I'd really like to get feedback from people on this. It was just something I had to get straight in my head. You couldn't possibly understand why. It would be like trying to understand Heroin addiction, without being addicted to anything at all. Bad analogy, I know, but it's the only one I can come up with.
See, the thing that really bothered me the most about that is that if I had known I was at Pearl Harbor, THEN saw a guy in a jeep coming, I never would have gotten arrested at all. I don't know if I would be willing to kill a man in cold blood, but putting a few rounds into his engine block to keep him from coming at all, I'm sure I could do.
Running from an MP who is 500 yards away is very different from running with a 45 automatic in my face.
I never would have gotten arrested at all. If I make it back to my van without firing a shot, THEN they come after me, well, I tried to leave peacefully. At that point it would be self-defense to open fire. I would make every effort to run first, but if it came to it, I had more than enough firepower to outgun several of them. And that would just be the MAK 90.
I felt railroaded because I never got the chance to AVOID getting involved. By the time I knew where I was, it was too late to do anything besides get arrested. Or do you honestly think I should have killed a man in cold blood? Or do you honestly think it would be easy to run with a gun in my face? After I was arrested, my general hatred of authority figures took over. I never got the chance to NOT get involved. You can say "Getting involved is warning them of the attack." if it helps you sleep better at night, but to me, "Getting involved" would be going to the base at all.
In my mind, I was never given the chance to not get involved, because I never got to resist going to the base at all. Had I known where I was, I never would have gotten arrested. It would have been the single shortest world in the history of Multiverser.
Adam, wouldn't that have been exciting? Running a player who refuses to get arrested? I could imagine a gunfight, a car chase, maybe even a long, drawn-out standoff, and/or hostage situation if the dice fell right. That would have been a lot more fun for both of us, don't you think?
For historical worlds, you MUST make the player aware of where and when they are, BEFORE you do anything else!!!!!!! How does the player feel about that particular event? Would the player actively resist getting involved in it, because they know the significance of it? These questions were never asked. What could you have learned about me THEN???
Anyway, that's all. Sorry guys. You couldn't possibly understand.
Like I said, I would like to get some feedback from some of the other people involved in that discussion. I hope that, if nothing else, referees will learn from the mistakes made by Adam and myself when running historical worlds in the future.
You MUST make the player aware of where and when they are before you do ANYTHING else!!!! If I had known where I was, I never would have gotten arrested!!!!
I suggested (several times) that a good opener for that particular world would be having the player land right in front of a sign that told their location and the date. MJ said that this was silly and unrealistic. Silly or not, unrealistic or not, it would have saved us all a bunch of headaches. I hope referees (and players) can learn from this. It would at least make it not completely in vain.
"You MUST make the player aware of where and when they are before you do ANYTHING else!!!!"
I disagree. While I haven't actually played Multiverser yet, I have played and run historical and semi-historical worlds. IMO, one of the best parts is characters (and players) discovering the setting naturally. In movies and TV, the writers generally don't have enough time to be subtle and still make sure everyone in the audience "gets it", so they have to rely on obvious signs and times. They also have the luxury of telling the audience and keeping the characters in the dark. That's a lot harder to pull off in an RPG.
Finally, why is
"It's Pearl Harbor, do you want to get involved?"
necessarily a better question than
"You're 'involved'. How do you handle it?"
"It's Pearl Harbor, do you want to get involved?"
necessarily a better question than
"You're 'involved'. How do you handle it?"
Because the question asked was
"Would he get involved." (Which seems to imply that I would get involved under my own free will)
NOT
"Let's see how fast we can force him to get involved." (Which takes away any implication of free will)
Actually, it doesn't. It puts the question of free will in much greater focus: can we force him to get involved, given his insistence that he would not do so?
"All things being completely equal, there being no pressure in any direction, what would this person do?" is an interesting question. It is not nearly so interesting as "Given a lot of pressure to do something which this person has rejected to this point, will this person do it or resist?"
I'm something of a pacifist myself. I remember in seventh and eighth grade having kids tell me that they wanted me to meet them after school so they could beat me up, and I would tell them that I did not want to fight and had no intention of meeting them. However, when they ambushed me, I would bite, scratch, kick--use any weapon in my arsenal. They complained that I didn't fight fairly, and I answered that I had already said I wasn't playing the game so they shouldn't expect me to follow their rules. If forced to fight, I fought.
I college, I met Rick Van Norstrand. He was also a pacifist. Unlike me, he was a well-muscled capable guy who probably could hold his own in a fight. However, on more than one occasion when someone grabbed him and started beating on him, he merely let them hit him until others present pulled the attacker off him. He was a pacifist who was committed to not fighting. I was a pacifist simply because I didn't want to fight.
If you say that you will not, under any circumstances, get involved, we have the right to determine whether you will take the metaphoric pounding or defend yourself when ambushed. I was not in the least bit interested whether you would get involved if there was no reason for you to do so. I was interested in whether you would get involved when there was every reason for you to do so, except your own commitment to non-involvement. Now I know. If you are pushed to the line, you will get involved. You will not take the pounding.
Now, maybe I'm the wrong referee for you. I expect players to get involved in the worlds in which I put them. I create opportunities for them to get involved, and attempt to nudge them into some kind of involvement. I'm sure there are referees who would be quite content to allow you to do nothing in world after world. Unfortunately, you have demonstrated such beligerence as a player that I doubt I can get another referee to take over your game, so you're stuck with me.
--M. J. Young
MJ, what you said makes total sense. I'm not arguing the point of whether or not the force was needed, I now realize why it was needed. What I'm saying is that the force was applied in the wrong direction.
You can say "Getting involved is warning them of the attack" until you're blue in the face. I can say "Going to the base at all is getting involved" until I'm blue in the face. We're not likely to change each other's minds on these points. All I am saying (at this point) is that had I known where I was, you would have found a completely different outcome to the scenario, one which would have been a lot more fun (and less frustrating) for all involved.
If I had known where I was, I never would have gotten arrested. That's all I'm saying. I do now and always will feel railroaded to that extent.
You can't honestly tell me that a fight between myself and the Pearl Harbor security team, possibly resulting in a standoff would not have been a fun world. You can't honestly tell me that it would not have answered your question. "Would John get involved in a situation where he already knew the outcomes?" No, John would fight hundreds of cops rather than do that.
With one single typed sentence, I changed that from a fun, exciting world into a total $#!+ fest for my character. I accept that. What I cannot and will not accept is that Adam couldn't have typed one sentence "You see a sign that says "Pearl Harbor Naval Base"" and avoided all of the BS which has followed.
I sometimes wonder if you just tolerate me. I guess you do.
Two posts
MJ, I don't give a six foot stack of horse manure how you define "Getting Involved." In that particular case, I would define it as going to the base. Therefore, I was forced to get involved. Warning them of the attack was a side-effect of being forced to get involved.
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. Spin it, candy coat it, whatever helps you sleep at night. However, I was involved the minute the MP rolled up, period, end of discussion.
Three posts, and it's the last
And since I, myself even said
period, end of discussion.
I myself am also going to honor that. I've said my piece and that's it. I now have a better understanding of what happened. I hope that referees take this whole fiasco as advice on how better to run historical worlds. That's it and that's all. I am going to try very hard to officially drop the matter. It was just something I had to get straight in my head, you couldn't possibly understand.
Anyone who replies to this after me will be seen as deliberately keeping the argument going, and will be treated accordingly.