Yeah, this was the thread. I got here at half past midnight last night after a very long day filled with too many expectations and problems, and knowing that I was going to lose another hour to more necessary tasks around the house and that I probably had an early day this morning, and I saw these two posts and read about one sentence and said, "I cannot deal with this tonight; I will deal with it tomorrow."
So, John, if you were wondering why I did not post to your game thread yesterday, this is why.
Ya know, I just think you people have some really backasswards logic.
Well, maybe so, maybe not; but the odd thing is that we all seem to understand each other, and you're the one who doesn't get it. So maybe you should rethink this into, "Ya know, I just don't seem to be able to grasp what it is you people are thinking." It might be that we're just all on the same wavelength, and you're not. It might be that you're not smart enough to figure out what is obvious to us. It might be that your view of the world is too focused on your own expectations for you to see it through someone else's eyes. I don't know what it is, but I know that you just don't seem to understand something that everyone else here seems to grasp.
You put me into a situation to see what I would do. Then, when I'm never given the chance to do what I would do (leave) I'm the only one that has a problem with it. Well, then why in the hell did you put me there to see what I would do, if you never intended to let me do what I would do?
You seem to think that putting you in a situation to see what you would do means that the situation is not allowed to limit what you can do--and that's patently false. I have put many characters into situations in which they could not fly away, even though in other situations they could and did. Putting someone in a situation inherently and essentially means limiting his options, and so making him choose not between everything he could imagine doing but making him choose between those options that have been permitted.
Even so, your situation was not as limited as that. I've played (mostly CRPG and similar) games in which your choices were figure out exactly what the game designer wanted you to do, or die now. That does not happen in Multiverser, even if the referee tries to make it so--player characters have too many options open to them even in the most limited of circumstances.
So let's say that what we wanted to know is, if you were stuck at the Pearl Harbor military base the day before the Japanese attack, would you break your rule against non-involvement and do something to help avert or repel the attack, or would you hold to your rule of non-involvement and let the base be bombed to bits around you, possibly versing you out in the process? In that case, allowing you the option of leaving would mean we absolutely could not find out the only thing we wanted to know: would you get involved if you were stuck in a situation where you knew what bad thing was about to happen and could probably do something about it?
So you should have ignored him or shot him? Really, you were as involved as you chose to be, because in your assessment at the time being involved was preferable to not being involved.Since talking to the MP is more involved than I would have wanted to be, the answer to that question is NEVER!!!!!!!!!
Perhaps more on point, if you do not want to be involved in the worlds around you, why are you playing a game that moves you from universe to universe? What is it that you do want? It's a game about being thrown into the midst of other worlds and the stories that are happening in them, and deciding what part you should or would play in such a story. If your part is observer, then observe--and there was nothing in the Pearl Harbor scenario that prevented you from watching the world around you be bombed to bits, but your own decision that you would rather get involved than die in an air raid. That's a choice you made that you did not have to make.
Yes, we made it difficult not to be involved. That was the whole point, to see how hard you would fight not to be involved. The answer seems to be, not at all. You will do whatever comes most easily, and if that means being involved to keep yourself alive, that's what you will do. You're not committed to non-involvement; you're committed to selfish self-interest.
I think this is a fantasy you should abandon. I don't see God torturing anyone in heaven, no matter how much you want Him to do so.When we're all in Heaven, I'm going to make you all spend time inside my head.
So get yourself a diary, or an online blog somewhere, and write your moments of pique there. You keep putting them here in a discussion forum, as if you expect that we will answer you; but you don't like our answers.It's just a moment of pique. In an hour, it will all make sense again. On Friday, the whole world will once again come back into focus for me. (At least that's the plan) Let me have the occasional moment of pique.
Geeze, John. Give it up already.
--M. J. Young
Geeze, John. Give it up already.
You have no idea how badly I want to.
Two Posts
Geeze, John. Give it up already.
You have no idea how badly I want to.
To which somebody is thinking "Well, why in the hell don't you????"
For the same reason you don't give up your clinical depression. For the same reason I don't give up my psychosis. For the same reason Adam doesn't give up his megalomania.
We can't do it.
Multiple Posts (And I was telling other people to slow down.... Sorry guys.)
Believe me MJ, it makes a lot more sense. It's just like I said. Sometimes everything falls into place, and it makes perfect sense, sometimes it doesn't. It was like that with all of my psychotic episodes. Once I thought I beat it, it came back.
And yes, I know I won't be able to torture people in Heaven. However, what makes you think you wouldn't volunteer for it? I'd actually want to do that. Spend a week inside your head. Perhaps learn a lesson in how similar I really am to everyone else.
(Doing Therapy)
Lots-o-posts, 4 hours after last.
And regarding everyone else besides me "getting it" I have some things to say.
People said it was impossible to make a candle glow with no oxygen.
Thomas Edison proved them wrong.
People said it was impossible for a man to fly.
The Wright Brothers proved them wrong.
People here are saying "An MP must pick up the verser upon arrival."
Could they possibly be wrong?
At this point, that's about the only question I am still asking.
I'd love to go back there. Good roll, I'd kill everything in sight and escape, bad roll, I wouldn't last 20 minutes.
That might make an interesting variation on the vampire scenario, now that I think about it. Vampire world, with the verser being chased by authorities in connection with the Pearl Harbor bombing.
I'd try to pit them against each other whenever possible.
(Doing Therapy)
John, I don't think I nor anyone else said that being picked up by the MP was "necessary", nor the only way to open this session.
What you said was that it was a completely wrong way to do it, and it should not have been done that way.
What I say is that having an immediate confrontation with an MP is a valid opening for this specific type of game world, and gives the player a lot of information he could not get as logically by other means. It is a good opening, despite the fact that you didn't like it, didn't react well to it, and don't like where it brought you. All of that is incidental to whether it is a good opening or not, and it is a good opening.
--M. J. Young
John, Pearl Harbor is a type of trailblazer world, which we have already established you don't like. There is a very specific sequence of events that will happen, and your choices are limited. You showed that you would get involved, but you resent it. This is why MJ said bass player worlds are preferable for you: they give you a lot of options, and you can do what you want. The thing is, Pearl harbor is a lot less trailblazing than a lot of other worlds he could have sent you to, like that one with the mansion and the guy that wants to hunt you, wherein you have no choice, you WILL end up in his house, or you will have to kill yourself. Thing is, Pearl Harbor was a perfect choice to see how well you would react to a world that has a specific objective in mind.
Also, had you told them you were from an alternate reality where Pearl Harbor was attacked, and this one MIGHT be, and tell them of the devastation, but DON'T say you are from the future of THEIR world, you may have done better, because you could have explained alternate events as 'different reality, different timeline'-except your character didn't think of it! In other words, you had other options that you just didn't think of.
For example, I would have wanted to join the U.S. army special forces after informing them of the attack, tell them everything that happened in my version of history, explain that something else could happen, and offer to help them fight! See? There were options, but every cause was dependent on the previous actions, and that is why Pearl Harbor is more open-ended than your usual trailblazing world.
Oh and John, it occurs to me my post may seem rude or something-it's not, I'm just putting in my two cents, as you say.
Brock, one thing for certain is that I appreciate all comments. This was (literally) the SINGLE MOST CONFUSING THING I have ever dealt with in my life. It makes sense, it does. I don't regret going there. I learned a lot. It's a lot better than it was a year ago.
Not yelling BTW, just trying to be clear.
(Doing Therapy)
Wow...Well, John, If for some cosmic reason we do have the opportunity to spend a week in your head, I would certainly leap at the chance. My mind is pretty chaotic too, but I don't often get confused for very long. I'd guess it's from years of practice of trying to fit as much study in as little time as possible. My mind is chaotic in the sense I have a lot of things I think about at once, not at all like your psychosis therapy as I seem to understand it. It seems more like you're saying your thoughts are behind a sort of static buzz, or something, and you have to think about the same thing repeatedly to get a good grasp on it. Is that about right?
While I know it is not possible under the rules of reality as we understand it, I want to experience EVERYTHING. That is a bit difficult, heh.
It seems more like you're saying your thoughts are behind a sort of static buzz, or something, and you have to think about the same thing repeatedly to get a good grasp on it. Is that about right?
I think you just explained what it was to me. That's the single best explanation for it I have ever heard. I've often said that a good day was having a radio tuned to a static station playing inside my head constantly. Now, that's a bad day.
I'll tell you what though, that was the LAST TIME my character is going to get arrested.
(Doing Therapy)
Merci beaucoup, mon amis.
(French, thank you very much, my friend)
That sounds like an excellent roleplaying aspect: I WILL NOT BE ARRESTED! DIE COPPERS! RAAAAARGH! heh.
Qui, Je sais. J'ai duex ans de Fracais dans l'ecole.
The spelling might be off, but that's supposed to be "Yes, I know. I have two years of French in school."
And that's about all I remember how to say......
Kyler (MJ's son) has a similar attitude, from what I've heard. (I don't read anyone else's game.)
(Doing Therapy)
I have forgotten a couple words from the first semester, but I remember the grammar I learned perfectly, and the stuff from the third and fourth semester. I was in the class just two weeks ago, after all!
Graham knifed a cop once, but I believe he regrets it now.
What were the circumstances?
I mostly posted that to tease Graham. His character is a major-league pacifist now, and it's fun not to let him forget this incident. I almost want to just let him tell it . . .
But, I brought it up, so. He was in prison, having just been arrested for disorderly conduct, vandalism, and impersonating a police officer. Only the latter charge was true, but since it's a felony, Graham was a bit unsettled about his future. The only possession he was allowed to take with him into his cell was his magic knife. (This was a modern Earth setting, but he bought it at a Magic Shoppe for the exact amount of money in his pocket - I believe it was $2.25 - so it was obviously magic.) The first time someone opened the cell door, he gutted the cop and made a break for it.
He was gunned down in an alley two blocks away, but not before stabbing the cop that was shooting at him. Goodbye, riot town, hello, ice age.
Wow....that must have been a well thought out move! *snort*. Why did they let him keep the knife?
Magic! They didn't know he had it, despite it being in plain sight.
Ah, that kind of magic knife. Okay.
I'll tell you want though, my character is NEVER going to submit to being arrested again. I didn't like cops before Pearl Harbor, now he REALLY hates them. I don't care if it's the entire police force, they're gonna have to get the drop on me, and all I gotta say is I feel really sorry for the first guy in line.
I gotta say, I like police. They locked away several people I really needed out of my life.
MJ Wrote:
What you said was that it was a completely wrong way to do it, and it should not have been done that way.
MJ, considering what happened, I'd say, in my particular case, it was indisputably the single WORST way to open the world. At least if you wanted me to have a good time playing the world.
Brock Wrote:
I gotta say, I like police. They locked away several people I really needed out of my life.
Well, if you read some of my Getting to Know You threads, you will find out why I don't like police. If it were up to me, there wouldn't be any police in the sense we have them now. It would be back to the Wild Wild West. Everyone has a 45 on their hip and settles disputes at high noon in the town square. The police would just be there to clean up the mess when it was over.
Oh yeah Brock, what's your email address? You posted it in another thread, but I don't feel like looking for it.
genericfantasyname@yahoo.com
Yeah, something about they thought you and your...brother? were terrorists and it was all over the news.
EDIT: plus the hassling for muttering in public, and stuff.
Yeah, it was my brother. When I got caught at Pearl Harbor, I didn't dislike police enough to kill them, only enough to be cocky with them. That completely drew the line though. Out of character though, I would probably submit to being arrested, at least depending on the situation and whatnot.
From my character's POV, he isn't certain what happened. I don't think he realizes that he botched, even though I say so in character. He's thinking "Damn cop wasn't even tough enough to stand up to a stupid TK pulse. Where do they get these guys?"
Two Posts
I must say though that I think my oft-repeated idea of the PA announcement is still the best way to go. Maybe it does give too much information too quickly, but that would be bound to happen every once in a while. You'd see how the player reacts to finding out their situation without any other influences. Do they make a beeline for the main base, with the intention of getting involved right away? Do they start looking for an escape route? If you then dispatch someone after them, do they submit willingly? Do they try to fight their way out? In my case, I couldn't commit cold-blooded murder, but if I tried to leave peaceably and they came after me, that's self-defense and I would have been justified in my own mind to fight. Getting caught like that right away, in my mind, took away the option to fight. It's psychology I guess.
Ya know, I realized something the other day. As far as I can tell, this is my last created psychotic episode. They are based on memories. Following this, I have no psychotic episodes created. I'm sure it's not as profound to all of you, but it is very much for me. I'm getting better!!! In God's time, not in mine.
(Doing Therapy)
Ya wanna know something that I learned from this whole experience? A game designed by a former Christian pastor, who is also chaplain of the Christian Gamer's Guild seems to advocate cold-blooded murder as a viable option to solve problems. You keep telling me I could have shot the MP. If that's not advocating cold-blooded murder, then what is it?
(Doing Therapy)
It's not advocating cold-blooded murder. This would advocating cold-blooded murder: "John, you should have shot the MP." It's the difference between 'could' and 'should.' The reason 'could' mattered is that the discussion was about your options - whether you were forced, what else you could have done, and so on and so forth and so on, ad nauseam.
mistake.
I think you've all been pretty dismissive of the idea that I keep forwarding about letting the player know where and when they are WITHOUT any other influences. I really think this has been dismissed, for whatever reason. Yeah, the MP tells you where you are, but it also influences your choices. Finding out where you are by some other means in no way influences the player's choices. Do they make a beeline for the base? Do they try to run? Do they just stand there and wait to be picked up? If they do run, how hard do they fight to avoid arrest? I think this has been pretty much dismissed by everyone. How do they react to finding out where they are WITHOUT any other influences? You cannot tell me that having an MP shove a gun in your face is NOT influencing your choices. You're forced to deal with that. It's not like it's someone that will tell you where you are then let you walk away. If it had been, this whole discussion would have never happened. How does the player react to finding out where they are WITHOUT any other influences? I think everyone here has completely dismissed this as an option. I think you'd find out a lot more about the player that way.
Yeah, I've said this before, but stop dismissing it and I'll stop asking it.
Yes, we're being dismissive, and we keep hoping you will accept that your idea has been dismissed.
It is not at all that the world could not have been run the way you say. It is entirely, first, that it was not run the way you suggest, and second, that the way it actually was run was not any worse than the way you wanted it to be run.
In fact, the fact that you are protesting so vociferously confirms me in the opinion that Adam's instincts were right and your idea would have been a very bad way to run the world for you. The question was never what you would do in the absence of any pressure whatsoever. The question was always how seriously you were committed to your stated policy of non-involvement, and how hard you would fight and what you would sacrifice to avoid becoming involved. We learned:
- You would not kill the MP to avoid being taken into custody, even after you understood where you were and could make a reasonable guess as to when. Thus your non-involvement was not something for which you would kill a police officer.
- You would not risk versing out in injured condition. The fact that versing out would have cured your injuries was something you did not know, but that simply underscores the matter--had you known it, it might have been that you would have chosen to let the Japanese attack unhindered in the hope that you would be killed and so arrive in the next world uninjured. You were not committed enough to your non-involvement to risk the possibility that you would travel to another world before healing your injuries.
- Ultimately, you would follow PLR: if it was easier to become involved, you would become involved, and if it was easier not to become involved you would not. PLR is completely different from a policy of non-involvement. Self-interest is also completely different from a policy of non-involvement and someone different from PLR. So we learned that you were not truly committed to non-involvement, because you were not willing to pay a price or take a risk to avoid involvement.
--M. J. Young
When did I ever say I was committed to non-involvement? You were the one who said that. In B Movie Monster World, I didn't want to help the indigs clean up a mess that they made. Doesn't mean I wasn't going to get involved in their world. I'm involved with you on an almost daily basis. Have I ever offered to help you clean up your house? There's a difference between being involved and being a maid. I'm not a maid.
You said I was committed to non-involvement. I never once said anything of the sort.
If I was truly committed to non-involvement, I would have just let the demons take over Dancing Princess once I found out about them. You saying that I was committed to non-involvement actually gave me even more incentive to not get involved. It's what seemed to be expected of me, why should I disappoint you?
Multiple Posts
Ya know, I just realized. I'm like a Ferengi. I go where the profit is. B Movie Monster World. No profit in helping indigs clean up their mess, no involvement. Pearl Harbor. Perceived profit in getting involved. Whether or not that was profitable is a matter of debate. Dancing Princess. Which is worth more? Gold or blacksmithing skills? I saw blacksmithing skills as the more profitable route to take.
My mom said that my father was the same way. Always looking for The Angle, the way to do the least amount of work for the most amount of money. She said that the fact that I am on disability is something he would be very proud of. No work, and enough money to keep a roof over my head and keep my belly full. He would be VERY proud of that.
Oh yeah MJ, one other thing.
Yes, we're being dismissive, and we keep hoping you will accept that your idea has been dismissed.
And I would have hoped that, by now, you would have realized that the "Ignore it and it will go away" strategy doesn't work with me.
You would not kill the MP to avoid being taken into custody, even after you understood where you were and could make a reasonable guess as to when. Thus your non-involvement was not something for which you would kill a police officer.
No, I would not kill an MP IN COLD BLOOD to avoid being taken into custody. Had I known where I was THEN saw the MP coming, it would have been different. If I'm leaving peaceably, and they come after me, that's self defense. You took a person who would kill only in self-defense and turned him into a cold-blooded murderer. I hope you're happy.....
This is why I say that you need to make the player aware of where and when they are BEFORE anything else happens. It's the psychology of the situation. You need to take that into account. I see a guy in a jeep coming. Whoop dee doo!!!! Give me a few hours, I'll give you a hundred reasons why a guy in a jeep would be coming without it being that I'm trespassing on an army base. Had I known where I was, I never would have been taken into custody. By the time he got there, it was cold-blooded murder. Very different from self-defense. Some people wouldn't even kill in self-defense. I think I would. By the time he got there, it was too late to kill him. Self-defense VS murder. You'd see the player's defensive response, not force them to commit murder. You cannot convince me that you could not learn a great deal about the player by the means I suggest. I think even more than just dropping the MP on them. You do it without even giving the illusion of force. And you wouldn't turn otherwise peaceful people who believe in self-defense into murderers. Or do you enjoy turning people into murderers? As I said a few posts up, a former Christian pastor who suggests murder as an option. Something is wrong with that picture. I'm not sure exactly what, but anyway.... The Bible promotes self-defense. Not murder. The commandment isn't "Thou shalt not kill" it is actually "Thou shalt not COMMIT MURDER" Even the Bible recognizes the difference.
And remember MJ, the "Ignore it and it will go away" strategy doesn't work.... So you've repeated yourself a hundred times. Make it a hundred and one. There's no way on God's green earth that you can tell me you haven't seen this improve for me.
Not yelling BTW, just trying to be clear.
"This is why I say that you need to make the player aware of where and when they are BEFORE anything else happens. It's the psychology of the situation. You need to take that into account. I see a guy in a jeep coming. Whoop dee doo!!!! Give me a few hours, I'll give you a hundred reasons why a guy in a jeep would be coming without it being that I'm trespassing on an army base."
Ah, but being unaware of your surroundings is also the psychology of the situation, so your point is moot.
Ah, but the OTHER psychology of the situation is that people are not immutable and unchanging. Everything that they learned about me was thrown right out the door, with the exception of perhaps the Path of Least Resistance thinking. I wouldn't kill an MP in cold blood THEN. Now I would. What you accomplished was take an otherwise polite person who would kill in self-defense and turn him into a murderer. If anything, you gave me even more reason to not get involved. Now that my character realizes that murder IS a viable option to solve problems, no amount of force will get him to do anything.
You didn't learn about the player, you changed who the player was.
MJ, this is the part that I think YOU can't seem to grasp.
The question was always how seriously you were committed to your stated policy of non-involvement, and how hard you would fight and what you would sacrifice to avoid becoming involved
Had I known ahead of time where I was, and it was not cold-blooded murder, but instead self-defense, I never would have been taken into custody. Cold-blooded murder and self-defense are very different. So you're saying that, gun fighting the entire Pearl Harbor security team wouldn't tell you a damn thing about how far I'd go to not get involved.... As Turtle said "Ya know, for a genius, you can be real stupid."
All you did was change a self-defense policy into a "kill cops on sight" policy. I hope you're proud of that.
I have not read more than about a hundred words of all you have posted since my last post, but I think I can give you a fair answer anyway and save my time from being wasted by a futile and insensical argument.
I have a friend I met in college. In high school he was a football player, but also a pacifist. I mention the former because he was not some wimp that anyone could beat to a pulp, who didn't want to fight because he might get hurt. He was committed to non-violence. And he was seriously committed to it. A tale was told that he had been at a party when two guys assaulted him, holding him against the wall and beating on him, until others at the party pulled them off of him. He did not strike back. He did not believe that self-defense was a justification for a violent response on his part.
I am certain that if that person (and he has learned and grown since then, so I mean that person I met in college) had been taken by the MP at Pearl Harbor, who would not have "defended" himself by fighting back. If he could not escape by jumping in the van and driving away, or running, or charging into the ocean to swim away, he would have been taken into custody. I do not know whether he would have warned them about the impending Japanese attack; that is a separate question (his commitment is not to non-involvement). He would, however, have tolerated whatever abuses they administered, even permitting them to kill him if it came to that.
You never used the word "committed", and no one said you were committed to non-violence. However, you repeatedly argued in B Monster Movie World that it was not your business and you were not going to get involved, and that the other versers were wrong to get involved. Your argument was that because this was not your world you had no business interfering.
Pearl Harbor was not your world, either, even though it looked a lot like it. You had no business interfering. The question was not whether, having no business interfering, you would quietly walk away and ignore what was happening. The question was, how much force would it take before you abandoned your non-interference policy and got involved? The question was, metaphorically, whether you would let the thugs press you against the wall and beat on you without lifting a hand against them, whether you would pay a steep price to avoid involvement or go with the flow when keeping to your own business became too difficult. Letting you walk away without any confrontation whatsoever would not have answered that question. Making you choose what to do about the MP and what to do when you were trapped in the base hospital were challenges to your stated desire to keep your nose out of other people's business. If you were really serious about that, you would have let the MP lock you away without objection, and let the bomb fall on Pearl Harbor even if there was a chance they would hit you.
So stop thinking that letting you walk away without any resistance would have been the right way to do it. That would have been the wrong way to do it, and after all this discussion if I had to do it again you would have versed into the top security section of the airfield with twenty armed marksmen protecting the new improved fighter planes who immediately order you to surrender and take you into custody as a spy. The question isn't really whether you would try to kill anyone. The question is whether you would let them take you, let them interrogate you, let them incarcerate you, let them kill you even, rather than "become involved".
The answer is, all that talk about how you shouldn't get involved in B Monster Movie World has nothing to do with any Prime Directive or principle of non-involvement, but is entirely about having an excuse to do whatever selfish thing is easiest and most beneficial for you. It is not that you don't want to be involved. It's that you don't care about anyone else or their problems, and have no intention of doing anything that requires you to reach beyond your own comfort zone and help someone, absent divine intervention itself.
You got pounded; you fought back. You're not a pacifist. Nor are you committed to non-involvement. Had we let you walk away without any confrontation at all, we would never have known that. Now we know that not only are you a selfish self-centered lazy person, you are willing to spend more than a year arguing that you should be allowed to be that and we should never have tried to get you to do anything else.
And now I really don't feel like running your game tonight, because I really don't like playing with selfish people who don't care about others; but fortunately for you, there are other threads I must address first, so perhaps by the time I get to yours I will have relented.
You're better than that. Stop making yourself look worse.
--M. J. Young
It's really too bad that you didn't get here 2 hours later than you did. I was intending to delete all of my posts prior to your reply. Seriously, I was. Unfortunately, my mom was in need of some yard work, and I was in need of some cash, and she wouldn't let me use the computer at her house to delete it. That's really unfortunate for both of us, I think.
I'm trying to get a feel for my own refereeing style. That's the entire point of the forum. To you, this is pointless grousing about something meaningless that happened. To me, it is the single most confusing thing I have ever dealt with in my entire life. Look me in the eye and tell me that you could just drop the single most confusing thing you've ever dealt with in your entire life. I will then look you in the eye and call you a boldfaced liar.
I can't say that it's permanently dropped, but I can say that it will be attempted.