Ya know, I was just thinking about the worlds I've been to. I freely admit, I know very little about how this works, but from what I've seen, I don't think there is such a thing as a "Good World" for a player. Worlds are what the player makes them.
My first world was pointless. It was fun. I spent my time learning psionics and having fun.
My next world was Pearl Harbor. MJ believed that it would be fun and exciting for me. Instead, it became a place where I was forced at gunpoint to get involved in a situation that I wouldn't have wanted to get within 20 miles of.*
My next world, Dancing Princess, MJ thought that I would save the princesses and become king. Instead, I learned blacksmithing. What was believed was going to be a world where I became king became something totally unexpected.
My current world so far is pointless. It's become a place where I could augment my equipment and learn some new skills.
Stop trying to think what would be "Good Worlds" and just pick them. The world will be what the player makes it. I don't think there is such a thing as a "Good World" for a player. I think it's just what the player makes it into.
*EDIT And just because I don't want to start that argument of whether I was forced to get involved, I just wanted to say that going to the base AT ALL is more involved than I would have chosen to get. I now have a better understanding of why the force was needed, however, I do now and always will believe that I was forced to get involved. If left to my own devices, I would have left Pearl Harbor completely.
John, the "point" of your first world was solely to make you aware that you were not in your own universe anymore, so that you would accept the notion of being a verser. It thus was not pointless.
You are correct that all worlds are what you make them.
On the other hand, as far as whether something is going to be a "good" world for your character, let me suggest that I have a number of worlds which would clearly not be good for you. Quest for the Vorgo comes to mind, as does Prisoner of Zenda, Most Dangerous Game, The Last Starfighter, and The Farmland Beta. What all these worlds have in common is that they are very good for a player whose character wants to get involved, help other people, and make a difference, and absolutely terrible for anyone whose character is a selfish self-centered self-serving hermit who doesn't care if the entire universe is destroyed as long as he can get something out of it for himself before he moves on.
If I chose worlds at random, you'd wind up in a lot more of those in which the only thing to do is save the universe. You don't want those, so I'm trying intelligently to choose worlds where you can do whatever you want and try to benefit from them.
Of course, you've managed to mess up this one in ways you don't even suspect at this point, but when it's all over and the dust settles I'll explain how and why.
--M. J. Young
On the other hand, as far as whether something is going to be a "good" world for your character, let me suggest that I have a number of worlds which would clearly not be good for you. Quest for the Vorgo comes to mind, as does Prisoner of Zenda, Most Dangerous Game, The Last Starfighter, and The Farmland Beta. What all these worlds have in common is that they are very good for a player whose character wants to get involved, help other people, and make a difference, and absolutely terrible for anyone whose character is a selfish self-centered self-serving hermit who doesn't care if the entire universe is destroyed as long as he can get something out of it for himself before he moves on.
Speaking out of ignorance is often (very often) the only way you can ever learn anything, so here goes. Why wouldn't they be good worlds for me? I thought this game could do ANYTHING. If it can truly do anything, then the best places to put me would be in worlds where involvement and interference is required for the story to work. If you can put me into one of those scenarios, and the game still flows, then the game can do anything. However, if you put me into one of them, and the story falls completely apart and you can't come up with anything, then I've just broken your "Do Anything" philosophy.
And why are you insulting me? The very nature of versing makes it so much easier to NOT get involved. You asked me once if the entire universe was going to be destroyed, would I help? Well, that's the way Dancing Princess was. (Notice, it took leading from an angel of God to get me to do anything.) I'm a visitor to the universe. I can leave any time I want to, simply by pressing my 9mm to my head. That makes not getting involved so much easier. I don't give a hoot about the world I live in, why would I care about one I was a visitor to? Plus, since I can leave any time I want to, it's ultimately not my concern.
Imagine if you will that you were suddenly dropped in the middle of Iraq during Desert Storm. You have all of the weapons you would need to launch a successful attack against a fortified bunker. You ALSO have a magic wand that will instantly teleport you back to the safety of your living room any time you want to use it. Would you use the rifle or the magic wand? I'm betting you would use the magic wand.....
I actually probably have a better chance of effectively using a magic wand than a rifle, so that's not a fair assessment. Also, the fact that I could get hurt pretty severely would be a deterent to me using the gun.
I think you've misunderstood the "do anything" philosophy of the game rather badly.
We've probably had the discussion before, as to whether there is anything God cannot do. C. S. Lewis answer is no there is not, but the thing has to be a real thing. God cannot do what is inherently self-contradictory (the round square); he cannot make 2+2 equal 3 or 5 in base ten standard arithmetic. (He can change the meanings of the symbols, but that's not the same thing.)
Multiverser can do anything. That means it can create and run worlds in which you would have fun. That means it can create and run worlds in which Harry would have fun. It does not mean that it can turn you into Harry or Harry into you, such that you would both enjoy the same kinds of worlds.
It's like if I said I can make any kind of ice cream, and you then said you don't like chocolate, but you'd like to see me make chocolate ice cream that you would like. The fact that you don't like chocolate ice cream does not mean I can't make it; it means that I can make it but you won't like it. In the same way, the fact that I can create and run participationist and trailblazing game worlds does not mean that you, who really want bass-player worlds, would enjoy them. You would want them to run like bass-player worlds, and they aren't designed to do that, any more than that a bass-player world would work for a trailblazer player.
In fact, I don't know if you remember Donna, but she had a rather hard time in some of the early worlds in which I put her, because most of the stuff she had done with Eric had been trailblazer stuff and I was doing bass-player stuff with her--she was trying to figure out what it was I wanted her to do, and I was creating scenarios in which it was up to her to create something. You might have done very well in some of those worlds. It took her quite a bit of effort to adapt to the idea that I didn't want her to figure out what it was she was "supposed to do" to tell my story, but rather to tell me her story based on what she wanted to do.
This game still will do anything. It will do many things you would absolutely hate. I can do those things, and cram you into them, and you won't enjoy the game at all. Or I can figure out what it is you like and try to give you that.
Also, don't think it's so easy to kill yourself. You've either never tried or you've already failed, and either way you are not in a position to say it's easy to do. Most people fail the necessary difficult will-power check that stands between them and pulling the trigger, and you need a seriously major change in circumstances to get another chance.
--M. J. Young
It's like if I said I can make any kind of ice cream, and you then said you don't like chocolate, but you'd like to see me make chocolate ice cream that you would like. The fact that you don't like chocolate ice cream does not mean I can't make it; it means that I can make it but you won't like it.
There's a fallacy in your thinking MJ. There is more than one kind of chocolate ice cream. To use an example, I absolutely LOVED (Please note, past tense) barbecue beef sandwiches.... Until I had one at a restaurant in my friend's neighborhood. It was HORRIBLE!!!!!! Before that day, I would have said "There's no such thing as a bad barbecue beef sandwich." I was proven wrong. If I don't like chocolate, and I ask you to make me one that I would like, you COULD possibly make one.
You believe that a trailblazer world would be bad for me. Well, how do you know? If the world requires the player to get involved or everything falls completely apart, then you're not doing your job.
To use an example from my limited understanding, Quest for the Vorgo. I would walk right out the front door and never look back. If they try to stop me, they will get shot. (I AM NOT going to be forced to do anything again, I don't care who they are!!!!) Well, that means that the undead are going to come for me. So? What's the problem? Can you not handle that? It would be something completely unique that you've never tried before. Stretching your brain muscles, so to speak. I thought that was why you spent so many hours answering time travel questions.
O.K., thing one: I was going to include this link to Theory 101: The Impossible Thing Before Breakfast, but I didn't. Obviously you don't know what a trailblazer world is, so you didn't understand half of what I was saying. In brief, the point of a trailblazer world is this: there is an unspoken pact between the referee and the player(s) such that the referee has already decided what it is that the player characters are supposed to do, and the players are committed to figuring out what that is and doing that. If you've ever played any of the old text-based computer RPGs such as Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy, or some of the console ones such as the early Final Fantasy games, this is how they're constructed: it's as if the whole world is a puzzle, and you have to unravel each step along the way in order to win the game. If you succeed, you win; if you fail, you lose. But in order for such a game to work at all, the player must be committed already to trying to do what it is the referee planned for him.
You have already stated up front that you won't do what the referee plans for you; therefore, you have refused to play in a trailblazing game. If I lock you inside that cube that you have to solve the clues to get out, you'll just let it kill you and move to the next world, because after all, you're not interested in doing what the referee plans for you. That's fine. It means you are not a trailblazer player, and I can't expect you to act like one. It also means that trailblazer worlds would be very bad ideas for you, because they have to move to contingencies and abandon their entire point immediately.
Thing two: just because a world is a trailblazer world does not mean I can't use the skeleton of it as the basis for a world that would work for bass-playing. (And just so we're on the same page, "bass-playing" is the approach by which the referee sets up the concept of the world and thereafter just follows what the player decides, letting the player create the story while he simply interacts with it.) Had you not asked the angel about what you should do in Dancing Princess, no one would have told you that the demons were taking over the world, and you'd have been caught in the tide of demonic oppression as they expanded their domain over more countries and pressed more humans into service. That works. It's not, to my mind, anywhere near as cool a story as you rescuing the princesses from the demons, but if it's the story you chose, it can play. Still, that's not really a good bass-player world, because it's already filled with a timeline of events that are going to happen, whether or not you are involved, and which are going to impact you eventually. If I drop you into Bah Ke'gehn, it's not really necessary for anything ever to happen that you do not initiate. There are a couple of events the referee can throw at you if he thinks it's dull and you need something interesting, but that's really at his judgment and he can ignore them. I can give you a world in which nothing happens. You can use it however you like. If you seem to find it interesting, I'll leave it alone. If you try to make something happen, something will happen--although it might not at all be what you actually wanted.
So you have stated your opposition to the trailblazing style of refereeing, and I am going to avoid it in your case as much as possible in the future. Let the dice fall as they will--but don't tell me that any world is fine for you when the first thing you're going to do in a trailblazing or participationist world is demolish the storyline. Those worlds are the storyline, and if you don't go with them, they aren't the worlds they were made to be, but some different world that has a vague resemblance to them.
--M. J. Young
How about this, John: the good worlds are the ones where it's easy for us both to have fun. If it's really difficult to have fun, for either of us, it's a bad world for you.
So you have stated your opposition to the trailblazing style of refereeing, and I am going to avoid it in your case as much as possible in the future. Let the dice fall as they will--but don't tell me that any world is fine for you when the first thing you're going to do in a trailblazing or participationist world is demolish the storyline. Those worlds are the storyline, and if you don't go with them, they aren't the worlds they were made to be, but some different world that has a vague resemblance to them.
Well, still speaking in ignorance in an attempt to learn, what exactly would be wrong with that? That's like saying that the storyline is so fixed and so rigid that you, as referee, could not possibly make it interesting for me.
Let us suppose that, in Dancing Princess, instead of staying in the same area and learning blacksmithing, I decided to travel. It took about 2 years before I found out about the demons. In that time, I could have conceivably traveled to the other side of the world. I could have gone from "England" to "China" something you would never anticipate, and probably would not be prepared for. However, I COULD have done it. Are you saying that there is an invisible wall around the known storyline where my character cannot pass? I can't "Break the Barriers" and do something that has never before been done?
I really think you should try putting me into one of your puzzle box worlds. If the world falls completely apart, then this isn't nearly as flexible as you thought it would be.
In Pearl Harbor, suppose that I had gone with my first instinct and shot the MP. Then let us suppose that I had rolled a 3 and gotten away clean. (No one hears the shot, I sneak past the MPs, and make my escape.) Now I'm in 1941 Hawaii and Adam has to deal with that. I could reasonably have done that. (And I REALLY wish I had!!!!) What you're saying is that that would not have been a reasonable course of action for my character.
What you're saying is that that would not have been a reasonable course of action for my character.
No, he's saying that, given that that sort of thing is what your character would do, why would he bother sending you to that world? If all I have prepared for World One is Storyline A, and I know you don't follow storylines, I shouldn't send you to World One. I should send someone else to World One, someone who will follow Storyline A (we'll call him Gene), and that way I haven't wasted the preparation I did for that storyline.
I'll send you to World Two instead; World Two doesn't have any storyline for you to ignore, so I won't have wasted any of my time and hard work. What I have prepared for World Two is enough basic information to get you started no matter what you do, and enough of an outline of the nature of the world to fill in the rest once I'm sure of what you're doing.
See, World Two is a good world for you, and World One is not. World One is a good world for Gene; it's got a cool story that he'll have fun with. World Two is a bad world for Gene. He'll spend a long time trying to figure out what he should be doing, and by the time he starts making things interesting by playing it the way you would play it, he'll be frustrated and ready to verse out.
OK Scott, that makes a little bit more sense, but again:
In Pearl Harbor, suppose that I had gone with my first instinct and shot the MP. Then let us suppose that I had rolled a 3 and gotten away clean. (No one hears the shot, I sneak past the MPs, and make my escape.) Now I'm in 1941 Hawaii and Adam has to deal with that. I could reasonably have done that. (And I REALLY wish I had!!!!)
Even the way I DID run it, I completely derailed all of Adam's plans. I'm sure he didn't intend for me to end up in the hospital and the attack having very little to do with what happened. (If he did, then he is one sadistic SOB indeed) Suppose that, instead of surrendering, I had shot the MP and made a clean escape. (I seriously considered trying that.) Now all of Adam's planning goes right out the door. Not because I didn't follow what I was "supposed" to do, but because I did something Adam didn't anticipate.
Mistake, sorry.
Three Posts, and no more
MJ WROTE:
Of course, you've managed to mess up this one in ways you don't even suspect at this point, but when it's all over and the dust settles I'll explain how and why.
Well, I already know that the verser teacher brings bad things with her. My question though is why? You could just as easily say that *This Time* there will be no bad thing happen, no dust to settle, no problems. I'll just live with Lauren (or whoever it is) and stay in TerraNova for the next twenty years. You have complete control over when that happens. Why do you have to make it happen? See, now YOU'RE not being flexible. You're following the path "John prays for teacher. Lauren shows up. When Lauren shows up, BAD THINGS MUST HAPPEN!!!!!"
You could just as easily say "John prays for teacher. Lauren shows up. John and Lauren live in TerraNova for twenty years without a problem." Why not do that?
Four Posts (Yeah, I know I said I wouldn't post again, but this just occurred to me)
Also, don't think it's so easy to kill yourself. You've either never tried or you've already failed, and either way you are not in a position to say it's easy to do. Most people fail the necessary difficult will-power check that stands between them and pulling the trigger, and you need a seriously major change in circumstances to get another chance.
Then why see if I will warn them at Pearl Harbor? If I know the attack is coming, and there is an extremely high probability that I will get killed if I don't warn them, that's pretty much the same as committing suicide isn't it? Why not just give me a difficult will power check and avoid the whole situation? Not warning them of the attack will kill me just as dead as putting my 9mm to my head. What's the difference?
And yes MJ, I HAVE tried to kill myself. (Anything to be relieved of the pain of a psychotic episode) The thought that stopped me was that I would have to stand before God if I did kill myself. My character doesn't have that fear.
Starsong is pretty unstructured, and Jhiaxus is there now having a good time running a resort hotel/training in martial arts around the sun Rhythm, whereas MJ started a Coca-cola company and a musical career on Strauss around the sun Harmony.
I did come from a background where pure railroading was acceptable as a technique, however J taught me the virtues of player freedom to which I was most receptive.
I suspect the biggest difference is my lower threshold of boredom. Something is going to happen,and its going to tend to become a story. My games have a very rapid pace when the equation is events/time passed.
Some players get more freedom as they're good with it, and so with players like MJ, or J, or Jhiaxus...people who have a decisive drive I let them push the story forward a lot on their own much of the time.
I rarely go pure storyline as this seems to work poorly. Its a dance and a partnership instead of a 'follow me'. I rarely just let the player have months pass with little happening (although I've learned to do this from MJ and others). It seems painful to me to make most of the game like this.
I've been working on a theory of how to run a 'training' game successfully, and I did run one with a player called Mike who was a fire priest and spent the whole game learning fire magic....which I made difficult and adventurous.
To this point we've been talking in rather black-and-white terms: the story world on one side and the open world on the other. The fact is, the vast majority of world designs fall somewhere between the two. Pearl Harbor is an excellent example of a world that falls between the two in a very particular way: it is a world with an immutable timeline on which certain events will occur, no matter what the player character does; he can choose how he will interact with that timeline, within the limitations of what can be done in that world.
Had you shot the MP and made an escape, Adam would have worked with that. He worked with you getting into an unplanned accident. He certainly did not start with the assumption that you were going to do any particular thing--only that he was going to make you aware quite quickly that you were on that timeline, so you could make decisions and interact with his scenario.
After all, we could have had this discussion a thousand different ways. What if you were on the beach inside the compound, and no one saw you, and you made camp, and then the Japanese attacked, bombing your beach along with everything else? You would be complaining that we didn't tell you where you were. Maybe had you handled the situation differently, the MP would have responded differently--or maybe there was a roll unseen or perhaps forgotten that controlled the MP's reaction, and had it been difficult he'd have chased you out of the compound with a warning.
Also, being on the base without letting anyone know about the attack would not have been "suicide". It might arguably have been "suicidal", but there is a distinct difference. I don't think that the casualties at Pearl Harbor were anywhere near 100% dead--entire crews of several ships survived, at the very least, along with some pilots and significant numbers of people on the ground. You might have died, or you might have survived--and taking a risk is not the same thing as killing yourself.
I will explain about the problem after this world is over, if you ask me then. Do not bring it up again before then, or I will just shut down your game, verse you out, and announce that someone else will have to run you if anyone is willing to do so.
You have made it clear that you do not want anyone to impose a storyline on the worlds in which you play. I will do that to the degree I am able; but you've invited trouble, and as John Wick would say, when you invite trouble, you get trouble.
--M. J. Young
I guess I wasn't completely clear. Do you ever do something just to see if you are able to do it? No other motive, than simply to see if you are capable of doing something? I do this quite a lot.
Something that I've found out about this game (and it's why I get so confused so easily) is because things are often (very often) exactly the opposite of what I would have expected.
Example. I would have thought that the best way to see if I would get involved would be to let me NOT get involved. I realize now that the way to do that would be to force me into the situation. It took me a really long time to realize that, but I do. As I keep saying, you think it was annoying to you? You only had to hear about it here. You're not inside my head. Believe me, it got annoying. (Actually, I don't think there's a word in the English language which would describe the level of frustration that I felt over that particular issue.)
Since I now see that the opposite of what I would expect is often (very often) the right way to go, perhaps you should think that way as well.
Put me into a situation that requires player involvement, and see what happens. If it doesn't work out, do like you said, verse me out. It goes back to what I said about doing something just to see if you are capable of doing it.
You were right about one thing though. Pearl Harbor was the best world I have been to, in terms of what I have learned. I thought that was a botch on your part. Actually, it was probably the best place I could have been sent. We need a slap in the face every now and then to make us see how things really are.
I think God does that. (Titanic, natural disasters, to name a few) Gives us a bloody nose every now and then to show us who is in charge.
Two Posts
And MJ, I think I need to set the record straight. I WAS complaining about my treatment in Pearl Harbor. I'm not complaining about it anymore. It was just something I had to get straight in my head. It's about 90% straight now.
I'm sure there are things in your life that you feel you were railroaded in. I'm also sure that you're probably the only person who feels that you were railroaded. Does the fact that you're the only person who believes you were railroaded make it feel any less to you?
It was just something I had to get straight in my head. It would be impossible for you to understand why. Now that it's mostly straight in my head, it seems to be stuck in your head. Why don't you do what I should have done a long time ago, and just let it go? Any further comments that I make about that will (most likely) be asking about the rules or using it as an example for something else.
John, it's as Scott says: why should I waste a world like that on you?
Let's take Cask of Amontilado. Here's the setup: you arrive in the Alps, rather completely lost of course, and start walking, presumably along the dirt road next to you--or maybe cross country. It doesn't really matter which way you go, all you will see is mountains, trees, and large villas of wealthy people.
There are towns somewhere, but the script says you don't find one. You don't find anything but homes until you knock on the door of one of them, where a very helpful butler invites you in as if you were expected, and calls for the master, who insists you come have dinner. He then speaks about the wine he has in his cellar which he believes may be an Amontilado, but he wants your expert opinion. He also keeps giving you plenty to drink, trying to get you drunk.
You are by now "in". Whatever you do, that man is going to attempt to kill you--not yet, not openly. He believes that you are his enemy, the man he has never met but who has ruined him, cost him his family fortune. He intends to wall you into the wine cellar and leave you there to perish. He does not intend to let you know this until you are chained to the wall and the bricks are being laid.
Of course, you might persuade him that this is a case of mistaken identity. In that case, the "real" enemy arrives, apologizing that he was delayed at the faire in Soryo and hoping that he is not too late to taste the wine. Now the game becomes more complex. Presumably you do not know that he plans to kill anyone (because once you know that, you're already chained to the wall in the cellar). However, you do know that the victim arrived at this house, and you will have to be killed to keep that secret secret. The host continues to be cordial and kind, offering you a place to stay for the night and help getting oriented in the morning--but he will kill you in your sleep and report you as an intruder, or fight you in the dark if you do not sleep. If you escape, he will pursue you, discretely but doggedly, trying for a chance to finish you.
All of that is a story in which the referee locks the player character (some of the tricks are evident in the telling above). I have decided that you will be involved, and this is how you will be involved. You can make some choices that alter the events significantly, but you cannot escape the fact that this is very much about an individual battle between you and a clever killer--and that if you kill him without proof that it was self-defense, you will probably wind up at war against the Italian police department when they finger you for the murder.
You don't want me to lock you into that story. Maybe you'll just kill the host as soon as he gives you his name, and flee the area looking to escape into Switzerland or Austria. I don't know what your aversion to involvement will lead you to do. I do know that I put a great deal of work into designing a "world" in which the "design", the work I did, was all about how to get you hooked into the story. You do not want to be hooked into the story, and you will fight against the line. That's not fun for either of us. Why would I do it? I'd have more fun dropping you into the world of the benevolent purple dinosaur and watching you stew there for a while trying to figure out how to get out again. We would both have more fun if I dropped you into a world where you don't have to do anything at all, but can choose to do whatever interests you.
I mean seriously, the "design" of Cask of Amontilado does not even include a floorplan of the house or a distance to the town. It is entirely about making the story happen. That is a specific kind of world design for a specific kind of play--a kind of play you have openly rejected.
So why don't I put you into that world and see what happens? Because nothing happens, except that I have to write a new world from nothing more than that it is nineteenth century Italy where everyone speaks English, and that means a lot of research and effort on my part to fill in bits that I would already have done if I put you into a world which was more open-ended--like, for example, Sherwood Forest, where my research already tells me what's happening in nearly every major country in Europe.
Does that make sense?
--M. J. Young
John, it's as Scott says: why should I waste a world like that on you?
I think you need to clean your glasses MJ. I told you. To see what would happen. Now you're claiming to know what I would do before I do it.
Dancing Princess. What I hear is that the princesses are sleepwalking. BOR-ING!!!!! That tells me that the princesses need a doctor, not a wizard or warrior. (Yeah, I know that wasn't the case, but I said that it was what I heard.) Now if you had told me that the princesses were being stalked by demons right from the get-go, I think I would have been much more eager to get involved. That's action, that's excitement. Sleepwalking princesses? Why should I get involved in that? To me, it sounded like it would have been boring and stupid. Hence, staying back and learning blacksmithing.
It's not that I don't want to get involved, it's that you haven't yet found the scenario that would make me get involved.
Quest for the Vorgo "We need you to retrieve the Vorgo." My response "What? Are your legs broken? Why don't YOU retrieve it?"
Alternately, Quest for the Vorgo "There are thousands of undead monsters that are taking over the world. We need someone to kill them." My response "Oh the chance to kill zombies.... Where do I sign up?"
See the difference?
Two Posts
My first world Giant mutated insects that are rare and easy to avoid. Scott and the others want to start an awareness campaign to get people rallied around it.
SNOOZE!!!!!!!!!!!
Alternately my first world. Giant mutated insects are taking over the world. There is a well known group of militia fighters who engage and destroy the giant insects at every opportunity.
"CAN I DRIVE THE TANK????????????????????"
See the difference?
Three Posts, and no more
It's like what you said about getting involved at Pearl Harbor just for the altruism of it. I'm not going to automatically get involved in any world, just for the sake of getting involved. That's stupid.
Pearl Harbor itself was a terrible world to send me to. That was one of the single most important historical events of the 20th century. Why would I want to mess with that? That's why I was so insistent that I would have just wanted to leave. I wouldn't want to be anywhere near there. Not because I wouldn't want to get killed, but because I have enough sense to know that I shouldn't touch it. In itself, Pearl Harbor was absolutely the single worst world you could ever send me to. There's no reason to get involved there. It turned out beautifully. (Please note, we aren't typing in German) I would NEVER want to get involved there.
If you wanted to see if I would get involved in a situation where I already knew the outcomes, and had dropped me on board the Titanic, you would have found out something totally different. THAT was a totally pointless loss of life. THAT I would probably try to stop. Not because I fear dying, but because it was totally pointless where hundreds of people died. That's pointless death. There's a reason to stop that.
I'm not going to get involved just for the altruism of it. There has to be a point. Something for me. Combat would be a good place to start. So far, you've sent me to worlds that I had no reason to get involved in. If you gave me a world that I was interested in getting involved in, I would get involved. It's not that I don't want to get involved, it's that you so far haven't found it.
I'm not going to get involved just for the sake of getting involved. That's pointless and stupid. It's not a non-involvement policy, it's a "Can MJ find the world that I would want to get involved in?" policy. So far, not.
Give me a world that requires involvement. If it's one that I want to get involved in, I will. If not, I won't.
So basically A1nut wants worlds where there is some essential conflict that is a clear and present threat, where his involvement is the only real way to make a difference.
For instance:
1: A zombie apocalypse world.
2: A world wherein another verser is ruling as a god-king, and only he (being a verser) can tell that the guy is a sham, while the people remain oblivious and can't help themselves.
3: A world where somebody did mess with Pearl Harbor, and things have taken a turn for the worse, but there are rebels trying to do something about it (as I imagine John would not have much trouble with the idea of sniping Nazi enforcers).
That sort of thing more what you're looking for?
In any of those worlds, you could theoretically choose not to get involved. You could hide in a hole while the zombies eat people. You could take a job somewhere and hope not to be sacrificed to the Emperor. You could knuckle under and let the Nazis rule. But somehow those options seem more boring than getting involved and fighting, or organizing the fight.
I'm not exactly sure Osevens. I just know that I'm a visitor to their world. I'm not a savior, I'm not a messiah, I'm just a visitor. It would have to be something that I would be concerned about.
The "you're the only one who can and everybody is buggered like there's no tomorrow if you don't" thing doesn't grab you?
Dancing Princess. The princesses go to sleep in their room. When they come out, they are exhausted and have each worn out a pair of slippers.
The princesses are sleepwalking in their room. What's the problem?
Now if MJ had told me right up front "There are 5 hell spawn demons which are kidnapping the princesses every night, taking them to their fortress and doing horrible things to them."
THAT would get me motivated to do something.
Sleepwalking princesses. Big deal. Send them to a doctor, have the doctor give them some Ambien. Problem solved.
Demons which can be killed by gunfire. THAT is something I can take care of. THAT is something that only I can fix.
As soon as I found out about the demons from an angel of God, I jumped right on it. Sleepwalking princesses? I fail to see how that concerns me.
Ok, I see what your problem with that is.
See, the "the princesses are sleepwalking" thing, it begs you to ask the question "why?" If you don't care why, if the simple fact that something plainly mysterious is going on isn't enough to move you, then that's too subtle a plot hook for you.
That's the problem you're having, is dealing with plot hooks. You need a really big plot hook in order to be interested. Like, the size of a dumptruck. Full of metal. That's on fire.
MJ said he put me there to see if I would rescue a damsel in distress.
I would rescue a damsel in distress.
I wouldn't risk my life to help a couple of princesses with a sleeping disorder.
I didn't see damsels in distress. I saw princesses with a sleeping disorder.
So yeah, Osevens, you're exactly right.
So, on the one hand, your referees need to do a better job of being compulsively un-subtle with you. And on the other hand, you kinda need to work on assuming that things are significant. That is to say, be more curious. Things can be interesting without being dangerous, so you may not need to risk your life (nor even one of your infinitely many lives, if you think about it) in order to find something interesting in a world. Heck, if you took a page from House's book, three sisters with the exact same sleeping disorder would be mighty interesting, wouldn't it? And a good soldier ought to know at least a little basic field medicine. That all probably adds up to a really shoddy example, but what I'm saying is, try to be more inquisitive. If it leads you nowhere, you've wasted... one day's post? Two? It makes life a lot easier for your referees if they can afford to be subtle and trust you to look around.
Heck, if you took a page from House's book, three sisters with the exact same sleeping disorder would be mighty interesting, wouldn't it?
Who is House and what book did s/he write?
The motivation there was the person who saves the princesses gets to marry one of them, become wealthy and rule the kingdom.
First off, I'm not going to force a princess to marry me, that's just wrong.
Secondly, in the world I'm in now, gold is practically worthless. The blacksmithing skills helped me get a good paying job. Which one was more valuable to me?
And third Who wants to be king?
So MJ, I guess the problem there was not that I didn't want to get involved. It's that you were using too small of a plot hook and the wrong kind of bait to catch this fish.
House. Dr. Gregory House from the TV show "House." He didn't literally write a book, it's a figure of speech. Oh never mind.
At least we're on the same page with the plot hook thing.
House. Dr. Gregory House from the TV show "House." He didn't literally write a book, it's a figure of speech. Oh never mind.
Gotcha Osevens. I don't watch much TV. If not for the advent of DVD players, I probably wouldn't own one at all.
But yeah, it's not that I don't want to get involved, it's that MJ hasn't found the world which would motivate me to do so.
OK, John, why don't you tell us the perfect way to motivate you? Or maybe, you can work on your game skills first?
I'm going to tell you, MJ is a great gamemaster. He's easily 2@7. Yeah, he has problems, he's human. I am, the gm who's had people tell me 'genius', and 'best game I've ever played in ten years' and other stuff like that. I too have issues (like my lack of system skill), but I'm suposedly a genius at gm-ing.
I have no idea how to make a game that would not provoke severe anger from you. If I, Mr. Flexible/Mr. Improv, and I'm better at that than MJ, can't do it, then very possibly no one on Planet Earth can.
If I had to make a game, I'd put a setting out with a few interesting bits, and set back. And do nothing. Because anything I did would probably make you mad. Of course, after a while, you'd probably be mad at me for the boring world.
Yes, I'm a little grouchy right now. I'm having to deal with usually reasonable players asking for poison in the game, and expecting me to make it non-poisonous. I refused.
I do appreciate John that you keep on trying. That's important. Keep on trying and eventually you'll get it. There are a lot of people who have it easier than you that still find their gaming challenges to be too steep to handle. So you do have courage.
I'd give MJ 3@1 on his gaming skills. He's just never had a player like me. That cuts it down to 1@10, for the unfamiliarity penalty.
Using Dancing Princess as an example. The offer was made, and was apparently common knowledge, as I found out about it from my blacksmith friend. The implication was that there were a great deal of people trying to solve the problem. Obviously, I'm *not* the only person who could fix it. From where I was standing, it didn't sound like that serious of a problem anyway.
So, right off the bat, I would be competing against God knows how many people to solve a problem that I don't really see as a problem, for a reward that I don't really see as that valuable.
MJ kept telling me (out of character) that it was going to become everyone's problem if I didn't do anything. However, he never told my character that. As far as my character was concerned, he didn't know that.
MJ also keeps telling me (out of character) that I opened Pandora's Box in my current world when I prayed for a verser teacher. I have a feeling that whatever it is, it is going to get me to move and do something. Something MJ learned about me is that I do help my friends whenever I am able. If I have enough time to consider the verser teacher a friend, I think I will assist. (Plus, it does sound really interesting) I was just hoping to build some skills first before it happened. I don't think that's unreasonable. You might, MJ might, I don't. However, he is the GM, so I will go along with it.
Did you ever see Harold and Kumar go to White Castle? There's a dream sequence where Harold shoots his arch enemy. The enemy grabs his chest, falls to the ground and says "Bullets, my only weakness. How did you know?" (It's not nearly as funny reading it as it is seeing it)
Demons which can be killed by gunfire. I have the advantage. That's something I know how to deal with. I have this mental image in my head of how that gunfight went down, between me, the demons, and the palace guards. I really like it.
I don't know what would get me to move. Protecting my friends is one thing. If there was a monster in a primitive world who's weakness was that it was allergic to copper and lead (and I don't mean in the sense that we are all "allergic" to bullets) that would be another. That way, I AM the only one who can fix it. I don't know Eric. I appreciate everyone dealing with me on this.
This was the entire point I was making though. There are no "Good Worlds" for a player. Either they will get involved or they won't. That's just the way it is.
There are Good Worlds for a player. Haston was a good world for MJ, and so was Starsong. Both of these worlds had elements in them that in interesting and odd ways would appeal to MJ. They were not predictable appeals to his interest, but off the wall ones.
For Jhiaxus, with his interest in SF, Starsong is also a good choice. I think it goes deeper than that.
I sent Day to Singularity's Heroes, and it was like he understood the world better than I, the game designer, did. Evidently we'd both read some of the same sort of fiction. It was an excellent choice for him.
Krillis still wants to go back to Cyberpunk Zombie world.
Avahur definitely enjoyed the world where a bunch of Canadian frat boy versers took over a world by telling everyone they were incarnate Greek gods....and so it gave him an excellent excuse to go around and whack annoying little preps. And since he enjoys whacking characters...
I sent Mentat to Music Wars, and I think that was a pretty good choice for him (its not totally clear because Mentat is such a great player that he can make any world interesting, but I think it was good for him).
I really enjoyed The Postman by MJ.
As to Graeme's worlds that MJ has been in, I think its clear that MJ's current world (a demented take on Dukes of Hazzards) is better than his previous world which was a really depressing cyberpunk world.
I've had a fair number of players who played one world and quit. I think they had a really great world, and then one not so good followed it. Kate enjoyed "The Odd Case of Miss Charity Lanton" which involved Cthulu. What followed it, I forget.
For Misty, I think her two best worlds were her first "The Connetticut Yankee in Space" which was about a fallen colony world and an effort to fix it up, and Kyler's?? world he created with a family of psi's ruling the world....one of the best scenes I've ever portrayed in a game...Misty and a child run down the hallway of the palace to the balcony at the palace end, she shoots the balcony railing as she runs with her laser pistol to weaken it, and leaps off the balcony to land on the ten meter board of a swimming pool, and dive into the water...just ahead of the really huge bomb in the palace that explodes behind her...very action movie stuff.
OTOH, Northgate City didn't work so well for Misty. However, I think MJ really enjoyed Northgate City, and so did a number of other players.
I like Why Spy? (except for the solving puzzles thing which I'm bad at) and The Postman, and while I might not like The Web, I have to admit it really hits that claustrophobic horror button quite nicely.
I think that Hadrian's best world might be The Tower of Rhodes wits its quirky magic and weird city and REally Huge Library. He's a scholar, and so this appeals to him.
Oak really liked his one week in Haston for similar reasons to MJ.
So, I disagree.
Eric, you seem to have misunderstood me. I didn't say that I didn't enjoy playing. I had a blast in my first world. Psionic powers were a lot of fun to play with. Dancing Princess was cool too. It is often (very often) the highlight of my day to see "Last Poster M.J. Young" on my thread here.
I wasn't saying I wasn't having a good time. That's kind of the point, right? What I WAS saying is that the scenarios I am given aren't the kind that would cause me to act.
What difference does it make though? As long as you're having fun.
Maybe I just have the wrong idea. Maybe I think you're expecting something specific. MJ keeps saying that he doesn't care if I get involved. Then why does he keep putting me into worlds to see if I will?
==What difference does it make though? As long as you're having fun.
I'll go along with that. For me if the player is having fun, and its decently interesting to me, then I'm good to go. Of course, major complaints tend to cut back the fun factor for me a lot.
I only partially and part of the time understand MJ, and I suspect a good part of the time when I think I understand him, I don't. So I can't help you there.
I would not worry about it. Who cares what the GM's goals are as long as you're both having fun, right?
What am I thinking?
I have this attitude that says that for a world to be good, the player character has to have something to do. To a significant degree, that falls on the referee to make that possible. The question, though, is what sort of "something to do" will actually work for the player.
To some degree you're sending out mixed signals. You've armed yourself to the nines, practiced your combat skills, tried to build up some paranormal abilities that will supplement that--everything about you says you're itching for a fight. That, though, means that I have to provide you with an enemy. Creating an enemy means creating enough of a story that something is going to happen, and setting it up such that you're the guy who has to stop it.
That's what Dancing Princess was tryhing to do. The odd thing was, you weren't interested in investigating the possibility that there might be something needing your special talents--only in expanding those talents in new directions.
So I'm thinking about Bah Ke'gehn, and I'm thinking about you, and I'm thinking that you would be a terrible fit for Bah Ke'gehn. After all, the Bah are a peaceful people. They'll be afraid of you, because you look like a demon--to them, that is, they who look like demons to you--but they would never intentionally hurt you, nor would they readily kill any creature unless it was the only way to protect many other creatures. (I should note that there are a very few bad ones in the mix--I need something to make for conflict and danger. However, the good ones will not kill the bad ones if there is any way to avoid doing so, so they make my point anyway.) You wouldn't fit there, because your character sheet says you're waiting for a fight, and Bah Ke'gehn is not really about fighting, but about connecting with an alien people.
Yet there is this entire other side to you that questions that. Everything in Bah Ke'gehn is about magic and psionics--most of your technology won't even work there. It's a great place to go to learn these kinds of skills. But because you have defined yourself as ready to fight, you communicate to your referees that you want a fight.
It's axiomatic in the role playing game world that if a player puts something on his character sheet, it tells the referee what's important to the player. You could not have made it more clear in your first world that what was important to you was being well-armed.
Yet you don't want me to put you in situations where there is an obvious enemy you need to fight--or at least, it seems that way.
I've been thinking in recent days that you and Adam have a very similar attitude toward the entire game. You both want to build incredibly potent skillsets, make your characters god-like in their abilities. You don't want to get involved in the conflicts of the world around you. I might analogize it to MAD or Peace through Strength: you want to be tough enough that anyone would be crazy to attack you, so that you don't have to do anything.
I've got places like NagaWorld. The thing about NagaWorld is that if the player character doesn't make something happen, not much happens. Oh, you'll encounter the periodic coral bush, which can be dangerous, and on a particularly bad roll you might encounter a Dar Koni scout ship (although since the Dar Koni have a No-Shoot with the Umaks, as they would say, that's not going to get you hurt unless you violate the treaty by shooting at them). You could wander into one of the very dangerous locations in the world and get yourself killed right quick--or you could settle into one of the safe spots, learn how to stay safe, and bore me to tears burning up calendar time.
I'm still looking for the sweet spot. I don't think you do well in worlds where there is "nothing to do"--and of course there are no such worlds, but I think that to some degree you need the referee to create/offer options to keep you from falling into a rut. On the other hand, those options need to be entirely optional--if the referee tries to set up a forced choice, you balk. That is, if the choice is, "you can do any of these things," you're interested; if the choice is "you have to do this or else that", you think you're being forced to do "this".
So I'm still looking for how to make a world work for you in a way that gives you something interesting to do that fits who you are, without giving you the feeling that you've been forced to do what I wanted you to do.
Obviously, Why Spy is right out. Kyler still wants to murder C. I can't imagine you'd take to that situation better than he did.
--M. J. Young
Yet you don't want me to put you in situations where there is an obvious enemy you need to fight--or at least, it seems that way.
You're wrong here MJ. The obvious enemy I've faced were the demons. In Dancing Princess, it wasn't obvious that there was an enemy at all until the angel of God told me. Notice what I did once I found out. Mr. Smith, William and I started trying to augment my weapons with the boom stick spears, and I went after the demons. I kind of wish William had come along on that. That would have been kind of cool.
(William was the blacksmith's apprentice)
I'd give him the boom stick, keep the MAK 90 and the 9mm, and probably have a 12 year old associate verser when I left.
So it's not that I won't face an obvious enemy. It's that I didn't see an obvious enemy to face.
MJ - What A1Nut just said gets back to what I had said about him a post or two back. If you want to fish him a plot hook, make sure it's make of explodium and set on fire first, or he won't notice.
To be honest if I weren't such a horrible, inattentive, oblivious referee, I might enjoy putting A1Nut through a world myself. But I am, in fact, a horrible, inattentive, oblivious referee, and thus that would be a terrible idea.
Yeah, the premise of Dancing Princess revolves around the notion that the player would WANT to marry a princess and become king.
Who wants to be king?