No, that wasn't it. I figured out the quotes, I just can't make heads or tails of what you're saying. It sounds like you're agreeing with me that the 3 and 30 can have the same outcome, but at the same time, telling me that it can't happen. (3 and 30 being the same hahaha)
And yes, I know it's one thing which would be both best and worst. That's the point I was making, that one thing could be both your 1 in 1,000 best hope and also your 1 in 1,000 worst fear. I think it's possible, I just can't seem to find a scenario where it can happen (YET!!!)
What you're missing is that I'm saying there could only be one possibility at all - if a 3 and a thirty are the same thing, then so is everything else. This scenario is only possible when only one possibility exists.
If X is the best thing and the worst thing, then it is the only thing. Let's use a GE roll to see what happens!
3: X.
4: X.
5: X.
6: X.
...
16: X.
17: X.
...
28: X.
29: X.
30: X.
Why roll? It'll just come up X.
And it has to be that way, because if there were anything else on the table - Y, for example - then that would be either better than X (making X not the best thing), worse than X (making X not the worst thing), or exactly the same as X (making it X after all).
A unifying post to lay out my case, I hope more clearly.
These are my assumptions.
1) A roll of 3 is the best thing. Nothing is allowed to be better than a 3.
2) A roll of 30 is the worst thing. Nothing is allowed to be worse than a 30.
3) If one thing (x) is different from another thing (y), it is also either better or worse than than that other thing. That is, if x is not better than y or worse than y, then x is y.
4) It only makes sense to roll on a table if there are at least two possible outcomes. (If there is only one possible outcome, it is pointless to roll because the outcome is predetermined.)
These are my conclusions.
5) From (1), (2), and (3), if a 3 and a 30 yield the same result, x, then that result must be the only result on the table. Nothing can be worse than x, and nothing can be better than x, so everything must be equal to x, meaning everything must be x; x is the only thing allowed to exist on the table.
6) From (4) and (5), it is only possible that [the result of 3] = [the result of 30] in situations where it is pointless to roll the dice.
In the Bible, Joseph was sold into slavery by his brothers. From that, he got in good with the king of Egypt and became one of the most powerful men in the country.
Was being sold into slavery a 3 or a 30?
I don't think Scott that you're quite understanding what I'm saying, but I don't think I could possibly make you understand. It's another one of those "You'd have to be inside my head" kind of things. It's not really worth arguing over, it's just something I find interesting to think about, that's all.
I understand what you are saying. You are referring to an event being good, yet bad. In order for that to be true, you must be relating the event to something else. In point of fact, you said "Joseph was sold into slavery by his brothers". This is the first event. Then, over the course of his slavery, he "got in good with the king of Egypt", by this, I take it you mean he became friends with a powerful man, and gained power through that. Am I correct so far?
What the people are trying to tell you though, is that the first event, that is, "Joseph was sold into slavery by his brothers" was a GE roll of 30, or some relatively bad event. However, over time Joseph saw it as less of a detriment, because it turned out okay. By this, you are thinking this means the nature of the roll was changed. Am I right?
The problem with that is the first event is not changed because of your retrospect. That is, you see it in a new way, and your new experiences allowed you to evolve as a person in such a way that you have learned to deal with it, and perhaps see it as positive. This leads to another GE roll, the one you are referencing as a 3, in which he becomes friends with the Emperor, through whatever circumstances. This makes the past event not as bad, but when Joseph was being sold it was the worst thing ever, because of his preconceived ideas of the nature of slavery. When he became one, he learned it isn't so bad and made friends. This is what MJ is saying by making the best of things.
I presume Joseph's dreams were fulfilled when he gained a powerful friend, and the first roll of 30 is a 3 in retrospect, that is, if he could go back in time and change it, he wouldn't. With me so far?
The problem is, the original roll is not changed, just his perception of it. Now, every time something potentially random happens to Joseph, a GE roll is made, and something new happens, letting Joseph evolve. Because of this, the roll appears to be both a 3 and a 30, when in fact other rolls and the character's actions alongside that roll determined the present in a complex tapestry of events. Do you understand what I mean?
Yeah. MJ said that you can turn a 30 to your favor. That's what Joseph did. Like I keep saying, it's just something I find interesting to think about. I'm not arguing, I'm not doing anything of the sort. Just stretching the brain muscles.
Two posts:
The thing is, you appear to be trying to do something that the rules cover in a way that the rules do no cover. I want to make sure that you understand that what you are saying can be done easily, but not by repetitive dice rolling, instead it is by interactive storytelling. That is, the referee waits to see what the player does before the secondary effects leadin to an ultimate conclusion happens. The dice can't and won't do that.
EDITED
We must have cross posted Brock.
Yes, just read the edit, it has my thoughts on your post.
I'm curious as to whether or not I got the gist of what you were saying. i don't want to argue or anything, just consider me as a communication facilitator
Not more of this.
O.K., I'll put an example to Scott's very entertaining, insightful, and correct notion.
Joseph Stalin is running for Party Chairman. Everyone knows that anyone who runs against him or opposes him will be dead.
The worst thing that could happen is that Joseph Stalin will be elected. The best thing that can happen is that Joseph Stalin will be elected. This is because the only thing that can happen is Joseph Stalin will be elected. There being no other possible outcome, any roll means Joseph Stalin is elected. Of course, that makes the roll meaningless.
Now, for Joseph and his Amazing Technicolor Dreamcoat, as Brock says, the question being determined at the moment his bugs his brothers is, how will his brothers react? At that time, a three might mean all of a sudden they see within him the leadership qualities they have overlooked all these years. As to a thirty--well, guess what, we already know that selling Joseph into slavery was not a thirty, because they were going to kill him, but Reuben argued that it would be better to throw him into the pit and leave him there. Reuben was planning to rescue him later. Thus we know that the thirty would have been that his brothers kill him right then. This bit about being sold into slavery, well, that was pretty bad, but probably not worse than a 28, maybe a 25--they could have left him to die in that pit, after all.
But all that matters at the time the dice hit the table is what Joseph's brothers do with him at that moment. I might have to think of the best thing, or the worst thing, but I don't have to think of what it is that the player is going to do with what I give him. He might be able to use his skills and attributes eventually to become the second most powerful man in the most powerful nation in the world. It might be that he never would have been in that situation had it not been for that roll. On the other hand, what would have happened had his brothers suddenly embraced him as the leader they needed? Just because that was the best thing that could have happened at that moment does not mean it would have led to the best of all possible futures. I'm not interested in the best or worst of all possible futures; I'm interested in the character's best and worst hopes and dreams for the next thirty seconds or so.
--M. J. Young
This is weird. I posted, and it says I'm the last poster, but even I can't find my own post.
Here it is again:
Not more of this.
O.K., I'll put an example to Scott's very entertaining, insightful, and correct notion.
Joseph Stalin is running for Party Chairman. Everyone knows that anyone who runs against him or opposes him will be dead.
The worst thing that could happen is that Joseph Stalin will be elected. The best thing that can happen is that Joseph Stalin will be elected. This is because the only thing that can happen is Joseph Stalin will be elected. There being no other possible outcome, any roll means Joseph Stalin is elected. Of course, that makes the roll meaningless.
Now, for Joseph and his Amazing Technicolor Dreamcoat, as Brock says, the question being determined at the moment his bugs his brothers is, how will his brothers react? At that time, a three might mean all of a sudden they see within him the leadership qualities they have overlooked all these years. As to a thirty--well, guess what, we already know that selling Joseph into slavery was not a thirty, because they were going to kill him, but Reuben argued that it would be better to throw him into the pit and leave him there. Reuben was planning to rescue him later. Thus we know that the thirty would have been that his brothers kill him right then. This bit about being sold into slavery, well, that was pretty bad, but probably not worse than a 28, maybe a 25--they could have left him to die in that pit, after all.
But all that matters at the time the dice hit the table is what Joseph's brothers do with him at that moment. I might have to think of the best thing, or the worst thing, but I don't have to think of what it is that the player is going to do with what I give him. He might be able to use his skills and attributes eventually to become the second most powerful man in the most powerful nation in the world. It might be that he never would have been in that situation had it not been for that roll. On the other hand, what would have happened had his brothers suddenly embraced him as the leader they needed? Just because that was the best thing that could have happened at that moment does not mean it would have led to the best of all possible futures. I'm not interested in the best or worst of all possible futures; I'm interested in the character's best and worst hopes and dreams for the next thirty seconds or so.
--M. J. Young
Not more of this.
Makes it sound like you think this discussion is something evil.
MJ, you thought your time travel theory was ironclad. However, after several years and several hundred emails, I finally found a hole in it.
Equate this to that. Just a fun way to explore the different aspects of the game.
Just a fun way to explore the different aspects of the game.
Except that it's logical equivalent of trying to lengthen your lifespan by committing suicide: it does not work and it will not work because it cannot work.
Exploring the nuances of GE rolls and their sometimes surprising eventual outcomes is fine and good, but please don't do it from the direction of attempting to invent a circumstance that will accomplish the logically impossible. There are better ways, ways which are less inherently absurd.
Perhaps find an example of a tricky situation in a story, assign an appropriate GE roll to what actually happened, and then attempt to invent the rest of table? It's a creative exercise in "what else could have happened," it's useful practice for when you'll need to run GE rolls on the fly as a referee, and it has the very pleasant property of not being doomed to failure.
Exploring the nuances of GE rolls and their sometimes surprising eventual outcomes is fine and good, but please don't do it from the direction of attempting to invent a circumstance that will accomplish the logically impossible.
And versing out isn't logically impossible? If you want to cut out the logically impossible from your life, then what are you doing playing in the first place? (Not any kind of insult, just an observation)
As I keep saying, this was just an idea that I got whilst doing psychosis therapy. Doing Therapy means that I am heavily intoxicated and in a psychotic state. If that frame of mind doesn't qualify me to think of the absurd, then nothing does. And since being in a psychotic state used to mean I was screaming obscenities at the top of my lungs, I'd say coming up with some absurd ideas and being able to coherently express them is quite an improvement.
"As to a thirty--well, guess what, we already know that selling Joseph into slavery was not a thirty, because they were going to kill him, but Reuben argued that it would be better to throw him into the pit and leave him there. Reuben was planning to rescue him later."
Actually, I wasn't aware of that, because I am unfamiliar with the story we were discussing, though I didn't need to be to illustrate my meaning. Is it a story from the Bible? That was the impression I got.
And versing out isn't logically impossible? If you want to cut out the logically impossible from your life, then what are you doing playing in the first place? (Not any kind of insult, just an observation)
Versing out is only impossible given certain assumptions. If you assume the existence of scriff, then it's not only logically possible, it's practically inevitable. The game assumes the existence of scriff.
That's the way logic works: you start with assumptions, and according to the rules of logic (which are akin to math, in many ways), you arrive at conclusions from those assumptions. In the real world, it would go like this:
Assumptions
1) "Versing out" requires the presence of "scriff" in order to occur.
2) "Scriff" does not exist.
3) Only existing things may have the property of being present.
Conclusions
4) From (2) and (3), scriff cannot be present.
5) From (1) and (4), "versing out" cannot occur.
If any of those assumptions can be shown to be untrue, the conclusions no longer hold. The reason I have no problem with versing out while I object to this "3 can be a 30" business is that given the game's assumptions, the former is perfectly possible while the latter can never be possible without significant changes to the rules.
Scott, if I didn't know any better, I'd almost say that you were offended by the idea that a 3 and a 30 could have the same outcome. It was just a weird idea that I had. Nothing more, nothing less. Don't you ever have weird ideas?
I'm not offended. I was trying to explain why I see no merit in the concept. The whole question has essentially been answered with the Joseph Stalin example.
I do have weird ideas.
The whole question has essentially been answered with the Joseph Stalin example.
Which, if you apply a modicum of twisted logic, proves that I was right all along.
Yes. Just not in the way you set out to be.
A 3 and 30 can have the same outcome, even if they don't take the same means of getting there.
The jeep crash at Pearl Harbor. A 3 means that the jeep comes to a nice, quiet stop, the MP is still out cold, and I can make my escape.
A 30, I'm killed and verse out.
Either way, I escaped from the MP.
See, this is what I'm talking about when I say it's fun to think about.
You see, I know what you mean. You mean stuff like that, like you say in your last post (that there can be some kind of similarity in the eventual situation following both a particular good GE roll and a particular bad one, which is true). What bothers me is that what you mean isn't what you say, and you keep saying that a 3 and a 30 can have the same outcome (which is only true for Communist elections). Maybe you think those two things are the same, and that I'm talking nonsense in this paragraph, but I don't think it's the same thing at all.
Scott, going back to my first post. You have to admit, meeting a demon in an alley, then meeting the woman of your dreams a half-heartbeat later, at first glance looks like it's both 1 in 1,000 good luck and 1 in 1,000 bad luck at the same time.
When something really unusual happens to you, don't you ever say to yourself "I'm either the luckiest guy in the world, or the unluckiest guy in the world. I'm not sure which."
A couple of months ago, I was walking home from the store, and I was really thirsty. I said "Man, I wish I had something to drink." A couple minutes later, I found an unopened can of lemonade sitting on the sidewalk. It was cold and wet, just what I wanted. A good GE roll. However, it was also lemonade. I'm not a big fan of lemonade. I drank it anyway. The fact that it was cold and wet made it a good GE roll. The fact that it was lemonade made it a bad GE roll.
It's just little things like this, where even you are not sure if you were lucky or not. That was kind of the basis for the whole thing.
Mistake.
If the character doesn't know if the recent event is his greatest desire or his worse fear, wouldn't that mean he is confused as to what he really wants, and it couldn't be a 3 or a 30? I mean, I don't claim to know the full mechanics of a GE roll, but that seems more like the character is wondering whether or not he stands to gain or lose from this, which would definitively not be the character's greatest desire; rather it would be, in the character's mind, not John's mind, that this could be good or bad-assuming the character knew about the woman being a demon.
That, and the other big point is every example you give takes in the "bigger picture", in other words you look at the event; the outcome; other events that happen because of that; etc. That is not just a GE roll; the GE roll is just what the character felt would be the best or worst or in-between outcome. In that sense, the encounter is a 3, because the character fell in love with the demoness without knowledge of what it was. Later, when he finds out, it is the worst in hindsight. Hindsight does not affect the GE roll. GE rolls apply to the character's worldview at a very specific point in time, and their response to that determines whether or not an event turns out bad. Does that make sense?
Brock, I completely understand this. MJ and others have explained it quite well. However, I'm certain that you have had things happen to you, and you weren't certain if you were lucky or not, like with me finding the can of lemonade. Yes, I was thirsty, but I could live the rest of my life without drinking another can of lemonade. Was that a good roll or a bad roll? I'm not completely certain if it was lucky or not. It's just things like that, where you yourself are not certain if you were lucky.
You're walking down the street with your best friend. A car careens out of control, misses you by mere inches, but wipes your friend clean off the map. Was that lucky for you or unlucky for you? Was it a 3 or a 30, in other words. You yourself wouldn't be sure one way or the other.
I don't need it explained to me, I'm trying to explain my thinking to all of you.
I THINK I understand what you mean, being not sure if something is lucky or not. I think that in the game's rules, that is neither a 3 or a 30, but somewhere around the middle. However, your previous posts give the impression that you do not understand. If you say you do, I will believe you. For what it's worth.
There's a deleted scene from Back to the Future 2. Millionaire Biff comes back down from the roof after his confrontation with Marty and Doc. Lorraine, thinking that Biff killed Marty, is waiting at the bottom of the stairs with a shotgun.
In that scenario, Biff dies in 1985. In the original scenario, Biff lives at least until 2015. It all goes back to getting the sports almanac. Yes, he became one of the richest men in the world, but he also died 30 years earlier. Was getting the book a good thing or a bad thing? I'm willing to bet that, upon seeing Lorraine with the shotgun, Biff's last thought was "I wish I'd never found that damn sports almanac." It's just something I think is fun to think about, that's all.
And versing out isn't logically impossible?
Versing out is not logically impossible; it is simply false.
Let me illustrate.
When objects reduce in temperature, their molecules draw closer together, making them denser. This in turn makes them heavier per unit volume. That means that the solid form of any material is heavier than its liquid form, and will sink to the bottom of a pool of such a liquid. Liquid iron will pool, and as it solidifies the solid material will sink to the bottom as the hot liquid rises to the top. It is so for every known material--except water. When water reaches one degree above the temperature at which it solidifies (freezes), its molecules twist sideways, pushing them away from each other. Thus as the water solidifies into ice, it becomes less dense than the cold water surrounding it, and floats to the top. That is not the way any other material acts. However, it is not logically impossible for it to do that, just as it would not be logically impossible for solid iron to sink to the bottom of a vat of liquid iron--it is merely that one material acts differently from every other.
On the other hand, we could propose that when you heat smurg to its boiling point, it promptly turns into a solid gas, which being more dense than the surrounding air rises. This is logically impossible, because being solid and being gaseous are contradictory states: it cannot be both solid and gaseous, because the words themselves mean opposing states. It is also logically impossible for denser objects to rise because of their density (although the might rise for some other reason), because objects rise when surrounded by a denser medium.
In the same way, versing is not logically impossible, it is simply something not known ever to have happened to anyone. It is not impossible to imagine a world in which everyone who dies comes back in another world--any more than it would be logically impossible for everyone who dies to be reincarnated, or to continue in a spirit existence, or to receive a new heavenly body, or to cease to have any future existence at all. Any of those things might be the case. Presumably only one of them actually is the case, but since we cannot prove to everyone's satisfaction which it is we cannot exclude the possibility of the others. It might be the case that ice would sink as every other solid sinks; but we have proven that this is not true, and we now understand why.
Yet it is logically impossible for the best possible outcome and the worst possible outcome for the same person in the same circumstances would be the same exact outcome. There are only two ways you can make it appear so, and both of these are sophistry:
- You can extend the "consequence" beyond that which is controlled by the roll to include what the player does with the outcome. For this, we could say that the outcome is that the player rolls 3 and wins the lottery. If the character then runs down to the local pub, waves the winning ticket around, and is mugged, killed, and robbed, that is not the consequence of the roll, but a subsequent consequence of his own stupid actions. The roll determines only that part which is good or bad initially, not what we make of it.
- You can expand the "consequence" by adding conditions, and thus say that on a 3 the character won the lottery and was thrilled, and able to do all the things he wanted, but on a 30 he won the lottery and the shock of it gave him a heart attack and a stroke such that he was never able to enjoy any of the money because he was paralyzed and had limited mental capacity. But in that case, you don't have the same consequence, but two different consequences designed to be superficially similar. The consequence in the first case is that the character is able to do all the things he always wanted (because he won the lottery), and in the second that he is paralyzed and brain damaged due to a simultaneous cardiac infarction and cerebral hemorhage from shock (because he won the lottery). The thing that you're trying to make "the same" is entirely incidental.
And thus you write:
The jeep crash at Pearl Harbor. A 3 means that the jeep comes to a nice, quiet stop, the MP is still out cold, and I can make my escape....and somehow you fail to see that the real point is not that "the jeep crashes" is the same thing either way, but that "the jeep crashes with a lurch knocking out the MP so you can escape" is entirely different from "The jeep crashes violently, killing everyone aboard and versing you out." You try to make two things the same that are entirely different.A 30, I'm killed and verse out.
Either way, I escaped from the MP.
Or you say,
A couple of months ago, I was walking home from the store, and I was really thirsty. I said "Man, I wish I had something to drink." A couple minutes later, I found an unopened can of lemonade sitting on the sidewalk. It was cold and wet, just what I wanted. A good GE roll. However, it was also lemonade. I'm not a big fan of lemonade. I drank it anyway. The fact that it was cold and wet made it a good GE roll. The fact that it was lemonade made it a bad GE roll....which is neither a 3 nor a 30, because a 3 would have been that you suddenly got a case of something you really do like, and a 30 would be that you found a bottle of something that looked like something you would like, drank some, and then discovered that it had been laced with some drug to make you even more thirsty. What you describe is probably a 12, good enough, because you got something to drink that you could drink that would quench your thirst, even if it would not have been your first choice. (A 15 probably would have been a working water fountain, and a 14 might have been a working water cooler, and maybe a 13 would be a lemonade stand willing to sell you one small cup of lemonade for the last fifty cents you've got in your pocket.)
And your example of standing next to the friend when he is hit by a car again is neither the best nor the worst that could happen--it is probably on the very bad side, maybe 25 or 28, but to think that it might be a thirty recalls that Weird Al song where he gets caught in traffic on the way to work because his friend was decapitated in a motor vehicle accident, and boy, is this Al's bad luck because now he's going to be late for work and his friend owed him five bucks that he'll never be able to collect, and these terrible things are always happening to him. Not everything that happens to you is a 3 or a 30.
And it was not getting the sports almanac that led to Bif's death, but what he ultimately did with it.
The reason I say "not this again" is because it is so very plainly obvious that the best thing and the worst thing cannot be the same thing, logically, that your efforts to explore how to make them so are simply terribly frustrating forays into the same attempts at disguising the real outcomes to look the same.
Scott's right: it would be worthwhile practice to create general effects roll lists, in which you envision a specific individual character in a specific situation and then create a best possible outcome and a worst possible outcome and every outcome between the two for the purpose of a table. There are a few examples of this in the referee's rules, although the ones that come to mind are all based on an assumption that there was a botch (and thus the best outcome is usually very minor damage and the worst incredibly severe destruction.) But there are a lot of things you can do with the idea. You could even try including "look-alike" outcomes on opposite ends of the scale, and so figure out why "Barely Good Enough" and "Just Bad Enough" are different, or how to distinguish "Not Favorable" from "Not Unfavorable".
--M. J. Young
The reason I say "not this again" is because it is so very plainly obvious that the best thing and the worst thing cannot be the same thing, logically, that your efforts to explore how to make them so are simply terribly frustrating forays into the same attempts at disguising the real outcomes to look the same.
I didn't ask if the best thing could be the same as the worst thing, I asked if your 1 in 1,000 best hope could be exactly the same as your 1 in 1,000 worst fear. That's not the same as what you're saying. (Do us both a favor and don't even try to argue with me about it)
How many times do I have to say it? It was just a dumb idea that I got whilst I was drunk, stoned, and in a psychotic state. If being in that frame of mind doesn't permit a person to think of dumb ideas, then nothing does.
(Do us both a favor and don't even try to argue with me about it)
Am I allowed to argue with you about it?
What? Do you think you're special Scott? No one is. It's not something I could explain even if I wanted to.
Things are physical. They exist. They're tangible. Hope and fear are abstract, they're states of mind. They don't really exist. How can a physical thing be the same as an abstract concept?
(That's the closest I could get to explaining it, and now you should see why I didn't want anyone to argue about it)
What? Do you think you're special Scott? No one is.
No, not particularly. You were addressing MJ directly, though, so there was a chance you meant just him.
I don't intend to argue any further, though. I won't convince you, and anyone else reading can just go back and read my posts.
Yeah, that did come out a bit more rude than I intended. I quit smoking yesterday, so I'm a bit irritable.
What I was saying about hope and fear though. Hope and fear are not tangible things. I'm not even certain if the question still relates to Multiverser in the context in which I'm using it. I just felt like waxing philosophical with it. That's why I didn't want people to argue with me on it.
See, maybe a 3 and a 30 can't be the same thing, but I do know that your hopes and fears can be the same.
As mentioned, I'm attempting to quit smoking. This is for purely financial reasons rather than health reasons. A friend of mine owes me some money, and he said he might have it yesterday. With that, I was planning to buy cigarettes.
I do want to quit, so my hope is that he doesn't have the money. I don't want to quit, so my hope is that does have it. My fear is that he has the money and I can buy cigarettes. My fear is that he doesn't have the money, and I can't buy cigarettes.
So, a 3 would be that he has the money. A 3 would be that he doesn't have the money. A 30 would be that he doesn't have the money. A 30 would be that he does have it.
You'd have to be a smoker to understand this logic.
So yes, your hopes and fears can be exactly the same, which is the entire point I was making.
Multiple Posts
A 3 and a 30 can have exactly the same outcome, and unless you're a smoker, you have no business arguing with me about it. (Just so you know, I'm laughing hysterically right now!!!!)
Multiple Posts
A 3 would be that you win a lifetime supply of cigarettes.
A 30 would be that you win a lifetime supply of cigarettes.
A 3 would be that cigarettes are made illegal.
A 30 would be that cigarettes are made illegal.
These would follow the hopes and fears of a person who smoked. These would be accurate to what that person was thinking.
A non-smoker is going to automatically say that quitting is the right thing to do. However, that does not reflect the hopes and fears of the smoker. Only another smoker could possibly understand this.
A 3 and 30 can have exactly the same outcome, and it's not the only possible outcome.
I WIN!!!!!!!!
Multiple Posts
If you went into a store to buy cigarettes, the GE roll chart would look something like this.
3, you win a lifetime supply/cigarettes are illegal
4-15, cigarettes are cheap
16-17 cigarettes are the price you expect
18-29 cigarettes are expensive
30 you win a lifetime supply/cigarettes are illegal.
Yes, this would follow the hopes and fears of the smoker, and unless you're a smoker, you have no right to argue about it.