Why does it have to be a "Good World"?

I was just sitting here thinking about what motivates MJ to pick worlds for people. Why does it have to be a "Good World for that person"? If this were real-life, you would verse randomly. You would just go wherever fate took you. Why can't the game be played like that? Make a list of all of the worlds, remove worlds that the player has been to before, and "Punishment" worlds (Like the Land of the Purple Dinosaur) and then roll dice to see where the player goes. Then let the player play it. You might find out that what you think are "Bad worlds" for the player are actually exactly the kind of worlds he would enjoy. Why choose the world at all? Why not just let fate decide it, as it would if you were really a verser?

Even in a world that requires the player to do certain things, why does the player "need" to do them? Quest for the Vorgo, the player is summoned there to retrieve the Vorgo, and a watcher player might not go after it. So? What's wrong with that? Why not just let the player be themselves, and not try to guess what would be good for them? So the player doesn't do what they are "Supposed" to do in a world, because it isn't a "Good World" for them. Really, what's wrong with that? Why not just let fate decide, as it would decide in you were really a verser? I just think that would be more fair to the player, and to the referee.

If the player somehow guesses what your motivation for sending them to that world was, they might decide to do exactly the opposite of what you were expecting, just to spite you. If the world was chosen completely at random, there's no way that can happen. The player could really and truly be themselves in the game.

You have some interesting and thought-provoking ideas here, John.

1. A. Its been tried with not much happy results. B. How do you know Scriff is random? Tom Day, a very smart player (smarter than me) is convinced its pschyoactive, and probably some type of angel of God. C. Also, usually a good gm (not a bad gm, but a good one--like MJ or moi) can usually do much better than random at finding worlds that suit a player. Granted this cuts down on surprises, but every strategy has problems.

2. You circle back about to a question you've wondered before. The answer is 'no, the verser doesn't have to', but it does tell who the verser is when he makes his choices. Nothing stopping you from walking away from the Vorgo, and taking ship to a far country.

However, the world probably is mythopoeic, a land of stories and narratives, more than a simple plain land without wonder and glory. Myth describes reality.

You can choose to try to break every barrier that the GM erects for your own good, but in the end, there will still be reality to rebel against. And you will create your own myth in doing.

3. If the player chose to do that for spite--that would be immature. My mother had a saying she used to me on occasion when I was a child 'you'd cut off your nose to spite your face'. Its a vice.

What provoked this was the Pearl Harbor world. MJ told me that he put me there to see if I would maintain my non-involvement policy in a situation where I knew what was going to happen. I got severely injured prior to the attack. So, the attack on Pearl Harbor had very little to do with the actual play. I think the attack was over within the first 15 or so posts, and only lasted for 2 or 3 posts. I'm sure the Pearl Harbor attack plays a much larger role in game play for most players. After that, the game was just about me living in a safe-house with 3 other guys. When I played it, it did not play out the way it was "Supposed to."

Something along these lines. Why is the player not asked what kind of world they would like to play? When I versed out of B Movie Monster World, I had 5 guns and about 10,000 rounds of ammo. I would have thought the obvious choice to send me to would be a world where I could use those. Put me in a combat setting, or a survival setting.

MJ's question is a neccessary and important question even if you can't see it. So, a gm sends you to Fight Verse, but he has no idea of what motivates you...You wander around, and complain (you're complaining now), and claim you should have been sent to a different verse.

You're the classic Reluctant Hero as I've said before, but also you want to control things that are not yours to control--at least not in this game system, and thus be the GM. Now I do sometimes ask my players for some vague opinions, and I take them into account. But I'm afraid if I did that with you, it still would not be satisfactory. If I sent you to Action Verse, you'd say 'I met a cop, naturally I responded'. If I sent you to The West Wall you'd say 'I don't like fantasy, couldn't you have seen that?' If I sent you to Dinosaur Beach you'd say 'there was nothing to do but fish and shoot dinos...'

I note that in your previous post you asked for Fate to decide. Now you want the Player to decide. The only joining factor here is the lessening of the GM's prerogative. Otherwise, you're holding two opinions which disagree with each other.

I will spin the question about for you. Tell me why a GM should pick the worlds. Once you understand that, much else will be clearer.

Also, being totally obvious is not generally regarded as a virtue in a gm or writer.

I'm not complaining, I'm questioning. You must question the world around you. If no one ever questioned the world around them, we would still be living in caves and hunting animals with rocks after a hard day of sacking the neighboring village.

Also, I did not say the player should decide the world, I asked why the player was not asked what type of world they would like. If someone asks you what you want for dinner, and you answer "Hamburgers" there's still dozens of choices. They could go to McDonald's, or Wendy's or White Castle. You picked what you wanted, they picked what kind of what you wanted. See what I mean?

And fate deciding and the player being asked does lessen the GM's prerogatives. What's wrong with that? It's like when I got arrested (The motive for "I Hate Cops" that I have today) What right did the cops have to take my belongings away from me? Likewise, what right does someone else have to decide where I go? If it is purely fate, the player has no right to complain that it is a bad world. If the player is asked, they have some say in it.

Why should the GM pick the world? Honestly, I see no reason whatsoever for that. If Scriff truly does have a mind of its own, or it is an angel of God, then it probably reads the verser's mind, and sends them somewhere based on that.

Since no one has asked me what kind of world I would like, I'll ask it for you.

MJYoung "John, what kind of world would you like?"

JohnA1nut "Anarchy. Disharmony. Road Warrior. Three words: Order into chaos. How about a world that is so delicately balanced that the sudden weight change of the verser and his equipment sends it spiraling rapidly out of orbit? As the weather patterns change, and people start dying off, the weight decreases. This sets the world back into a more stable orbit, but still out of order. Every man for himself. Survival in anarchy. I want a world that is as disorganized and chaotic as the mind inside which I live. Ever notice that third world dictators are always described as psychotic? There's a reason for this. They want the world to match the chaos of their minds."

MJYoung "That's very interesting John, but how was I supposed to guess that?"

JohnA1nut "Well Mr. Young, if you take a look at my starting equipment, those are all things that I had then. If I had started this world today, I would have a lot more weapons and ammunition. I am preparing for the day when order collapses, perhaps following the Rapture. If you noticed in B Movie Monster World, the first thing I did was buy a gun. After that, I spent nearly all of my money on weapons. I'm a nice guy on the surface, but in my heart, I'm a complete anarchist."

MJYoung "Anything in particular you would like in this world?"

JohnA1nut "How about a world where destroying police stations and shooting cops is not only condoned but encouraged? Did you notice that I asked if I could go back to Pearl Harbor? The Mexicans had invaded the US. How long would it be before the United States was exactly the world I am describing?"

MJYoung "I'll keep that in mind John, thank you."

JohnA1nut "I hope that you do Mr. Young."

John,

One of the foundations of Multiverser that is not listed in any rulebook but has been preserved throughout the years is the player/GM interaction. Ultimately, the GM is telling a story, and you are one of the characters. The story is not about you, however; the story is around you, and you have limited control to change the outcome of some events. It is fun for the GM to throw a wrench at the player and see if he dodges it, or gets hit in the face. It is equally fun for the player to throw a curve ball at the GM and see if he strikes out. There is a delicate give-and-take relationship that is understood and respected by both parties.

A "Good World" is one that the GM believes would make a great story for that player/character. Throwing somebody who has high amateur wilderness survival experience into "The Most Dangerous Game" is really exciting. If somebody verses out flying a spaceship, it can be equally amusing to verse them into another space travel universe, such as "Star Wars" or "Star Trek", or drop them in a place where the spaceship stalls and lands on the Wicked Witch of the West, and the player has to find a mysterious magician who is capable of repairing his engine or providing him with a fuel source to get out of there.

There are two main reasons why people play here on the forums: the first is for new referees to play with other GMs and learn the intricacies of the rules, and how to deal with players in certain situations. The second is for new players to learn how to play with these referees. You are still in your learning stages; as you said yourself you do not have much experience with tabletop RPGs in general. Take the time now to learn the game while you are having fun interacting with the GM(s) and showing them what you have to offer to the story. Once they feel comfortable with who and how you are, they will have a better idea of what world would make the best story for you to tell together.

Oh, and I'd really like to see someone run you in Tristan's Labyrinth.

-- Ryan

Ryan, I've been in a really strange mood all day. My doctor switched my medications about 2 weeks ago, and it's had some ups and downs. Today is an "Up" day. I feel overly alert and excited. That's a normal thing when switching medications. Forgive me for any offense I may have caused. As you said yourself though, it is about people learning what would be good for each other. Well, what better way to learn that than to have the person tell you flat out what they would enjoy? I want to be dropped into a world that is as disorganized and out of control as my mind. A world where a guy that had 5 guns and over 10,000 rounds of ammo would be a God. Or at least very high up in the food chain. Destruction, mayhem, disorder. I guess my work here is done.

Thanks to those who posted good answers here. I guess it's my turn.

John, I had several players in my very first Multiverser game, and I did exactly what you suggest: I created one world for each player, put them in a random order, and as each versed out he went to the next world on the list.

It went very badly for Tristan, who was I believe seven years old at the time and wound up in Cask of Amontilado. He completely missed everything that was happening around him, left the next day in the care of the police who placed him in an orphanage pending location of his parents, left the orphanage, was hunted by Montressa who feared he would remember something that would reveal the crime, killed his attacker in a fight, and then committed suicide to get out of there. After that, he refused to go anywhere near houses or civilization for the next several worlds. In the end, I designed Tristan's Labyrinth for him, because he wanted to kill monsters, and since he finished there he has never complained about where he went again.

Which was the second lesson I got from that experience. The first lesson was that not all worlds match all players, and it takes some insight into the nature of a player to pick a world in which he will have fun. Had Tristan not already been an experienced role player surrounded by others who were enjoying their worlds, he probably would never have made it through three worlds before he gave up on the game. Making the game fun is the priority for the referee; that means picking worlds that will be fun in the long term, and worlds that will reveal something about who the player is so that it is easier to pick good worlds in the future.

That second lesson was that players don't really know what they will enjoy, they only think they know. You were in a world exactly as you describe, in which it was hanging on the edge about to go over. Mutant monsters were appearing often enough that people were not surprised by this. The ecosystem was on the edge of collapsing. Your response was to become as uninvolved as you could manage, and to argue with others that they were interfering in events that were none of their business. You had a truckload of guns, but you never fired a shot at Godzilla. Maybe it would have had very little effect, but you could not have known that at the time, and you had some potent artillery, as I recall, and the ability to get closer than the army would have dared. Tristan learned from the labyrinth that killing monsters gets old fast if that's all that's happening, and has since managed to strike a balance between opportunities for battle and other involvements in play.

Kyler has given you a world that is stable at the moment, but which faces a calamity of Armaggedon proportions while completely unaware of this. That's more than I should tell you, probably, but if I were in your place I'd go with the flow and find out what's happening before passing judgment on it all. Indeed, you might be the one who prevents the impending chaos, or you might let it happen and have to deal with it when it hits.

As always, you get to decide. You don't usually know the consequences of the choices, but they are your choices to make, and your consequences to face.

--M. J. Young

Mr. Young, I've learned over the years that telling you that you are wrong about things is usually a bad idea. However, this time, I can say with certainty that you are very wrong. I tried to get close enough to Godzilla to shoot at it. I botched on levitation, and ended up in the ground with only my face sticking out. Had I not botched, I fully intended to empty a 30 round magazine at Godzilla.

That was not order into chaos though. That was order with chaotic elements. When the mutant Preying Mantis showed up, if someone had gone out to shoot at it, they would almost certainly have been arrested. In true chaos, you could go outside and shoot it with a bazooka, and no one would bat an eyelash at you. In B Movie Monster world, things like that didn't happen often enough to merit it being true chaos. Now, if I had versed into the world, and the mutant insects were all over the place, and a war was waging between humanity and the mutant creatures, THAT would be total chaos on the scale I am describing. In complete chaos, there are no legal consequences for any action. Sure there are consequences, but not on a legal scale. You might have someone else try to kill you, but you will not end up in prison.

The only place with no crime is a place with no laws. Crime is defined as laws being broken. If there are no laws to break, how can there possibly be crime? I want to go to a place that is completely crime-free. Yes, it would probably be a war-zone, but if there are no laws to break, there is no crime. Also, as I said, today has been a strange day, so take everything I say today with a few shakers of salt.

"Hi, my name is Roscoe, I'm with the Brotherhood of Steel. You look like you can use a weapon. Want to join our force, rosebud?"

"Maybe, but I have a few questions first. Who are you, who are you fighting, and why? Also, what kinds of weapons do you have? Answer me that, and I might consider it."

One definition, crime is an action or an instance of negligence that is deemed injurious to the public welfare or morals or to the interests of the state and that is legally prohibited.

However, another definition states that crime is any offense, serious wrongdoing, or sin. Under this definition, one can see how laws arose from crimes.

Thus a world without law could be a world with no person frightened to commit crime, because there is no legal retribution. However, it's also possible that a world without law is a world where everyone is too frightened to commit crime, since they realize that there is nothing to stop the person they are causing injury to from getting retribution in their own sick way.

Ky

I generally do as your 'hamburger' example suggests. However, I'm not convinced you'd be happy with Krystal, or even happy with Burger King if you went to Burger King. And other GM's may do otherwise.

Try harder to come up with a reason why the GM's prerogative should exist.

Eric

I generally do as your 'hamburger' example suggests. However, I'm not convinced you'd be happy with Krystal, or even happy with Burger King if you said you wanted to go to Burger King.

And other GM's may do otherwise for sound reason.

Try harder to come up with a reason why the GM's prerogative should exist.

Eric

Guys, yesterday was a strange day for me. Unless you suffer from some form of mental illness, you couldn't fully comprehend it. Everything I said should be taken with many shakers of salt.

I still see no reason for someone else to determine your fate. I'm a man, not a puppet. As Morgan Freeman said in Robin Hood Prince of Thieves "No man controls my destiny, especially not one which attacks downwind, and stinks of garlic" Why don't you just be a nice guy and try to explain it to me??

The only reason I can come up with for GM's prerogative is because I volunteered to play the game. I want to play by its rules. However, I don't have a copy of the rulebook, but I would be willing to bet that it does not say anywhere "The GM MUST determine the player's next world, with absolutely no input from the player whatsoever" If it does say something like that, tell me what page it is on, so I can look it up when I get a copy of the rulebook.

The GM stands in the place of God, nature, and ten thousand man armies, and oh yes, the beggar on the street corner, and the ticketpuncher who lets you into a concert. So repeat your statement, and see if it makes sense now. It doesn't. The GM in the game is not JUST another man.

Two, the question MJ had was a valid question. GM's need to understand their players. Do you dispute this?

Three, the reason you mentioned. There is a reason for those rules even if you can't yet understand them. You won't realize this, but Multiverser is a remarkably well thought out game. There are large pages full of reasons behind almost every decision in the game.

Four, is the most common reason given. The GM is the one who comes up with the world. I'm waaaaay creative compared to most people. I've come up with dozens of worlds in a vast array of settings. But the Multiverse is nigh infinite, so 50 vs. Infinity. It still offers the player lots and lots of chances to ask for worlds I haven't created. There are huge gaps in what I've created. Whole story types I've barely touched. Toss in what MJ has created, and some of those gaps close, but still there are huge gaps. Its too much to ask a GM to create a five thousand word world design to your specification.

Five is somewhat related, but not really. David wanted a Stargate scenario run, and a 1632 scenario run. Problem is, I wasn't very comfortable with running either. Each GM has things they don't feel up to running. I'm not good at direct rip-offs of another story. Many GMs are frankly not as diverse and broad as MJ or moi. And this is not just intelligence--I have a friend I call J on these forums. He's brilliant, more so than anyone I know. And when things are clicking, he's an extraordinary GM. However, he is also very narrow gauge. Its vampires running around dark streets or thieves doing the same, or dungeon-hacking. I don't know if he can do anything else. This is more common than being diverse, I believe.

Eric

And I don't say MUST. I do say the GM has that option. He knows way more than the player. He has much larger responsibilities than the player. He knows his own weaknesses. He needs to learn the player's style. He has creative and clever ideas to test out. Oftentimes what a player says they want isn't what they wanted. Being predictable is bad. Sometimes its good to cross the player up.

Except for some experimental games...this is what roleplaying games are.

As I said numerous times, yesterday was a weird day. Unless you suffer from some form of mental illness, you couldn't fully comprehend it. Today isn't looking much better, to be perfectly honest. Also, I am a newbie at RPGs, so don't take 99% of what I say seriously.

OK.
Get feeling better, man.
Eric

Thanks Eric.

Eric makes solid points here; I'm going to emphasize one of them.

I suddenly had a flash of interest in seeing what you, John, would do in Pearl Harbor. The cause of that flash has long been forgotten, but the sense of it remains: if you were in that world, would you alter it? O.K., so why did I give you to Adam? The answer is simple: I have no idea what happened at Pearl Harbor. Some Japanese planes attacked, coming in from an unexpected angle, and the Pacific Fleet was hit hard, but I don't know what angle or how hard. I don't know enough to know who would have been in charge of anything there. I saw the movie Pearl Harbor, but was told by a marine steeped in military history that it was not merely factually inaccurate, it was directly contrary on many important points to the actual events. I would not have felt comfortable attempting to run my own sons in that scenario, because I did not know the scenario and I did not have time to learn it. I looked for someone who did.

Had I decided that the Titanic was the place for you, probably John Walker would have been asked to run you (and maybe you'd have killed each other by now), because he's been working up a Titanic scenario for some time and knows the facts quite well. I could run it, but he would be much better. Certainly, though, I could not have run him in that scenario; he'd be all over me.

I have run E. R. Jones in Narnia. He's never read Narnia, and I've read it several times. I would never dare to run him in Xanth, as I've never read it and he has, so most of what I know of it comes from him.

We tend to stick with what we know. I run the same worlds with new players quite frequently, and it is not merely to test those worlds; it's because they don't require as much work on my part, as I've done the prep already and I've had the bugs knocked out by people who played them hard.

Besides, if you ask me to run a world, and I comply, odds are better than even that I'm going to disappoint: my conception of that world will not match your expectations. That's why Eric says that it's fine to ask whether you want hamburgers or pizza, but not whether you want McDonald's or Ruby Tuesday, Dominoes or Pizza Hut. If you ask me for fantasy, you'll probably wind up with Dancing Princess, NagaWorld, Bah Ke'gehn, or Dungeons & Dragons, and if you're thinking of Labyrinth or The Dark Crystal or Narnia you're going to be disappointed. Ask me for space travel and my top choices are Mary Piper Beta, Starship Destiny, and Blake's 7, not one of which is Star Trek or Star Wars or Battlestar Galactica or Babylon 5 or Red Dwarf.

In fact, these kinds of questions, to my mind, don't really convey what you actually want in a game. For example, if what you want is combat encounters, then it doesn't make much difference whether you're in a swords & sorcery, a post-apocalyptic, a film noir, a superhero, or a space opera--any one of them could provide the action you want, and any one of them could fail miserably. Yet working out what it is you really want is not so simple as asking what books or movies you like. Did you like Lord of the Rings because of the great battle sequences or because of the strong moral conflict or because of the wonderful landscapes and peoples? Was the appeal of Die Hard in the heroism, the incredible odds, the humorous quips, or the demonstration that he and his wife really loved each other despite their problems? You probably can't tell me what would make a good game world for you, because frankly you probably have less of an idea than I do. I'm watching you, and seeing what makes you smile, makes you respond, gets you excited. I pick worlds to get that reaction again, to see whether the same thing in a different context works, or whether something different also works.

It might be said that the players are playing the game, but the referee is using the game to play the players. I know at least one person who will not play Multiverser with E. R. Jones because they know how well he uses it to get inside people's heads and "psyche" them. It's part of what a referee does in these games: figure out what makes his players happy, and how to give it to them in a way that will be interesting and exciting along the way.

Don't worry. Everything you say about what it is you like is taken into account. The one thing that will not happen, though, is no one will send you where you say you want to go next, because that would be the most boring and predictable outcome possible, and the game is not allowed to be boring or predictable.

--M. J. Young

You guys have all made some good points here. I hope I did not offend anyone with my quips and whatnot. As far as Lord of the Rings, I did not get into that much. Die Hard, I enjoyed that for all of the above reasons. John McClane violates the action movie hero codex. He gets hurt, and hurt badly. He takes more damage in the first Die Hard movie than Rambo took in all 3 of his movies. Yet, he still has smart remarks, and is, in my opinion, the Ultimate Action Movie Hero. Kyle Reese from Terminator is my favorite action movie hero, but for completely different reasons. Anywho, I am having fun playing with Kyler. He is almost matching your ability at refereeing the game. I've only had him for a short time, so I'm sure that will improve with time. And yes, John Walker and I would have killed one another by now.

Something to note here is that when I started playing MV I was asked for a list of favorite books and movies.

Don't ask me to reproduce that list, because I can't find it anyway. What I have found is that the list doesn't matter.

My First world was Mary Piper (A I think) and it is not a world I would have picked given the choice. However, the world was interesting - I became a pretty good medic and was on my way to doctor (and Pirate slayer IIRC) when I versed out.

The situations were interesting also in Dark Honor Empire - though I didn't live quite long enough to say I was having fun with the world.

Now I am in Zenda, and I've already surpassed expectations for survival. It's an interesting world, and I get to make some important contacts and decisions.

I've also made some powerful enemies, most of whom are still alive.

If I ever verse out of Zenda, I'll probably let M.J. decide if he wants to keep me or hand me off.

In all this though, I try to remember that the game is supposed to be fun for the GM, because if he doesn't enjoy running it, then what is the point?

As I'm sure you know, and have no doubt experienced, a bad referee can make even the best world a bad time. Adam and I didn't click. Not saying he is a bad referee, but we didn't click. I think that had a lot to do with why I did not enjoy that world so much. As I like to say when on a blind date "It's not what you do, it's who you do it with that matters." If you click with the person, even the worst date can be awesome. If you're not clicking, nothing will work. Adam and I didn't click. I seem to be clicking well with Kyler though, and it has been a lot of fun. Adam, if you're reading this, no hard feelings OK? It just didn't work out. It happens.