAL team after them if you really felt the need. Capture the spy alive. Not at all unrealistic.
My opening puts the referee in a position to deal with whatever reaction the player has to their situation. As you've pointed out ad nauseum, the MP opening makes it simple to get involved and hard not to. Well, if the player was like me and just made a passing comment that you took out of context, guess what? You just blew your chance to make them work.
With my opening, that's not an issue.
I will give Adam this. The way the scenario played out (Putting me in traction) was probably the ONLY WAY on God's green earth I could have been induced to warn them. A week before that, I would have thought it impossible. I really had to sit down and think about that. Would I be willing to verse out in traction to avoid warning them? I decided I wouldn't be. Part of my non-involvement is that I am not obligated to help anyone. If I thought for a moment that his intention from the start was to put me in traction and I just helped him do it, I'd say the MP opening worked perfectly. I'd also be back to saying Adam was a sadistic jerk of a referee. And I don't think either of those. Running a game myself opened my eyes.
Do you understand why mine is better? I'm not asking you to say Adam was wrong. I'm asking you to say that there was a better option. Or something. I'm not sure exactly. Do you at least understand?
(Doing Therapy)
Two
I had a thought some time ago. I've said that the crash answered for me the question "Why does God allow bad things to happen to people?" What if God doesn't have any more control over "bad things" than a game referee?
Something to ponder, at any rate.
(Doing Therapy)
I understand exactly what you're saying.
You're saying that you would have handled it differently if you were the referee. You aren't just entitled to that, you're encouraged towards it.
I would have handled it differently.
MJ would have handled it differently.
Scott would have handled it differently.
Eric would have handled it differently.
Kurt would have handled it differently.
Eli would have handled it differently.
ERJ would have handled it differently.
JDW would have handled it differently.
One of the beautiful things about role playing games generally is that we can all run the game in a different style; take the two extremely different referees, for instance.
One of them is intensely focused on the subtle details of the rules and working within them. He rolls the dice, crunches some numbers, and determines mathematically and logically the result of your attempt. If he flips a coin, he looks at the result and tells you what happened according to predetermined variables.
The other is intensely focused on what he wants to have happen to make an interesting story. He rolls the dice to stall while he decides what's going to happen fairly regardless for the numbers that come up. If he flips a coin, he already knows what the result will be by the time he catches it.
Do the stories of the first suffer? I don't think so (although there might be people who disagree). I've had plenty of great stories and they were only enhanced by the structured focus.
Is the second unfair? I don't think so (although there might be people who disagree). As long as we're having fun writing an interesting story together, I think it is fair no matter how vehemently the rules oppose it.
Is either of them better than the other at running games? Well, no. Everyone is going to have their own opinion, but I think as long as all the players are having fun, the referee has been successful.
Is either of them better than the other at running games? Well, no. Everyone is going to have their own opinion, but I think as long as all the players are having fun, the referee has been successful.
Then, by your own admission, Adam was not successful. We neither had fun nor wrote an interesting story.
I'm not sure I could convey to you over this forum what it is I'm trying to do.
Two
I think it would take something on the order of a Vulcan mind meld to explain to you what I'm trying to do, actually.
More than one.
You could send a flipping SEAL team after them if you really felt the need.
Didn't anyone else catch the pun here? "Flipping SEAL team"?
(Doing Therapy)
I bet you don't even read these anymore. Oh well.
Seriously, it was supposed to be funny!!!
(Dextroland)
Oh yeah, and what's with this thread etiquette? I thought the rule was ask questions relevant to the thread topic anywhere. Stay out of games because it's polite.
You don't really believe in following rules of etiquette do you?
I skimmed this thread and all I got was "Adam was right".
Yeah, Adam was right. That's why nobody had a good time playing the world and we're still talking about it years later.
Dumbass.
Two
I should clear that up. I just woke up, and I woke up badly. Sorry. No force on earth will convince me that Adam "Did the right thing." I think is what I'm trying to say with all of this. The reasons for that should be obvious.
1 week until November 19th!!!!!
(Doing Therapy)
EDIT: MJ, FOR THE LOVE OF ALL THINGS SACRED, DO NOT REPLY!!!!!!!!!
(Therapy for edit, too.)
More than one
Just so you know, I think this is hilarious. I hope you're laughing at the end.
I wholeheartedly believe in The Multiverse. You could almost say I claim this game as my religion. (Don't worry, I think it's obvious I don't think you're a god. More than I want to get into.) I JUST KNOW there's a version of me who is the hurried game designer who used my opening, and there's a version of MJ who is the mentally ill player obsessing about why he should have been arrested on the spot!!!!
I just know it. I can't wait until I'm in that role.
(Doing Therapy)
"Yeah, Adam was right." - JohnA1nut
===============
Music to my ears. :P
You hear writing? I thought I was the one who was crazy.......
(Doing Therapy)
I do when I say it out loud and laugh :P
If you get your jollies from taking things completely out of context, that's fine with me.
(Doing Therapy)
Actually I get my jollies from the fact that you are still talking about this now at least 5 years after the fact :P
I can't wait until you're the one living this life. That's gonna be sweet.
It’s simple John, some people who receive power get drunk with it, and forget what happened to them when they had none.
Adam, you said this over on the other board. I think this is what happened to you. You forgot what it was like to be a newbie gamer who didn't know what he was doing. Either that, or you were at first a really stupid, cocky player and a had a referee or two who beat you up for it. I fully accept and admit that it was my fault. However, I still think you could have saved me from my own stupidity.
That's just an observation that I've made about you.
(Doing Therapy)
John you forget the context that send you over to me. MJ didn't or couldn't run you anymore, you were fighting him, being a problem player. I was under no obligation to go easy on you. I found your stupidity amusing, and let the dice play out how that stupidity came to harm you. I still laugh to this day, when I remember you wanted to TK pulse the MP in the back of the head repeatedly as you were heading back to base. I was also under no obligation to tell you that versing out right away would make those injuries not matter. So yes I could have chosen to save you, but I chose not to.
And you wonder why I called you a sadistic jacks-ass........
John you forget the context that send you over to me. MJ didn't or couldn't run you anymore, you were fighting him, being a problem player.
No, the context was you knew about the bombing and he thought that I did too. Get your facts straight.
Three
In fact, you just admitted publicly that you were being sadistic.
I still laugh to this day, when I remember you wanted to TK pulse the MP in the back of the head repeatedly as you were heading back to base.
From Dictionary.com
sa·dism
? ?/?se?d?z?m, ?sæd?z-/ Show Spelled[sey-diz-uhm, sad-iz-] Show IPA
noun
1.
Psychiatry . the condition in which sexual gratification depends on causing pain or degradation to others. Compare masochism.
2.
any enjoyment in being cruel.
3.
extreme cruelty.
If I may call your attention to definition 2?
(Doing Therapy)
John you forget the context that send you over to me. MJ didn't or couldn't run you anymore, you were fighting him, being a problem player.
Sorry, Adam, John's right on this one. He had been very independent, but I was trying to get rid of all my large crop of players at that point, and thought only that I did not know Pearl Harbor well enough to run it. The fact that he fought with the other player characters was interesting, but there's nothing in the Multiverser rules that requires player characters to work together or not oppose each other, and it created some really wild moments.
It was later that he started to become a problem player, and Eric snatched him away from my game.
--M. J. Young
He had been very independent, but I was trying to get rid of all my large crop of players at that point, and thought only that I did not know Pearl Harbor well enough to run it.
What do they call that? A tragedy of errors? Lots of little things add up to a huge disaster? My mom said that was what The Titanic was like.
(Doing Therapy)
To John:
What is the definition if I just don't like you, and enjoy when that happens to you? I have had similar things happen to other players, and I can say I didn't enjoy it. I don't think we need to go over the list of why I don't like you, I have done it a few times, none of those have changed.
To MJ:
That was the stated intent, I think when we let it play out through you running him two times, my reading between the lines was on the money.
=========
P.S. Sorry I was so late in responding, as someone with a job, you two will have to excuse me and work around my schedule :P
Adam, I'm going to try to be clear. Pay attention. I hold no malice towards you for it. Referees don't have as much control over this game as I first thought. I realized that when I ran one for Glantri. Even the stuff done by referee fiat can't be controlled as much as I thought. Not and be realistic and fair. The botch list you had complete control over, but as I've said several times "Knock out driver" was quite possibly the single most appropriate botch to the situation. I could so see myself doing exactly what I did. Thinking the psionics are still working and encountering a cop first thing? Oh yeah..... You can't hear me when I talk. I'm not as much of a jerk as you seem to think.
It was either the single best or single worst way to open what was either the single best or single worst world you could have picked. There's not much middle ground.
MJ, in your experience, people who are interested in guns are also interested in military history. In mine, they have a problem with authority, whether or not they are interested in military history. Just something to keep in mind. I recently realized, I've had personal experience work badly against me before. I was 17 and I didn't know any better, to sum it up neatly. No hard feelings to you either. I probably would have picked that world as well. Inspired by Final Countdown, but in a different way. I probably would have looked for a referee who knew Pearl Harbor. Not because I thought the player knew about it, but because you did need to drop some players. Regardless of intent, the result would likely have been the same.
I wish you had actually asked me if I knew anything about it first. You could do that casually enough, in the context of asking about the Final Countdown analysis. I failed my intuition check. I remember you posting "John's next world has already been chosen." There's a version of me who responded with "I hope it's not Pearl Harbor. I could just imagine you sending me there because of Final Countdown. That would be a terrible world to send me to!!!"
No hard feelings. I just wish I could give you back the time you've spent.
(Doing Therapy)
Two
Adam, I think you may have a bit of historical inaccuracy in your thinking. You said that the MP put my hands behind my back because he thought I was dangerous. There's two schools of thought on that. Behind the back also means the cop can't see their hands when they're sitting there. (All used correctly!!!!) In fact, I had a handcuff key. I can't believe I didn't say I was keeping my hands behind my back whilst taking them off.
(Doing Therapy)
Less than 16 hours to November 19!!!!
John he was in an open top jeep, if he handcuffed you in front, you could reach over while he was driving and choke him with the handcuffs. It is much harder to do that with your hands behind your back.
And what can I do to him if I can get them off completely because my hands are out of sight? The MP wouldn't even know it happened until it was too late. Like I said, it's 2 schools of thought. I'm just the one letting you know. You don't have to kill the messenger.
It's kind of a side subject, but I have to admit that there are times when I really enjoy seeing something going horribly wrong for a player, and watching the player scramble to put it right. After all, some of the best stories emerge from those moments of crisis, whether they go well or not.
If anyone does not know the story of Chris and the Disappearing Spaceships, ask about it in another thread on maybe the Multiverser Discussion or RPG Discussion forum.
--M. J. Young
It was a learning experience, that's for certain. My only regret is that I made you waste so much of your valueless time. So sorry about that.
(Doing Therapy)
Two
Adam, the two schools of thought are thus:
If you keep their hands in front, they can't take them off. They can attack, but at least if they attack, they are at a disadvantage.
Behind their back, they can possibly get them off completely. Less likely, but far more dangerous.
I saw that in a movie a couple of days ago. I thought it was kind of interesting. I thought you might like to hear about it. Nothing more, nothing less.
58 minutes to November 19th!!!!
(Doing Therapy)
Three
And while he might deem me likely to attack, if I try to choke him, he slams the brakes. He's got a seat belt. I don't.
I guess it's a question of are you more worried about this person getting them off or attacking you at a disadvantage?
Like I said, just thought you might be interested.
(Doing Therapy)
The time is 11:19 by my clock!!!!!
Four
Ya know, I just realized. That one detail changed the entire course of the story. I'm sure I still would have pulsed his head either way. Just in front, I could have grabbed the wheel. A couple of skill checks later, it's a confrontation between a groggy MP and a handcuffed verser. Could get interesting.
Safety Precaution? Story Killer? You decide.
(Doing Therapy)
More than one
On November 19th, the rules don't apply!!!! (Supposed to be funny)
All this talk about handcuffs is making me wonder if there's a martial art designed to be done whilst wearing them? It would obviously need to be kick/throw based, but I wonder if any exist like that. Out of handcuffs, you just keep your hands together most of the time. Still works. Going into stance from a behind the back position would be mandatory.
You train wearing cuffs that are plastic, padded and breakable, so you don't hurt yourself. As Adam observes, the handcuffs themselves can be employed as a weapon. Weapon utilizing martial art, I guess. If you manage to pick one of the locks, (the learning of which is also mandatory) you've got a nice, shiny pair of handcuffs with which to beat the cop. Those could do some serious damage around the wrists of an expert. Isn't that ironic? In his effort to keep you from killing him, the cop gave you the weapon you killed him with.
That could be cool.
(Dextroland)
More than one
Kick with your hands behind your back
Getting your hands to the front quickly
From the front, there's all kinds of throws you could do wearing cuffs.
picking them
A cuff on one wrist, the other hand free. a lot of cuffs have sharp teeth. The cop handed you two serrated blades when he put them on you. What can you do with one of them open?
Fighting with one/both hands chained to something. Makes it easier to get the keys if he's unconscious.
And of course, just different ways of employing them as a weapon.
Any martial arts like that?
(Dextroland)
A LOT!! DEAL WITH IT!!!!!!
And police themselves could learn this martial art. Does Barney not want to get the most out of everything on his utility belt? He might end up in a situation where he's wearing them and the bad guys aren't. And of course, It also includes martial arts ways of putting handcuffs on violent people.
It could be a good martial art on both sides of the law.
(Dextroland)
More than one
It's been a long time since I've done this. And it's a special occasion.
Only the police could be a 3@10 at handcuff-fu. An average practitioner probably wouldn't be wearing his own when he put the martial art to use. A cop would probably be wearing his own. That sucks, doesn't it?
Brass knuckles, two blades, a flail/bludgeon type weapon, choking, cop tries to punch you, catch his hand with the chain and flip him, what other ways could you use handcuffs as a weapon?
(Dextroland)
And yeah, it's a lot of mindless gibberish. I'm enjoying myself, and it's an idea someone can work from.
He's got a seat belt. I don't.
Seat belts were at best uncommon apart from race cars and jet aircraft prior to the early 1960s. I don't think they had them in World War II military transports.
--M. J. Young
I was wondering about that. I wasn't certain myself.
What did you think of Handcuff-fu? That would be good for cops or security to know.
(Doing Therapy)