Why are versers supposed to save the worlds they land in? I've had this discussion before, but I still don't get it. If something bad is about to happen to the world, it would have happened whether you were there or not. Why should the verser get involved? MJ told me that I had a non-interference philosophy. No, it's more like a "Why should I really care?" philosophy. Scott and I discussed this once, but I can't seem to recall his reasons. I'd love to hear them again, if you're reading this, Scott.
Let me give you a scenario. You've just versed in. You're sitting up, getting oriented. It looks like a late 19th century city. After you get set up, you hear a woman screaming. Going to investigate, you see her. Eight months pregnant, being mugged at knife point by two thieves. It's clear that they are trying to kill this woman. So you dive in, use your 3@10 martial arts, and they run away. You help the woman to her feet, and she says "Thank you so much. My name is Mrs. Hitler. My unborn baby Adolf and I will never forget you." If you had done nothing, things probably would have turned out better in the long run. Don't get me wrong, I would have helped the woman. Then probably blown her brains out once she identified herself. Really though, why are the versers expected to be messiahs? Why do we have to save every world we land in? I don't quite get that.
I mean in any given world, there's bound to be millions and millions of Indigs. That's their world. They should fix it. You're just a visitor. How and why is that your problem? It's like that joke I heard:
A lawyer gets a call from a charity asking for donations. He tells the guy "My mother is sick and needs to go to a nursing home. My older brother is about to lose his house. My baby sister is on welfare, and in desperate need of all the help she can get." The guy on the phone says "I'm very sorry to hear about all of that...." The lawyer cuts him off saying "If I'm not even helping my own family, what makes you think I'll help you?"
Someone once said of Dr. Who that he bounces around the universe saving planets occasionally rising above that to save the entire universe.
Frodo saved Middle Earth because someone had to do it, and the task fell to him.
Captain Kirk ignores the Prime Directive whenever it will stop him from saving a world. One of the Star Trek writers once said that the whole purpose, from a literary perspective, of having the Prime Directive is so that there is this problem about how you're going to get around breaking it without getting in trouble, because of course the point is to use your resources to save the world, and the Prime Directive is nothing but an obstacle to doing that.
For most fantasy and science fiction fans, these are the heroes, the people we want to be, those we want to emulate.
The original role playing game, Dungeons & Dragons™, was designed specifically to make it possible for ordinary wargamer geeks to play the parts of heroes in a fantasy universe, to save the world, or at least some little corner of it, on a regular basis. As role playing games expanded into other settings, at least some of this heroism went with them--Star Frontiers and Traveler and Star Wars and Star Trek were about becoming heroes in space; Boot Hill and Gangbusters let you play heroes in history. Even games like Paranoia and Kult inspire players to be heroes in the midst of the horror.
Sure, there are role playing games in which you will never be the hero. Call of Cthulu is designed to let you destroy yourself pursuing things which cannot be named. Yet the most popular games are still the ones in which you are the hero. In fact, the entire spinoff world of simulated role playing games--when geeks decided they wanted to be able to play these adventure games when they couldn't get together enough like-minded geeks for a session, and so we programmed computers to be the referees for games like Bard's Tale and Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, and later a line of Final Fantasy, Link, and other console and computer role playing games--is centered on that same aspect of being the hero, on a mission to save the world.
Many of the worlds I design have that aspect to them, that you have the option to be the hero that saves the world.
The catch is, in order for you to matter, it must be so that you're the only one who can do it, that no one else will be able to save the world if you do not. That means if you choose not to save the world, the world will die, and you will be there to see it die.
Of course, I don't grade you on whether you save the world. I'm interested in whether you have fun wherever you go. If you don't want to save the world, don't save it--let it die. I've had players destroy entire worlds trying to save them. Those can be memorable moments. I'm good with that. You can help the villain, if you prefer--there was a Star Trek Deep Space Nine episode in which Bashir and the Chief were playing a high fantasy espionage holodeck game, and because of a problem in the real world, Bashir played the end of the game by asking the villain if he might be allowed to push the button that would flood the world himself. It was a wild game (and I learned a few things from it, too).
So do what you want. If you have no interest in being the hero, don't be the hero. Just be aware that a lot of the worlds I create are designed around the idea that someone has to be the hero, and there's no one else to fill that slot, so without you taking that role (quite within your rights, certainly) there's going to be trouble.
So, why do others take the role of the hero, instead of just letting the world destroy itself?
- The Architect would say it's because God sent him to this world to do something good in the world, and this seemed to be what needed doing, so he did that.
- Peter Adams would tell you that because versers are immortal and powerful, that power brings with it a responsibility to protect the limited fragile mortal lives of everyone who does not have that immortality. Their lives matter because it's all they have; our lives do not, because we have infinite lives ahead of us.
- Michael di Vars will tell you that Odin has chosen a select few warriors for Ragnorak, and we're them, or at least part of them; and that the conflicts and problems we encounter in the worlds we visit are given to strengthen and teach us in preparation for that final battle.
- Dan O'Malley doesn't even believe that any of this is real--he will tell you that we've been blown into the realm of human fantasy, where all the stories men have imagined are true; yet even he perceives that often it will fall to us whether they live happily ever after or die horrible meaningless deaths, and the world needs more happy endings, so it falls to us to give these to them.
So if he wants to complain, in game, that everyone is trying to make him the hero he doesn't want to be, that's a perfectly fine way to play it. I think Indiana Jones is more often than not the reluctant hero, the guy who is doing it because he's the guy who can. I seem to recall a line near the end of Die Hard 4: That's why you're "that guy",, because when it had to be done and you were there, you did it. So let your character grouse all you want about how everyone wants him to be the hero, whether he does it or not--but stop grousing to me that I want you to be the hero, because I don't care. If you don't want your character to be the hero, don't play the hero. If you don't want to play a game in which imaginary people want your imaginary alter ego to be the hero, don't play the game. But don't grouse about how I keep trying to force you to be the hero when you don't want to be the hero and don't think that's what you would do. Do what you think you would do. If Pedro is annoying and you'd rather shoot him than fight demons, shoot him. Create whatever weird perverse stories you want. You're the protagonist. This is your story. Some people have written to me that the particularly enjoy reading your stories (mostly because they have no idea what you're going to do next). Have fun with it. If it's not fun, don't do it.
--M. J. Young
First off, I'm not "grousing" or "complaining" about anything. I just wanted to get some opinions from others on the board. If I sound like I'm complaining, then I'm sorry. I realize that you, MJ Young don't care what my character does. You finally managed to beat that into my head about six months ago. As I think you might have realized, I like getting opinions from other people. I'm a very vocal and outspoken person in real life. It often gets me into trouble.
Secondly, I realize why players save worlds. Because if they don't, it would make a very boring game. I'm just staying in character, as you said I should do. I'm just wondering why the versers should care. It's not that I don't enjoy the game. As I've told you, it is often the highlight of my whole day to see "Last Poster M.J. Young" on my thread here. I was just hoping to get some opinions from other players. That's all.
Some people have written to me that the particularly enjoy reading your stories (mostly because they have no idea what you're going to do next).
Yeah, my first girlfriend gave me the nickname "Mr. Unpredictable."
Oh and MJ, I totally understand why I sound like I'm coming off as complaining about it. I've done that before. That, however, was just a phase I was going through. I have since, long since, accepted that you don't give a hoot what I do. This time, I'm honestly asking player's opinions. Why do they do what they do? I'm not looking for motivation, or reasoning. No matter what anyone says, I'm not going to change how I play the game. Unless something in game happens to convince me to change my mind. As with the MP at Pearl Harbor. Then, I let him disarm me and take me into custody. Now, I'm going to shoot first and ask questions later. That had a significant impact on who my character is. I think that would have changed my character's opinion on things. (I mean if I am still obsessing with it, how much more is the character?) Unless something happens in game to convince my character that I'm doing something wrong, he's going to keep doing what he does. This was intended to get opinions from people. Not to justify doing what they do.
1. Nearly any action you take can have bad consequences, but certain actions are more likely to have bad consequences than others. Saving a woman being murdered is very likely to have good consequences, and rather unlikely to have consequences so evil as to balance or outweigh the good consequences.
2. Is it morally superior to aid someone in pursuit of a virtuous end, or to ignore them? The concern that I think bothers you is where you draw the line at being helpful. One thing to remember...we are commanded to love others as much as we love ourselves. Thus, in specific example, we shouldn't destroy our health to aid others because that would be failing in love to ourselves.
===========
As a side note, I have an unwritten rule in my games...Don't bore the referee. Frequently evil characters are boring. "I run away from the enemy." "I stab the blind beggar in the back and steal his coinpurse."
Yawn. No risk, no imagination, no fight, and all too frequently they want to be patted on the head for stealing candy from a baby. Like that was some great feat.
===========
Even liberals (at least most) who rant and scream and bang their sippy cups about our intervention in Iraq want the US to intervene in Darfur. Most people believe in intervention, they're just not very clear-headed about it.
I, on the other hand, am clear-headed. I say bring back the British Empire for the good of the natives.
I see what you're saying Tad. It's just that, if it were up to me, the U.S. would lock its borders. No imports, no exports. You buy American made, or nothing at all. I've always been a bit of an isolationist. If there's no one else there, then there's no one that can hurt you (September 11, anyone?)
Reasons I (the character) would help save the world if given the opportunity, in no particular order:
1) I like helping people. It's habitual by now, and I'm vaguely proud of that whenever I happen to think about it. The same principle applies in any situation, whether it's picking up someone's dropped pencil, helping someone move in, or driving off the colossal marauding monster headed for someone's home - if I can help at no cost beyond my time and effort, I offer.
2) It's a distraction. In particular, it's a distraction from how I ought to be crying myself to sleep every night over the loss of my home and loved ones.
3) Turn the question around - what excuse do I have for not helping? With no family and no personal mortality, the lives of strangers takes top priority. Seriously, what's your excuse? Anything you would like to be doing instead, you can do later. You're immortal. They're not.
4) It's a good excuse to practice, perfect, and use the new and unusual abilities I seem to be acquiring since my change in status. I would probably do this anyway, but since practice takes effort and dedication, it's nice to have a cool motivation for sticking with it.
I thought I would have more, but I think that's sufficient for me.
John, the Maginot Line did not work very well. I'm supportive of building border walls in depth, and of building nuke power plants to avoid our need for oil, but ultimately pure defense does not succeed. The enemy just keeps looking for holes until he finds one, or he has a dash of inspiration, and negates the whole benefit of the defense.
9/11 happened in part because of guidelines issued to air passengers to not interfere with hijackers. These might have made sense when dealing with 1970's era hijackers whose primary goal was to trade the passengers and plane for prisoners and publicity, but the enemy had a different strategy which made this Guideline Defense of negative worth.
That said, I did create a pair of worlds where America put up a super-science/super-magic wall and retreated from the world. If you try to fly to America, you wake up a few hours later with amnesia on a landing strip that is not in America. But that requires technologies way beyond even what a hyperpower has. In those worlds, America is moving toward interstellar travel while the rest of the world is almost a century behind.
I'm sympathetic to the desire to retreat from pain as I've done a good deal of that myself, but ultimately one gets healed enough and then you need to get involved in other's lives.
Is the point to life to avoid pain? Or is the point to life to do good?
http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/
If you really want to know what happened on 9/11, check this out. It's about 2 hours long and requires a cable modem. Scary stuff.
As far as your question Tad about which is more important, helping people or avoiding pain. I just got back from a museum. I was stopped and questioned twice by security for the crime of..... talking to myself in public. I asked them several times to show me in the law books where it said it was illegal to talk to yourself, and every time, they said it wasn't illegal. So why in the hell did they stop me? I get hassled a lot by police for doing something which is not illegal. Is it any wonder I don't give a hoot what happens? At least at home, I can be safe and not have to worry about anything. I wrote a story about a man that wakes up one morning, and he is the only person on the entire world. Everyone else just POOF gone without a trace. No rhyme, no reason, just gone. Everything else was left untouched. He could have any house, any car, and no one would bother him. That would be my utopia.
I largely know what happened on 9/11. Our 'friends', the Saudi Arabian Wahabhist petrol princes, decided to attack America. Contrary to Condoleeza Rice's 'no one could imagine it', I imagined it in a Champions rpg game where terrorists tried to crash a 747 into one of the WTC towers. People followed the 'don't resist' guidelines and let themselves be controlled, rather like Jews being put in rooms for 'delousing' before the gas is dropped. A terrorist leader spent years making plans which worked pretty well, rather like the plans for Pearl Harbor which worked fairly well thus testifying to the advantages of preparation and surprise in combat. Our Immigration Service worked extremely poorly as they sent a visa to a dead terrorist months after he had died. The CIA also worked very poorly (as the CIA leader George Tenet said...it would take five years to fix things...how many years did it take America to 'fix' Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan?). Two planes with heavy loads of fuel crashed, jet fuel ignited, steel melted, buildings fell. In Pennsylvania, ordinary Americans armed with ordinary tech stopped terrorists cold. The Americans had ninety minutes to get ready against terrorists who had been planning for years. The only people that looked good in that day were ordinary Americans, the professionals in charge of things looked like idiots.
I don't believe it was the CIA or the Jews. The CIA is too blasted incompetent to run a conspiracy, and have been that way for a long time. The Israelis would not do it, and even they could not. I am not a 'Truther'.
My question is not as you rephrased it. The obvious answer is "the purpose of life is to do good." Which then leads to the next question...What is good?
You need to watch "I Am Legend" then where Will Smith plays the role of Last Man on Earth, or so he suspects. You may enjoy it. Charleton Heston also starred in "The Omega Man" I think which is based on the same novel.
There is an appeal to the story of the ordinary guy becoming the hero.
- Alex Rogan was just a kid from a trailer park for whom beating a video game was the first step toward saving the Star League and hundreds of worlds, including Earth.
- Luke Skywalker was a farm boy who was on the planet which was "farthest from the bright center of the universe" who discovered that he would be the one to bring down the evil empire.
- Willow was one of the mocked and belittled little people, who agreed to take care of the human baby who turned out to be the princess which would save the kingdom from the evil queen.
So for a lot of us, we'd like to save the world because, hey, we'd like to be able to say we saved the world once. Maybe, like Dr. Who, we can save the world more than once, or save more than one world.
That character is in a sense "only me"; but it is only the me that put his life on the line again and again to save others, and sometimes won, and sometimes paid with his life but still made a difference. Ask the people of Northgate City whether The Visitor made a difference there. Ask the people of Haston whether their first Supreme Court Chief Justice helped build a better world for them.
That's certainly not the only thing I ever do. In Starsong, my great contributions were bringing back an original formula Coca-cola and having a brief but stellar career as a twentieth century nostalgia musician. In The Many-colored Land, most of what I did was learn some psionics, practice my fighting, and make friends with a rabbit. I tried to give Japanada a social and technological boost, but I'm not certain I did all that much good. But give me the chance to make the world a better place, and I'll take that chance, because I'd like to be the hero. That identity appeals to me--even if it's the Spiderman hero that gets the bad press for doing the right thing.
--M. J. Young
In Starsong, you also sacrificed your life to protect a starship full of people from a mad godling's fury. And in the Many-colored Land, you killed someone who tried to enslave you.
The Visitor helped throw a demon prince into the Abyss, and saved the City from the machinations of Dr. Zhorbhakian. He also crossed 'swords' with Noir ('Being super means never having to say you're sorry.')
And in Haston, you fought infernal wizards, and discussed the meaning of life with a giant cat which had one of my favorite lines in the game....'Your life only has meaning where it intersects with mine, thus I am doing you a favor by eating you'. I enjoyed putting up the supreme egoist The Cat who really did not see the problem with eating people. I think that may be the most egotistic NPC I've ever had in a game, or close anyways.
Good times.
You need to watch "I Am Legend" then where Will Smith plays the role of Last Man on Earth, or so he suspects. You may enjoy it. Charleton Heston also starred in "The Omega Man" I think which is based on the same novel.
Actually, I have seen and greatly enjoy both of those movies. The thing was that in both of those movies, there was a reason for him being the only man on earth. The virus. What I never understood was why Will Smith stuck around. I would have gotten the fastest car I could find, put the gas pedal to the floor, and driven in a straight line until I was way the hell out of Dodge. In my story, there was no reason whatsoever.
Check out that link. The first part gives proof that Jesus Christ never lived, which we all know to be bunk, but the last two parts explain how the WTC actually fell. There is a great deal of evidence and expert testimony that suggests that they were actually destroyed in a controlled demolition.
1. Cool that you've seen them. I've never seen The Omega Man.
2. Any source that is that dumb has to raise flags on whatever else it has to say.
3. And so several thousand people didn't notice, didn't mention to anyone else, for a span of several weeks....that there were these strange men in their offices who were ripping holes in the walls, and attaching large gobs of something with electrical transmitters attached to the main support beams of the skyscraper. Hmmm, why yes, that's quite believable. Or as I said, I'm not a 'Truther'.
Conspiracies are not impossible. They do happen. But...its good to remember two sayings in regards to conspiracy.
1. Three people can keep a secret if two of them are dead.
2. Stupidity explains more than malice in the field of human behaviour.
I guess I should clarify myself. It's not that I don't want to help people, and it's not that I don't think it's the right thing to do. It's that I wouldn't care. However, there are times when I would care, and times when I wouldn't. In my current world, I was told that there were princesses who had a problem that needed fixed. How is that MY concern? Compare that to when Lady Diana and Prince Charles were having their marriage woes. You helped your friend and his wife fix their marriage problems. Maybe you could help Chuck and Diana. However, are you going to fly to Merry Ole England and ask to speak to them? I'm betting not. It's not your concern. Or hearing about an earthquake that hit China and left thousands of people homeless. You have decent skills with a hammer and saw. Are you going to fly to China to help them rebuild? Nope. You might take a passing interest in it, but ultimately, it's nothing you would worry about. It does not impact your life personally.
I got involved when and angel told me that it would very soon impact my life personally. Now if I versed in, and something was happening right in front of me, I would take action. It's like the United States belief that we are the world's police force, and we go to other countries to fix their problems. Why? Who appointed us the world's police force? Why should we care about Somalia, or Iraq? How does that impact us? Now if someone comes here and starts something on OUR OWN SOIL you're damn right I would be out there with my 12 gauge in one hand and my 357 magnum in the other. That would impact us personally. We go to all of these other countries and start things with them, and then have the audacity to wonder why terrorists attack us. If someone started something with us, then we most certainly have the right to finish it. However, preemptively appointing ourselves their guardian and fighting over something that is ultimately not our concern is total BS. If someone directly attacks us, or does something which directly impacts the United States, then yes, we should get involved. However, why do we concern ourselves with the problems that someone else created, that have no bearing whatsoever on our well-being? I'd be willing to bet that if the US had kept its nose out of other people's business like we should have all along, there wouldn't have been a 9/11.
Good point with China and with Charles and Diana. I would not have helped Charles because A) I'd never be allowed to. The Royals have people to deflect other people from them. B)In my view, the largest problem was Charles being an idiot. And getting people to rise above their character flaws is about the hardest, most thankless task out there. Few people are willing to say "I'm wrong. I need to get better. And I'm going to do something about it."
However, I do do it sometimes. I've tried to get you to finish Music Wars Beta because that would be good for you.
Also, this is not princesses on the far side of the world, but ones right here. Also, you are uniquely gifted to solve the problem. And you don't have other obligations.....yes, I could help out the Chinese, but I do have my own family to help. However, if I was a verser, and therefore alone....
US Foreign Policy:
1)Repeat after me "The Maginot Line did not work".
2)The world trading structure is built upon freedom of the seas. This freedom is guaranteed by the United States Navy. If the USN evaporated tommorrow, you'd have one huge global depression before the week was out, and slave trading ships, and pirates before the month was out. You'd also have mass starvation worldwide as US grain could not get to its ports to deliver it.
3) The Islamofascists don't just want us out of the Mideast. They want to 1)Annihilate Israel, a Second Holocaust. 2)Keep our culture to ourselves, and how we do that I'm not sure. Barbie dolls upset them. 3)Have us return Andalusia. Yup, they want part of Spain back from the Reconquista more than four centuries ago.
4)Keep in mind what P.J. O'Rourke said about Somalia. There are two sets of tribes in the area. One, the Sab, go out and make stuff like shoes, and grow stuff, and work hard. These are looked down upon by the gun-toting gangsters, the Somal??, who the country is named after. If you had a secret ballot vote tommorrow in Iraq....Should the US leave tommorrow or stay longer? I'd suspect about 80% of the populace would vote for 'staying longer'. The thugs, gangsters, and bandits don't like us, but I don't really care about their opinion of me. If a murderer thinks I'm a great guy, then there is something wrong with me.
Eric, I just emailed you about Music Wars. Get back to me on it, and I'll get started on that again.
As far as those princesses in my game world. I was promised treasure and the hand of a princess in marriage for fixing the problem. 1) I know nothing about the problem. 2) What if in the next world, gold is worthless? The blacksmithing skills will ALWAYS be valuable. and 3) Versers can't have sex, or else they make their partner into a verser. I'd say those are pretty good reasons not to get involved.
John wrote:
Now if someone comes here and starts something on OUR OWN SOIL you're damn right I would be out there with my 12 gauge in one hand and my 357 magnum in the other. That would impact us personally.I think this is a matter of perspective.
It was not really all that long ago, in historic terms, that the United States of America was exactly that: a coalition of countries united under a unifying document to control trade and provide mutual support against outside attacks. Yet even then, there was an attitude in many, perhaps most, states that this--e.g., Ohio--was my country, and I don't really care what happens to those other countries--e.g., New Jersey, Pennsylvania--except insofar as that it might impact me. If there is a civil uprising in a neighboring state, that's no concern of mine unless there's a danger of it spilling over into my state. Let Indiana deal with its own problems. If California is being overrun by Mexicans, that's California's problem--unless Mexico suddenly decides it's going to attempt to annex part of these United States, which would be an act of war against one of us, and we are bound by treaty to come to the defense of any one of us, because that's how we protect all of us.
So, why should you care if Russia invades New York, or Japan attacks Hawaii? It doesn't affect you in Columbus, Ohio. It's not your problem--unless you view yourself as part of something larger, something like The United States of America.
And if Andromedans suddenly land in the Ukraine and start taking over Eastern Europe one country at a time, do we ignore them because they're not attacking us, or do we see the former Soviets as part of Us, Humanity, and fight with them against Them, the Aliens, because suddenly Us got more inclusive by contrast to Them?
And if the threat is demons from a supernatural realm, does not Us become mortals in any realm?
You don't want to help people because you're isolationist. You have your own problems, and you don't care about the problems of others. Now, I know that's not strictly true of you; you have gone out of your way to help people within your circle of influence when they needed it; but it is always those you regard as your friends whom you will help. Love your enemies, and they might just become your friends. Love your neighbor, even if he's that complete stranger who is so bigoted against you, and you might just break down his bigotry. Help people not because it will benefit you, but because it will benefit them.
Or, as I say, don't. I don't care. You will continue to face situations in game where you will have to decide whether or not to help people, and there will continue to be consequences no matter what you choose. Make your choice, and deal with the consequences.
Ah, but versers seem to be lonely most of the time, and not all of them are loners. I've had several player characters marry someone in the verse and take their new spouses with them. One of them very cleverly married Cali of Blake's 7--a telepathic terrorist, and a real asset to him in the worlds ahead (although now that I think of it, she was his associate before she was his wife--they got married in Sherwood Forest). Adam picked a bride and trained her to survive in the verse. Now, if you want to work alone, fine; but don't say that it's necessarily a problem to make your partner a verser. I once tried to make an indig a partner/associate just so that she wouldn't die. It didn't work, but I'm not the only person to have tried it, and sometimes it does work.Versers can't have sex, or else they make their partner into a verser. I'd say those are pretty good reasons not to get involved.
--M. J. Young
MJ, I already told you. I realize that you don't care if I interfere or not, as long as I enjoy myself. This was a question for players, to get their reasons for doing what they do. Not a complaint about being forced to be the hero. In fact, this situation in my game that I am currently in might just change my character's mind about it.
Eric, I got the email that I sent to you bounced back to me. It said something about the email address no longer being valid because of disuse. Did you get the email I sent?
As far as versers being lonely, that would be nothing new to me.
I think there's a more interesting way to approach the question than "Why do I care?"
"Why do I care?" is easy enough to answer. If I care, it's because I feel some connection to one of the factions involved, or my integrity demands that I do something to help (although my integrity is usually on the other side, insisting that interfering in other people's life-changing decisions and activities is bad for them in the long run) or I'm bored and need a distraction.
The real question, to me, is "Why do I have the opportunity?"
In the real world, I rarely see important problems that need my attention. I might help a friend track down a hard-to-find book, do their programming homework, or get over getting dumped, but I don't often bother to combat nuclear threats, fight wars, and so on. It's not because I don't see the safety of the world as important, but mostly because I'm in no position to.
So why do versers, on arriving in alien worlds, have the opportunity to fix major problems in said world, and why isn't there anyone native to the world ready to deal with it? I haven't played yet, but a cursory examination of threads shows that versers often see action almost immediately after arrival, with most worlds being set up to offer the verser a ready adventure. I understand that this is essentially for game purposes, because Simulationists who primarily want to explore what it's like to hang out and learn to live in a certain setting are far less common than Narrativists who want to tell or hear a good story, and Gamists who want to overcome challenges.
But if the device is common enough that the characters can't help but reflect on it, it may point to something about the purpose of versers or the structure of the verse. To me specifically, it suggests a number of hypotheses.
1. Scriff, or someone in control of it, has some motive for sending versers into the middle of conflicts.
2. Areas of physical or psychological conflict are for some reason less resistant to interworld travel than calm areas, making them the path of least resistance for versing in. Perhaps they are both the result of some third force, some kind of "causal nexus," rather than conflict being a direct cause of versing in.
3. Dramatic conflict is significantly more prevalent in most of the verse than there are competent indigs to deal with it, so in most of the verse it's quite likely that anyone seen as competent will be expected to fix things. The reasons for this could be interesting.
4. As M.J. says that Dan O'Malley would suggest, the verse is a collection of stories, written by someone from the "heroes save (x) from (y)" school of fiction.
That's interesting. I'm running two players who have been to a combined total of nine worlds (well, eight, if you count that there's one they both saw), and it has happened exactly once that one of them had the immediate opportunity to help with something. In one other scenario, things seemed designed for the verser's involvement. In the other seven, our "heroes" were either wandering about aimlessly, trying to learn to live with the natives, or trying not to die violently or from starvation - sometimes all three in turns. (Oh, and the guy with the immediate opportunity? He helped for ten minutes, and now he's been in school for two years.)
All that's not to say that this isn't a legitimate line of inquiry. It just probably wouldn't occur to my players to wonder that.
Hmm, yeah. Since I just got here, I don't really have a firm grasp of how things usually go, but I'd assumed the topic wouldn't have come up if versers saving the worlds they landed in wasn't the usual way. XD
The way I see it, I'm a stranger to this world. Whatever is going to happen would have happened whether I was there or not. The fact that I am there doesn't change anything. In my current world, there was a problem with three princesses who were sleepwalking. The king had offered a huge reward to whoever could fix it. At first, I jumped at the idea, but then I realized that it wouldn't be what I would really do in that situation. So I stayed back in the village and learned from the local blacksmith. I mean really, which is more valuable? A lifetime of treasure or blacksmithing skills, ya know? I only went to help when I prayed and an angel appeared and told me what was really happening. I see it like I'm a visitor to a place and whatever is going to happen really isn't my concern.
Ryven--If I'm counting the right number of fingers, John is only in his third world. He's been going on about this since his first world, though, and thereby hangs a tale.
To bring you up to speed, John had never played a role playing game, but had learned about them through me and decided (after having known me for years) to try his hand at it. He kept giving me ideas for where to send him, and I really hate that because I want to send you somewhere you won't expect. I decided rather off the cuff to send him to his own home town--Columbus Ohio, which I have visited exactly once to meet him--and to make it different in some way that would pretty clearly say he was no longer in his own universe. I was thinking of several ideas, of which gangsters was high on the list.
I had not yet decided how that would be when Graeme versed out. Graeme never verses out; his staying power is up there with Kyler's and mine, maybe better. I was caught completely off guard, and scrambling for where to send him. I decided that I had never sent him to anything really science fiction, and that that would be a good choice. At that point I decided to put Graeme in the same world with John, and turn it into a B Monster Movie world. Moments after the two of them joined my token senior NPC verser (me, actually, so John would recognize me, although from before when I knew him) the coffee shop in which we were seated was attacked by a giant preying mantis.
It happens that immediately thereafter we had an influx of new players--Scott, John III, and at least a couple more--and I tossed all of them in the same world. This turned out to be great fun, from my perspective, because they were all going in different directions concerning what they should do. Graeme perceived (correctly) that the mantis was just one of an ongoing epidemic of monsters created by mutation from the industrial chemicals and atomic waste that was contaminating the environment, and that there was a massive government coverup to conceal it. He tapped into the Goth movement to start creating a Green environmentalist campaign; from his perspective, the more havoc created in connection with these events, the more likely it was that the world would awaken to its problem. Thus when Godzilla arose from Lake Michigan and found its way across the Ohio state border, he was gung ho to lead the beast all the way to Washington DC in a trail of ruin that would be undeniable. Meanwhile, Scott's position was that as a verser he had power, and therefore responsibility, to attempt to stop this monster--particularly since he figured out that it was John Oakmaster's fault that the local army unit had been destroyed (by a psionic botch), so the people were defenseless due to verser involvement.
In the midst of this, John kept arguing about whether versers ought to do anything at all. Godzilla was a problem these people brought on themselves, and it didn't matter to him. He wasn't sure who to help, and he kept arguing that he didn't mind providing transportation for other versers, but he wasn't going to get involved in some sort of hair-brained heroic scheme to save the world.
In the midst of this, I got the notion that it would be interesting to make his next world Pearl Harbor. After all, I knew he knew a lot about that attack, and if I dropped him in the middle of it just before it happened, would he get involved or just watch the world go up in smoke?
What happened there is a long story. However, he felt like we forced him to get involved. I've told him that he didn't have to worry about being involved--he could have let the bombs fall and died in the middle of the devastation. That was not what he chose. He says his reasons for choosing otherwise were because he didn't realize some facts about being a verser, and in part I believe him.
I didn't put him in Dancing Princess because I wanted to push him to save the world. I wanted to see whether he would rescue a fair maiden in distress, particularly when said fair maiden had a very rich and powerful father eager to reward his daughter's rescuer beyond the dreams of avarice. He decided that he was not interested in the king's money or his daughters, and preferred instead to learn blacksmithing--until such time as the demons started taking over the kingdom from the inside. I learned quite a bit from that.
I do put people in worlds where nothing is happening unless someone makes it happen. That to some degree, though, is a matter of player choice. I recently dropped Adam into my Vampire Camelot scenario. He has quietly apprenticed to Merlin and is helping create the Sword in the Stone to mark Arthur as successor to the throne. Another player might have used his considerable talents to assault the vampires and try to make the world a safer place at night. A lot of worlds are what you make them. John made Dancing Princess a place where he could spend a few years learning the blacksmithing trade before the situation got to a point where he had to act. It seems entirely likely that in a few days he will return to his blacksmithing trade for a few more years, perhaps until the next threat comes and the king turns to the man who saved the princesses from the demons those few years back.
I am again reminded of Die Hard 4, and what makes you "that guy". That's the case with many versers: they are that guy, the one who can do it and who won't let it go undone. If that's not you, fine--it will go undone, or someone else will do it. Yet as you say, if you have the opportunity to help, will you help?
--M. J. Young
He says his reasons for choosing otherwise were because he didn't realize some facts about being a verser, and in part I believe him.
In Part you believe me? That means that there is some part of you that doesn't believe me. Why don't you believe me, and what about my story don't you believe? I'm in a rather paranoid mood from something that happened earlier today, so forgive me if this sounds kind of out there. I'm just wondering what you didn't believe.
The Long Story about what happened to me in Pearl Harbor is rather easy to shorten. I just came from a high psionic world. When I landed in Pearl Harbor, I had every reason to think that I still had my psionic powers. I didn't. An MP rolled up and arrested me. I was holding an assault rifle, why I didn't just shoot him and drive away I'll never know. I used said psionic powers to harass the MP, and caused the jeep we were in to crash. I ended up in the hospital with 2 broken arms, 9 broken ribs and a mess of other injuries. It was my belief that if I didn't warn them and died in the attack, I would end up in my next world with 2 broken arms, 9 broken ribs and a mess of other injuries. Who in their right mind would do that, when they are already in a fully-equipped hospital? Turned out that had I been killed in the attack, I would have recovered all the damage points on versing out. Had I known that, I would have just asked the nurse to turn up the morphine drip, and slept peacefully through the attack.
I am always skeptical of everything anyone says they would have done. I do not believe we can really know with certainty what we would have done in different circumstances, and the more certain someone is that he knows what he would have done, the more skeptical I become. People ought to have doubts about what they do not know. People ought not assume that they know what they would do in circumstances they have never faced.In Part you believe me? That means that there is some part of you that doesn't believe me. Why don't you believe me, and what about my story don't you believe?
That's part of why we play this game: to see what you would have done.
--M. J. Young
Yeah, MJ, I guess it's like that joke.
Two guys in a car get pulled over by a police officer. The driver gets very lippy with the cop, and after the cop writes the ticket, he smacks the driver in the head with his nightstick. The cop then walks around the car, and smacks the passenger with his nightstick. The passenger says "What did you do that for? I didn't do anything!" The cop says "I was granting your wish. Five miles down the road, you were going to turn to your buddy and say 'Man, I wish that jerk had tried to smack ME with his nightstick!!'"
Ya know MJ, you said in an earlier post that you wanted to see if I would rescue a fair maiden, particularly when said fair maiden had a father who would reward me "beyond the dreams of avarice" (Nice Star Trek 4 quote, BTW) What I came away with, BEFORE going to the castle is over 25 pounds of silver, 10 pounds of gold, and 2 large gemstones. That's BEFORE I got to the castle at all. I worked and traded for that. So, in my mind, I AM rich beyond the dreams of avarice. I'm also 4 intensities stronger, and have a skill that I imagine will find me gainfully employed in a great deal of the worlds I'm going to land in. So, I think I actually did better than I could have saving the princesses. Of course, that's just one man's opinion.
I didn't put him in Dancing Princess because I wanted to push him to save the world. I wanted to see whether he would rescue a fair maiden in distress, particularly when said fair maiden had a very rich and powerful father eager to reward his daughter's rescuer beyond the dreams of avarice.
MJ, you posted this a few days ago. You've totally got the wrong impression here. It's not that I wouldn't save a fair maiden in distress, it's that I didn't save THOSE fair maidens. Three princesses who sleepwalk at night. What can I do about that anyway? Now if the problem was that the princess was being stalked by a 7 foot ogre, and the king had issued a decree that anyone who defeated the beast in single combat got the reward, I would have jumped on it. I've got something no one else there has...... GUNS!!!!!!!!!
I believe that "rich beyond the dreams of avarice" was a common expression before Mr. Scott quoted it in Star Trek, but I will admit that he brought the phrase to a new generation.
It was your conclusion that the princesses were sleepwalking. The fact of the matter was that the princesses were being kidnapped by deception every night (the same way a child molester lures children to his car with candy), drugged (using magic) to make them compliant, and returned to their room in the morning. The king offered the reward for anyone who could solve the mystery. You decided that there was no mystery and you already knew the answer--and your answer was incorrect.
--M. J. Young
Well, right or wrong, it still wasn't my problem. In the grand scheme of things, I am incredibly glad that I took the blacksmithing skills over the gold. In the world I am currently in, gold is apparently worthless. The blacksmithing skills could make the worthless gold valuable, by giving the gold a practical use. See what I mean?
In the midst of this, I got the notion that it would be interesting to make his next world Pearl Harbor. After all, I knew he knew a lot about that attack, and if I dropped him in the middle of it just before it happened, would he get involved or just watch the world go up in smoke?
This has just been stuck in my head for some time. This is from MJ's 4th post down in the thread. You never KNEW that I knew anything about the attack, you had (at best) flimsy reason to suspect that I might. Not to mention the fact that this was written AFTER I had told you several times that I knew next to nothing about it.
Since I actually know very little about the bombing, that would make this amount to a written lie about me, would it not? I'm genuinely curious. Could I sue you for libel? I'm not planning to, regardless of the answer. I think you've suffered more than enough for that error in judgement, and I release you from any and all legal responsibility. (And you have that in writing, so you're covered) I'm genuinely curious. If I wanted to, would I have a libel suit against you for that statement?
(Doing Therapy)
Two
When you first mentioned to me that I knew about Pearl Harbor, I remember thinking "I know about Pearl Harbor? That's news to me." You "knew" that I knew about that, but did not "know" that I had an aversion to authority figures. Truth was, you had an equal amount of evidence to support either or neither conclusion. That stereotype "Gun enthusiasts know military history" is about as offensive to me as "Men with long hair and beards smoke marijuana" would be to you, MJ.
I just wanted to make sure I was clear about that.
(Doing Therapy)
I think technically what I wrote was a statement about me, so it can't really be libel; it's obviously a statement that comes to the fact that my knowledge was incorrect.
--M. J. Young
"I knew that he knew." You knew it but I didn't. That's what it amounts to. Gotcha. I was seriously curious about that.
I'm not even certain I knew what Final Countdown was about before I analyzed it. The whole time I was watching it, I was thinking what an idiot the captain was being for trying to prevent the bombing. We know the results of Pearl Harbor being destroyed. Only God knows the results if you save it. Best to just leave well enough alone.
(Doing Therapy)
Two
That stereotype "Gun enthusiasts know military history" is about as offensive to me as "Men with long hair and beards smoke marijuana" would be to you, MJ.
And I must apologize as well. The first time I saw your photograph, my first thought was "Damn, he is DEFINITELY a stoner!!!!" So, apologies on both sides, I suppose.
(Doing Therapy)
Well, the title of the thread is "I don't get it" and it was originally about why you would get involved. I'm getting it back on that track.
You and others all insist that you would try to prevent the Pearl Harbor bombing. You know that the end result of Pearl Harbor being destroyed is that The United States goes on to ultimate victory and becomes a superpower. You stop the Pearl Harbor bombing. You have unquestionably changed the future of the world. What do you do, ten years later, when the US loses WW2? Maybe they would, maybe they wouldn't, who knows? But they didn't lose WW2 in the history where Pearl Harbor was destroyed. That much you do know. If you do nothing and they lose, it can't possibly be your fault. Stopping the bombing and they lose, that could very well make their loss your fault. How could you live with yourself knowing you could possibly have been responsible for that? My character sees it as his payback for the way he was treated. He is hoping Germany won.
Seriously. Historical worlds are the epitome of reason to NOT get involved in my opinion. You know the results of the event happening. Why risk changing everything in the future? You stop The Black Plague. So, now a child formerly killed by The Plague grows up to make Hitler and Genghis Khan look like pansies. That was your fault. How could you live with yourself?
If God didn't want The Plague to happen, He wouldn't have invented that little bugger.
(Doing Therapy)