No, it was not. The mere presence of the MP does not preclude attempting to run. It does make it considerably more risky, but not impossible.
Just because you have an opinion that no one else agrees with doesn't automatically make you wrong. Or was Galileo wrong when he said that Jupiter didn't orbit the earth?
No, it was not. The mere presence of the MP does not preclude attempting to run. It does make it considerably more risky, but not impossible.
And notice, at that point, my options are "Kill him, or he kills me" Please note: LEAVE COMPLETELY is STILL not an option!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Ah John, always resorting to personal attacks when things don't go your way.
Once again Adam, you're using your famous Double Standards.
I want the freedom to be as much of an a-hole that I want, with no conquences, while giving grief to the GM running me on how I think he should run the story.
This wasn't a personal attack on me??????????????
there was a glitch with the edit button
And notice, at that point, my options are "Kill him, or he kills me" Please note: LEAVE COMPLETELY is STILL not an option!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Unless, you know, the MP rolls poorly enough that you don't die before breaking line of fire. which wouldn't even be an unlikely outcome unless the area was unobstructed or it was a special forces MP.
Unless, you know, the MP rolls poorly enough that you don't die before breaking line of fire. which wouldn't even be an unlikely outcome unless the area was unobstructed or it was a special forces MP.
And AGAIN!!! My choices are Kill Him or He Kills Me. Where is the choice to leave with no interference from anyone? Where is the choice to just pretend like I was never there in the first place? Where is the choice to just get lost in 1941 earth, which is what I would have wanted to do? Where is the choice to NOT GET INVOLVED AT ALL?!!???!!?!?!!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!
It's not a personal attack when it's a summary of your in character and out of character actions.
I could go into details, but suffice it to say after GMing you and reading your threads, I don't see many redeemable qualities or actions in what you say or do in game. That's alright, it's a game and you can play it how you want to.
They say the window into someone's true being is when you strip of them of conquences and fear of death. It's part of the fun in Multiverse, to see how some people grow, and others act like rabid animals. In the end it's still a game. -Adam
MJ wanted to see if I would get involved. If I had been given the choice, I wouldn't have gone ANYWHERE NEAR there!!!!!! How is dispatching an MP after me giving me the choice to do that? There's no way I could have gotten away from him without killing him. I was FORCED to get involved, no matter HOW you look at it!!!!!!!!!!
It's like putting a steak in front of a dog and then telling him not to eat it. If you don't want the dog to eat the steak, then DON'T GIVE IT TO HIM!!!!! If you want to see if I will get involved, give me the option to completely NOT GET INVOLVED!!! I was NEVER given that option!!! I don't know why this is so difficult for you people to understand!!!!!!
Adam, you just can't see that there is more to this than just your narrow minded view of how it should be played. In your opinion, everyone who lands there HAS to go to Pearl Harbor. The whole world is Pearl Harbor, and you don't have the imagination to run someone who wouldn't even want to try to go there. As far as you're concerned, everyone who lands there MUST GO TO THE BASE. They shouldn't even be given the choice to walk away and pretend like they were never there in the first place. THAT is what I would have done!!!!! I don't fit your narrow minded view of that, so your mind can't compute it.
It's not a personal attack when it's a summary of your in character and out of character actions.
It is when your summary is an insult. Personally, I'm disappointed that a productive discussion about the nature of roleplaying games has devolved into yet another fight between the two of you. I'd intended to respond to some of the statements here once I'd gathered my thoughts, but now I'm afraid MJ will be forced to lock the thread (again) before I have the time to get back to it.
I think addressing this to Wodium is probably the more fruitful way to approach this.
The question is thus: How much freedom should a referee generally allow, and are there specific cases where a limitation on this is allowed, and to what extent?
At a very basic level, the most basic level really...We're always free, even if someone is pointing a gun at our heads. The question is are you willing to bear the consequences of your decision?
I see this as a scale of coercion. At one end at 10 is "I've got a gun barrell pointed at your head." At "1" is "Its inappropriate to express personal moral condemnation of my acts. By doing so, you're oppressing me."
Unfortunately, we have people like #1 in our society today. They believe free speech means no one is allowed to impinge on their bliss by suggesting in the most gentle terms that their actions might not reach a moral ideal.
Now somewhere between these two is the General Appropriate Level of Coercion/Resistance for a RPG. But, to make it more complicated, some worlds have a generally higher GALCR than other worlds. "Psi 1984", or my "Black Box Imperioum" are totalitarian police states. They obviously have a higher GALCR than say MJ's 'Robin Hood' world where there is very little keeping you from leaving Robin's merry band, and heading for the horizon. In BBI, they'd likely be soon asking you why you weren't at work, why you were driving on this road without need, what you were up to....and if your answers weren't good enough, you might soon find yourself under truth drugs. In Psi 1984 they'd simply read your mind for 'thoughtcrimes'.
Its also the case that in certain specific circumstances, the Galcr may go up or down. If you arrive in one scenario in Karigen (the skirmish site for what MAY be the Last Battle for All Time and Space) you'll arrive between two opposing armies, of Good and Evil. You don't have much choice without a very high Galcr as the two armies thunder toward each other to meet atop your head.
As a general rule, I'd say the lower the Galcr (and the greater the player freedom) the better, but thats only a general rule with lots of exceptions.
Thoughts?
Eric, I know you were asking Scott, but in my humble opinion, if you put the player there specifically to see if he will get involved, you should give him every option to NOT get involved!!! How are you going to find out if they would get involved if you force their actions at ANY point?
If it becomes clear that the player wants to get involved, then you open the door for him to do so. However, up until that point, you just leave him to his own devices.
That's why I keep saying that if MJ really want to see if I would get involved, he should have dropped me right in front of a sign that said "Pearl Harbor Naval Base. Today's Date is December 5, 1941." If I saw that, I would have hightailed it out of there. I should then be allowed to do so. However, if I look at that, and start heading towards the base proper, THEN you dispatch the MP to pick me up. See what I mean?
If you drop someone on board the Titanic with the specific motive to see if they will stop the sinking, you don't drop them in the cargo hold and immediately they are seized by security. You let them work their way up to the upper decks and decide what to do. If they want to warn someone, they will figure out how to do it. If not, they can take their chances with the lifeboats like everyone else.
I think you don't understand what MJ means by what he says. Also, I doubt if Jhiaxus had that motive as a primary factor.
If you want me to say that it was not the very best possible way of doing things, then yes that is true. But it was good enough.
I wonder if the essential problem is you trying to control the GM, or deprive the GM of power.
Let that one sink in.
You either want the GM to dice everything, or you want to decide what he should do.
A lot of players follow the rule "Its the GM's game." and they generally accept whatever decision the GM makes. I don't favor that generally, but I'm going to reccomend it to you as a discipline, as a training exercise. Don't argue with anyone about the justice or injustice of a ruling past or present. Don't suggest plans for encounters. Don't suggest the game be sped up, or slowed down. Don't holler about how you've got to free!!
Instead, accept the game as it comes to you. Focus on this thought--my character is there, and this is the situation he sees. Now, what do I do?
Don't protest the situation, just accept it, and respond.
Pull the beam out of your own eye before trying for the splinter in your brother's eye.
I wonder if the essential problem is you trying to control the GM, or deprive the GM of power.
I wasn't trying to deprive anyone of power, if anything, I was being deprived of power. The power to make my own choices. If I tell you to jump off of a bridge, you're going to look at me and tell me to get lost. If I put a gun to your head and tell you to jump off the bridge or I'm going to shoot you, where's your choice? You're dead either way.
Pull the beam out of your own eye before trying for the splinter in your brother's eye.
I think you should follow this advice yourself. What would be wrong with leaving completely? Where is the harm in that? Instead of it being a story of whether or not I'm willing to die for something that I don't want to touch in the first place, it could have been a story about me trying to survive in 1941. MJ said "Would he (me) get involved, or just watch the world go up in smoke?" Well, I was never given the choice to do neither. If I had my way, I would have neither gotten involved or watched the world go up in smoke, because I would have been long gone when it went up in smoke. What's wrong with that? I really thought that you, Eric, would be more open minded about this. You seem to want to push the limits of what this game can do, yet you don't seem to want to give someone the option to push the limits of it by not doing what he is "supposed" to do.
John wrote
You wanted to see WHAT I WOULD DO. WHAT I WOULD DO would be to try to leave the situation completely.Ah, but that's what you would have done had there been no limits on your options. I'm asking what you would do in the face of limited choices.
I mean, stop and think about this. I did not ask what you would do if you were dropped somewhere on Earth a couple days before Pearl Harbor was bombed; I asked what you would do if you were dropped into the middle of Pearl Harbor. You're complaining because you were taken into custody and failed to effect your own escape by a method that was not likely to succeed. Had you arrived on the base but not been arrested, you'd be complaining that you had to find a way off the base without being detected as someone who didn't belong there; had you been outside the fence, you'd have complained that you were pretty much trapped in the local area, stuck on the island. Had we dropped you in the Pentagon you would be complaining that you had to explain your presence there to security, and so we forced you to reveal your knowledge of the future. John, all you've demonstrated with your complaints about Pearl Harbor is that you want to complain when circumstances don't suit you, and they never suit you. No one believes that you were railroaded but you. There were a thousand things you could have done; the choices you made put you in the situation you find so unacceptable.
Yes, I wanted to see what you would do. I didn't want to see whether you would warn the United States about an imminent attack on Pearl Harbor simply for the altruism of it--I could have dropped you in Omaha for that. I wanted to see what you would do about the imminent attack on Pearl Harbor if you found yourself in the middle of it. You created the situation that prevented you from getting out.
Well, that actually doesn't derail the story--see, in Vorgo, not only do the indigs think you're the supernatural deliverer, the undead think so, too, so you're the prime target. If you decide not to work with the humans, you face them alone.MJ, you were talking about dropping me into Quest for the Vorgo. Well, I can tell you right now what will happen. When the priest says "We have summoned you to retrieve the Vorgo" I'm going to look him right in the eye and say "Well, you summoned the wrong guy." then walk right out the front door. And since you successfully destroyed any qualms I may have had about killing indigs, anyone that tries to stop me is going to catch a hail of 9mm fire.
Have fun.
and I did think you might walk away from Pearl Harbor completely. I have no trouble with the fact that you were arrested on the base--it makes good sense to me. You still might have walked away, had you not made your situation worse by crippling the MP and yourself in the process.
Again,
Where is the choice to leave with no interference from anyone?I don't know. Where is the choice to grow wings and fly away? Where is the choice to dig a tunnel through the beach sand and out to California? No one promised that you would always be able to do anything you could imagine doing. Maybe if you'd run from the MP, he'd have sworn under his breath and run to get his radio, not willing to kill a civilian or unidentified soldier or sailor. I mean, he had no idea who you were. Maybe he would have called for help instead of pulling the trigger. You don't know; I don't know. You don't know what your options actually were; you're only assuming that you couldn't have done things you didn't try to do.
And don't tell me that Adam doesn't have the creativity to come up with interesting options. I've run him for longer than I've run you, and he's a much more creative player most of the time, at least in that he's not nearly as predictable.
Eric's absolutely right: we can debate whether Adam did what I would have done, or what Kyler would have done, or what Eric would have done, but the fact is that Adam was the one running that scenario, creating that world, and deciding the best way to draw you into it. You didn't want to be drawn into it. By fighting against that the way you did, you pulled yourself into it further. But it was Adam's decision how to bring you into the scenario, and he chose to have you meet an MP in the first minutes of your presence there. The MP gave you information about the situation and placed you into a situation in which you would be detained for questioning. You could have attempted to escape at that point; you could have attempted to get through the interrogation by any of a number of cover stories (you were surfing and got swept way far from your beach and lost your board; you've no idea where the van came from). You could have cooperated until there was a decent chance for escape. I'm sorry you didn't like what happened to you, but given the starting point of "You are in the Pearl Harbor military complex a couple days before the Japanese air strike, and have been seen by a military patrol," you didn't act in a way that was likely to get you released quickly.
And John:
It is bad form to post replies to your own posts. We do not usually press that bit of Internet courtesy around here, because sometimes some threads require that sort of thing. However, this thread does not, and I do not want to see you post twice in succession on it again. You may answer anyone who posts, but once you post you may not post again to the same thread until someone else posts.
Quite apart from the discourtesy of holding a conversation with yourself, you are wasting my very precious time by repeating the same things a dozen times in succession.
Thank you.
--M. J. Young
No one believes that you were railroaded but you. There were a thousand things you could have done; the choices you made put you in the situation you find so unacceptable.
Just because someone has an opinion that is unpopular doesn't make it any less valid. Galileo discovered that the earth was in fact NOT the center of the universe, and that Jupiter didn't orbit it. When he revealed these findings to the world, the Catholic church accused him of heresy and threatened to have him burned at the stake unless he publicly recanted his findings. We now know that Galileo was right. It took the Catholic church about 150 years to acknowledge that he was right. Just because his opinion is unpopular, doesn't make it any less valid.
And yes, I know I had a thousand options there. I took the one most likely to cause myself a lot of pain. It took me a long time to accept that, but I finally do. I had a key that might have unlocked the handcuffs. At the very least, I could have gotten my hands free before I started harassing the MP. Yes, I had thousands of options, but I was never given the one option that I wanted.
And sorry about the multiple posts. I was doing psychosis therapy when I wrote most of that. The therapy involves repeating the same phrase over and over. It often translates into my real life.
Let's leave it there.
Mistake, sorry.
I must apologize for my behavior of late. To you this is beating a dead horse. To me it is something incredibly confusing. That said, I thought it might be fun to draw up a GE roll effects table on my chances of escaping there without getting caught. This is also to help me learn the game better.
3, 1 in a thousand good luck. When you're stopped by the MPs, they mistake you for the base commander out of uniform, or some other person of extreme importance. They not only give you an escort off the property, but will also surrender any military equipment that they have to you upon request. (I could see that coming back and biting you on the ass, though.) If you decide that you do want to go to the main base, your resemblance to the base commander helps you curry favor with the staff.
4, well beyond hopes or expectations, you land right next to the means to escape, or to contact them (Perhaps a jeep with a radio, and some other misc. equipment, if you decide to steal it)
5 Beyond Hopes or Expectations - 15 Not unfavorable result, would be getting off the property unmolested, with varying degrees of difficulty. Having sufficient contact though that you could warn them if you wanted to.
16-17, neutral result, be given sufficient time to determine where you were and decide what to do.
18 not unfavorable result - 24 as bad as anticipated would be the beginning of the encounter that I had
25 remarkably bad but not totally unsurprising through 28 beyond worst fears, you're accused of some kind of crime, of varying extents
29 Beyond worst fears or nightmares would be the driver has an epileptic fit, resulting in the end of the encounter that I had
30 You're mistaken for a known German operative.
I'm curious, who's worst fears is it? Mine, or the referee's?
The player's. or rather, the player's expected worst fears. the referee is of course free to ask the player what his worst fears for the situation are, he is also of course free to decide that the situation doesn't make that plausible/ you're jokingly trying to distort the situation to your benifit.
Also, the GE roll is reserved exclusively for when the referee needs or wants to make somthing up on the fly or has no particular plans for what will happen on a section that involves semi-random dangers.
I don't know. I think I would probably roll dice a lot more often. This is supposed to be a story made up by two people with a random element of chance. Why can't the story be completely random?
And ya know what else? You think taking this out for 18 months is bad, I recently called a lady that I hadn't talked to in about 15 years to apologize for something I did in high school. When we're all in Heaven, I'm going to make you all spend time inside my head. Then you will understand.
EDIT: I think the issue to me is why do you put someone into a situation to see if he will get involved, then never at least give him a dice roll to see if he will. That just seems like it defeats the entire purpose of the test.
EDIT: I feel like I was literally forced at gunpoint to get involved. That's what the issue is. At least in Quest for the Vorgo, yes, I know the outcome, but I'll be the one with the gun!!!!
To your first point, go back and reread Wodium's point on why not.
To your second point, calling the lady to apologize is commendably courageous, but its different than here. As an exercise, please list the major factors that are public knowledge that are different.
John, I think most of us understand. Its not a complicated point you're trying to make. Its you that doesn't understand us (which is to a large degree normal. Does the newb at swordplay understand all the teachings of the swordmaster?)
I think the issue to me is will you accept that we disagree with you, or will you try to redouble the volume? Can you stop, and simply learn?
I think the issue to me is will you accept that we disagree with you, or will you try to redouble the volume? Can you stop, and simply learn?
That's what I'm trying to do, Eric. That post that says "Mistake, sorry" you don't want to know what was written there. I realized it would be a mistake to post it.
Eric wrote
I think the issue to me is will you accept that we disagree with you, or will you try to redouble the volume? Can you stop, and simply learn?
John answered
That's what I'm trying to do, Eric.
I'm taking that at face value.
No one pretends that referees are infallible. There are many advantages to having human referees instead of randomized systems, and chief among them is that humans have the ability to determine what kinds of things are likely to work, to seem realistic, and to be fun--things no computer or dice system can tell you. The disadvantage is that sometimes we guess wrong.
- There is a disadvantage in that sometimes we become emotional about things and make irrational decisions based on those emotions. This includes the referee who is smitten by the girl at his table, the one who had a bad day at work and is looking to take out his frustrations somewhere, and yes, the one who feels that the player has harrassed and annoyed him to the point that he doesn't want to be fair. But that's because we're human, and those are errors most of us try to overcome.No one knew--not even I knew--that you had an aversion to law enforcement officers. We learned something. A hundred other players would have gone through that particular scenario better, because they would not have taken an immediate dislike for the MP that found them. You were the one exception--well, you and Kyler, and Kyler comes by his hatred of authority figures honestly within the game world and doesn't trust adults pretty much at all because of it. But we already knew that about Kyler, that had we sent an MP to pick him up on arrival at the beach we'd be dealing with a dead MP.
You "win" when you succeed in accomplishing what you wanted to do and have fun doing it, whatever it is. It could be killing everyone in the entire Sixth Fleet; it could be stopping the bombing of Pearl Harbor. It could be winning the heart and hand of the princess, or changing the social order of a world that has fallen apart, or exploring a world no one has ever visited, or learning a skill that might be useful in the future: you define what "fun" is for you.
I, the referee, win when I figure out how to throw something at you that you can turn into "fun". I want to say it will not always be what you expect, but really what I mean is that it will never be what you expect, because it is that fact that you do not know and cannot guess what will happen next that makes it interesting and fun for you.
I have a lot of tools to help me with that. I have the rules; I have the worlds and characters I've created; I have the die rolls; I have my experience in other games and through other stories; I have my own creativity. I'm the guy who decides how to blend those into an experience that you might find "fun".
If what I do winds up not being "fun" for you, I goofed; I try to maneuver it into something else. If I goof, though, there's still an obligation on your part to look for how to make it fun for you.
For example, somewhere a scenario was proposed, that you are taken prisoner and thrown in prison, and the question asked, what would make the scenario fun for you? Here are some possible answers; maybe yours is not on the list.
- It would be fun to try to escape from prison.
- It would be fun to experience vicariously what it was like to be a prisoner in this sort of place.
- It would be fun to use the time to exercise and build up my body.
- It would be fun to become the biggest baddie in the place.
- It would be fun to create dissention and start a prison riot in which a lot of people are wounded or killed.
- It would be fun to spend my time learning new skills from others there, including prisoners, guards, the chaplain, and anyone else.
- It would be fun to skip over this part quickly and get to the point where I'm released.
Now, I don't care which of those is your choice. The point is, for most people the announcement that you've been captured and thrown in prison does not sound like fun--but it can be the beginning of a great story. Phillippe "the Mouse" Gaston would never have met Etienne de Navarre had he not first escaped from prison. Jenis Blake would not have become captain of The Liberator had he not been an expendable captive aboard a prison ship, and Avon, Jenna, and the others would have have been with him on the second ship had they not first been with him on the first. If somehow your character lands in prison, between us we have to figure out how to make that fun for you. The trick for you is to take what comes and turn it into something fun; the trick for me is to guess what you would enjoy without letting you know it's coming before it does.
My guesses are not perfect; no one's are. My obligation to you remains the same--and so does your obligation to me. That obligation on the part of the player is to look for ways to enjoy what the referee brings, and try to steer the adventure in a direction he would like. The wrong way to do that is to fight with the referee or make stupid trouble inside the game. The right way to do it is to interact through the game world to bring about something good for everyone.
Does that help?
--M. J. Young
A long time ago, I had a conflict with a woman that I worked with. I was told, under penalty of termination, not to talk to her at all. For some reason, the management felt that the best way to accomplish this would be to put her right next to me all day. We're talking about a building that's at least a 1/4 mile square. They could have just as easily put her on the other side of the building, still in the same department, and ensured that we would have very little contact at all.
MJ wanted to see if I would get involved. For some reason, it was felt that the best way to accomplish this would be to send someone to force me at gunpoint to go to the base. Where's the logic in that? If you want to see if he will get involved, you should at least give him the opportunity not to. The way I see it, if I don't want to get involved, I'll leave. If I do, I'll figure out a way to get there. If you force me to go, the odds that I will do something I never intended increase exponentially, as in my own experience. Your test is then blown. If you just allow the player to do what he wants to do, you'll find out what you wanted to know. And you will find it out because the player made all of the choices himself. No one else seems to grasp this concept, besides me.
MJ, I know you said not to post multiple times, however, this is 4 hours later and not the exact same thing repeated.
I mean if I had at least a chance to figure out where I was before I get approached. If I had known that I was on a military base, and that the guy approaching me was a police officer, I think I would have put up more of a fight to run. I had no idea where I was or who this guy was until he got there. If I had known I was on a military base prior to that, and saw someone coming, I'd run.
EDIT: I mean I see a guy coming at me in an army jeep. Give me a few hours, and I'll give you a hundred reasons why a guy in an army jeep would be driving towards me without it being that I am on a military base being approached by a police officer. I'll tell you though, if I had that to do again, he would either let me go, or we would get into a gunfight right then and there. I'm immortal, he isn't. I didn't really consider that an option at the time.
Congratulations, you recieve a prize! You've repeated yourself a hundred times, and avoided answering the objections raised, and repeatedly confused a Zero GALCR level for freedom.
You win a Duck.
Send 23.99 for shipping and handling for your FREE Duck.
::He looks at you with a puzzled expression::
Ya know what? I think I figured it out. What I need to do is just accept that this is something I don't understand, and that I am not likely to understand. I think that would probably be best for everyone involved, including myself.
MJ wanted to see if I would get involved. For some reason, it was felt that the best way to accomplish this would be to send someone to force me at gunpoint to go to the base.
Ribald joke time.
Guy walks up to this young woman and says, "Would you have sex with me for a million dollars?"
"Yes," she answers immediately, thinking that she'd just won the lottery.
He continues, "Would you have sex with me for a dollar?"
Outraged, she says, "Of course not; what kind of girl do you think I am?"
"I thought we'd established that," he answers; "we're just haggling over the price."
John, you said you did not want to get involved, in any way, for any reason.
We tested that. We put you somewhere where you knew the future and had a reasonable chance of changing it. We wanted to see whether you would get involved, or whether you would let the attack happen without warning, without regard for the possible consequences to you.
You chose to get involved.
You can make a million excuses about how you were dragged into the middle of the target zone at gunpoint, that you were injured and did not want to verse out in that condition, that you didn't know what would happen, that it seemed to be in your best interests to get involved.
But at this point we're haggling about the price. We proved that yes, you would get involved if the circumstances were such that you did not like the alternatives. You took the million bucks, and now you're trying to argue that you're not that kind of girl.
For me, getting involved is a no-brainer. One of my idols once said, "Interfere? Of course we should interfere--always do what you're best at, that's what I say." I'll get involved if there's an opportunity to get involved; it's what I do. I'm easy to hook.
For you, the price is higher. We have proved, however, that you can be hooked--there are situations in which you will become involved, you will interfere. It might be the million dollar deal, but you'll do it if the situation is right.
So you took the million dollars. You're that kind of girl after all. Get over it. If you weren't you probably wouldn't have much fun in this game anyway--what's the point of developing thousands of skills if you're not going to do anything with them? I can run a game for a guy who is not going to get involved with my eyes closed:
For the next twenty years, you go to work five days out of seven, come home, eat, watch television, go to bed, and repeat the process; on weekends you go to the gym and work out. After twenty years, your boss retires. He comments that you don't look a day older than when he hired you and gives you the option to buy him out.Boring. If you're not going to do something interesting, we'll just put you on the fast track to mediocrity and forget it.
But you are going to do something. When the price is right, you're going to get in bed with the story and get involved. We just have to figure out the right price to get you there.
Thanks to Pearl Harbor, we've got some idea: you will take the million dollars; you are that kind of girl. Now we're just haggling over the price.
--M. J. Young
Ya know MJ, I think that's the most intelligent thing I've heard in this discussion. That actually makes sense, in a sick, twisted kind of way.
I GET IT MJ!!! It's like a light just came on in my head. If left to my own devices, I would leave. What do you learn about me then? I have to be forced into the full range of things to get the full effect of what's happening. Is John willing to die at Pearl Harbor? He knows he will verse out, but still, there's that doubt. Will John get released without telling them? Will they try to torture it out of him? How far will John take this? I get it now. It's crystal f---ing clear!!!!!! (Pardon the language, but that's the only thing that expresses the sentiment that I feel) It makes sense now. Damn, I'm learning all the time.
EDIT: I still feel that I was forced, to the extent that I never even had a chance to figure out where I was and decide what to do. You could have learned things like Would John run if he knew he was on a military base, or would he go voluntarily? If you then dispatched MPs after him, would he run, pull over, engage in a gunfight with them? I still feel forced to the extent that I never even had a chance to figure out where I was. But I now understand why the force was needed. Perhaps a tip for anyone running the world in the future.
EDIT AGAIN: If you did it that way, you could find out how far John would go to try to escape, and if he was captured, would he surrender to them, or would he go out in a hail of bullets? See what I mean?
EDIT YET AGAIN: And ya know what else? I know exactly how it would go. I would keep driving the posted speed limit and act like I belonged there. I would be heading for the exits though. If an MP started following me, I would keep driving at the posted speed limit. (The mistake criminals always make is speeding up when a cop is following them. For all you know, it's just some random cop that doesn't give a hoot-n-holler about you.) If he tried to pull me over, I would pull over. I may or may not have a weapon in easy reach. If they asked me to step out of the car, I'd floor it. Gives you a few second head start, whilst they run back to their cars.
EDIT AGAIN: (Hey, blame MJ, he's the one that said I can't post more than once in a thread) When MJ ran me through Why Spy, the guy came up on me and put a gun to the back of my head. That wouldn't work with the character that I have now. Perhaps you verse the person right in front of "The Multi Verser's Lounge." Of course they will check it out. Inside, they get approached by so and so and asked if they want to become a spy.
If they refuse, someone keeps trying to recruit them. I can't think of the title of the movie, but Christian Slater is a recruitment officer that always gets his recruit. Even to the point of killing the original recruitment officer. I can't think of the title.
ANOTHER EDIT: Dancing Princess. Why is the option "Go this way, and take care of these people, or stay in the village."? Why isn't it "Go this way and take care of these princesses, or go this way and check out this other strange thing involving someone else. Whichever one you do, the other will turn out to have a natural explanation. (let's them feel like they "Chose the right path" not knowing that it would have happened either way) If you decide to forget it and stay back in the village, a third option will rear it's head, and both of the other two will have natural explanations. Make it like a Choose Your Own Adventure book. Give the player more choices.
YET ANOTHER EDIT: And ya know what else? With a world like this, you could, with some minor modifications, run the same player through the same world 3 different times in a row, and they would never even know it.
EDIT:....
EDIT AGAIN:....
EDIT YET AGAIN:....
EDIT AGAIN:....
ANOTHER EDIT:....
YET ANOTHER EDIT:....
(Hey, blame MJ, he's the one that said I can't post more than once in a thread)
Methinks you are violating the spirit of the rule.
Let me make a suggestion. Do you have a word processor or text editor on your computer? If so, then when you come to the site, why don't you open a document for each thread you want to answer, and answer them each in that document. Give yourself time to think of everything you want to say, put all those thoughts into one post for each thread, and when you're finally comfortable that you've said everything you want to say, wait another ten minutes to be sure, and then copy/paste the text from each of those documents into the appropriate reply boxes.
That way you aren't Columbo-ing us with, "One more thing" a dozen times.
Thanks.
--M. J. Young
You completely missed the entire point of the thread. I get the reasoning now. I figured you would be happy about that.
Two posts, second post 23 hours later
When I get a good idea, I flow with it. You've all seen my threads where I write 25 posts in a row. (The recent Zombie thread, for instance) That's just the way my mind works. I'd like to think that I give good enough ideas in these threads that it is acceptable. That's just the way my mind thinks. As you can see, if you reread the above, I think I figured it out. So it had a positive outcome.