Two
If you're that person whose grasp on reality means that role playing games are dangerous for you, I would rather not be the cause of your problems.
MJ, I never said that you were the cause of my problems. I said you were responsible for them. You're responsible for pushing that chair you're sitting in into the floor, but you're not the cause of it not floating away. See what I mean? As I've said, I don't hold anything against you for it. How could you have known? I'd hate to think which one of us suffered more as a result, but I'd like to think we're stronger for it. I know I am. You've taken responsibility for it. For that, I admire you more than you could know. Thank you.
And I don't think the problem is that I don't have a grasp on reality, I think the problem is that I have too much of a grasp on reality. Yeah, you all kick yourself for stupid little things you've done, but how many of you have screamed obscenities for hours on end because of them? I'm getting better. You could not imagine. I am having a full-blown psychotic episode as I type this. I'm completely calm. My head hurts a little. Not worse than a mild headache. I can honestly say I feel a little bit better each and every time I do my therapy. Something made by God trumped something made by man. And we should be surprised.
(Doing Therapy)
Three
Oh yeah, and I can tell you exactly how the Pearl Harbor scenario would have gone if I hadn't been injured. When I got taken into custody and taken before the base commander, I would have said "I'm not answering any questions until I speak to an attorney." and that would have been the end of that. (Aversion to authority figures, remember?) If that means I get put into a holding cell for a few days, fine. When the attack comes, I'll either verse out, have a chance to escape, or be let go since they obviously have bigger problems than a smart-alack trespasser. Not all that interesting, really.
(Doing Therapy)
Um, no. John Connor got into trouble with the police after Sarah got put into the mental institution. Prior to that, they were in Mexico training. When Sarah got busted for trying to destroy CyberDyne, and John was taken into foster care, John was using the skills he had learned in training. That's what got him into trouble.
My brain tells me you've got events out of sequence.
When T2 opens, Sarah is already locked up, and has not yet attacked Cyberdyne. John is in foster care, and when the fake cop shows up at his foster home his foster parents act like they're already quite accustomed to having police talk to them about John.
Yes, right now you are in Mexico, and probably will be for a while; but at some point Sarah must have taken John back to the U.S., because that's the point at which she would be taken into custody--before having destroyed Cyberdyne. I'm not sure yet why, when, or how that happens. I know that she spends several years preparing John with all those skills that get him into trouble, and that he believes her up until she's institutionalized, and he's already using those skills and getting in trouble with the police before the T-1000 arrives. Maybe you're not going to get into any trouble--maybe you're not going to hack ATMs or pick locks or do all the other things your character desperately needs to practice before everything goes badly--but that has its own consequences.
What I was asking is, did he use the correct and right opening FOR ME.
I think this is an invalid question; but given that I think that, I ought to explain why.
My impression is that it requires that I believe Adam was nearly omniscient or at least precognitive--that he could predict accurately that his choice of openings would have gone badly for you. I could not have predicted that the MP opening would have gone badly, and I probably know you as well as anyone on this board--certainly was well as Adam. I can't say that I would have used that opening, simply because I don't know whether I would have thought to use it. I can say that I would not have declined to use that opening, that is, if I'd thought of it or it had been suggested to me, I would have had no reason not to use it.
Thus to say it was the wrong opening to use for you implies that Adam knew or should have known that it would go badly. I did not know it would go badly.
There is no "the correct and right opening move" for any player in any scenario. There are many correct and right opening moves in most instances. Adam chose a correct and right opening move for anyone, and (guess what?) anyone includes you.
The suggestion that an opening that would have been good for any player was bad for you because of your psychosis is inherently and unavoidably a suggestion that you should not be playing role playing games because you cannot handle the fantasy. I don't think that--yet. I'm starting to wonder, though.
--M. J. Young
My brain tells me you've got events out of sequence.
My brain tells me that you didn't pay attention to the movie. Sarah was in a mental institution. Why? As John Connor states after hacking the ATM. "That's why she's up at Pescadero, it's a mental institute, OK? She tried to blow up a computer factory, but got shot and arrested."
John was in foster care because Sarah tried to single-handedly destroy CyberDyne prior to this point in the movie. That isn't going to happen in my story. Perhaps you should watch the movies again.
The outside isn't showing my last posting.
I think it decided that you were posting too frequently.
I suppose that it's trying to enforce standard Internet forum etiquette, to some degree. The social expectation is that you do not "reply" to your own posts except in unusual circumstances--once you've posted, you wait for someone else to post to the thread before you post again. When you post repeatedly, the software justifiably concludes that you're talking to yourself and no one else is involved in the discussion, and it marks you as a Spammer.
I wouldn't change that; it's the right way for it to work. The right thing for you to do is to post once to a thread and then leave the thread alone until someone else answers you. If you didn't think to include it in your first post, it's probably not important, and if it is you can add it if anyone cares enough about what you said to answer it.
You're right about Sarah. That, though, means she's going to attack Cyberdyne at some time unknown to you. Approach with caution.
--M. J. Young
The social expectation is that you do not "reply" to your own posts except in unusual circumstances
And being a paranoid psychotic isn't an "unusual circumstance"? Thanks. You just let me off the hook for multiple postings.
You're right about Sarah. That, though, means she's going to attack Cyberdyne at some time unknown to you. Approach with caution.
Ah, but she doesn't do it until long after John Connor is old enough to speak. By that time, I will have talked her out of it completely.
If you're paranoid to fit everything in then write things in a word file or notepad and save it,edit it, and post it when you're satisfied with it. This serves two purposes, one you will probably repeat points less and two you will probably make the points clearer.
Also, quick note. You don't want people changing reacting to the fact that you're a paranoid psychotic so it seems odd that you ask that a general principle be ignored on the very principle. Do you have a specific reason for this that isn't solved by posting to yourself in a notepad first and publishing your final decision?
That has been considered to me before. I don't know why I don't do that. The other thing though is that oftentimes, ideas come to me hours later, so it would only make sense to post a second time. The only time I'm NOT psychotic is when I'm asleep.
As far as breaking the rules for a psychotic, I believe I've already stated my opinion on that issue. Handicapped parking and whatnot. (Don't want to repeat myself on that yet again.) Besides, you gotta admit, sometimes cool things do come out of my ranting (That ice ship, for instance) so it does have its uses.
(Doing Therapy)
Two
As an example of what I'm talking about above, this is posted more than 12 hours later.
MJ, here's the thing. My first world. I am the only player in that scenario who is buying guns left and right. I am the only player who is not getting involved like the others. I am the only player who wants to split the money up instead of leaving it as a lump sum. I am the only player who is psychotic. How much more information did you need before you realized I wasn't like all the other players you knew? Yet, you still labored under the delusion that I would play Pearl Harbor like every other player you knew. I do find that rather insulting.
I think MJ already answered that:
When I said I assumed certain things, you took me to mean that I presumed those things, where I meant that I hypothesized them. I said to myself, "John is raving about how versers should never interfere with the histories of the worlds in which they find themselves; I wonder whether he would still feel that way were he placed in a critical moment in the history of a world that closely resembled the history of his own world, such that he would become involved in redirecting that history to something better?" You seem to have taken my line of thought to be, "John says he will never become involved in the events of any universe, but everyone I know would interfere in the events of Pearl Harbor so I'm sure he will, too, so let me demonstrate that by putting him there."
I wonder if the "Therapy" works for a long term period or only for a while.
Would you like to test if you have become better or not by reducing the "Therapy" bit by bit and see if you have become better or not?
The "Therapy" is not addictive, is it?
I wonder if the "Therapy" works for a long term period or only for a while.
So far, it's been permanent reduction of the psychosis. I feel just a little bit better each and every time. Almost 5 years of feeling just a little bit better each and every time adds up after a while.
Would you like to test if you have become better or not by reducing the "Therapy" bit by bit and see if you have become better or not?
I've considered that.
The "Therapy" is not addictive, is it?
Nope.
As to the other, it was just another one of those things that wouldn't get out of my head. I would have thought the very idea that I would act like any other player he knew would have been tossed out the door long before I got sent to Pearl Harbor. I would have thought the thinking would be "John is unlike any other player I've ever seen. I should make no assumptions whatsoever about what he will or will not do." That's what I find insulting about it.
My doctor says that I am unique even for a psychotic. She said that in 30 odd years as a doctor, she had never heard of a psychotic who remembered having the episodes. I do remember them. Perhaps insulting isn't the right word. Surprising to be certain.
(Doing Therapy)
In response to:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As far as breaking the rules for a psychotic, I believe I've already stated my opinion on that issue. Handicapped parking and whatnot. (Don't want to repeat myself on that yet again.) Besides, you gotta admit, sometimes cool things do come out of my ranting (That ice ship, for instance) so it does have its uses.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Just because a courtesy is sometimes extended on the basis of handicaps does not mean that special conditions are always extended on that basis. A large part of whether they are is based on whether the condition inherently demands the special treatment. You haven't demonstrated that being psychotic makes you post repeatedly that way as opposed to writing in in a separate document and publishing it when the thought is done. As to the cool ideas, it's not being said you shouldn't post but rather that you should attempt to adhere to forum etiquette, something which you seem to refuse to even try.
In reference to:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As an example of what I'm talking about above, this is posted more than 12 hours later.
MJ, here's the thing. My first world. I am the only player in that scenario who is buying guns left and right. I am the only player who is not getting involved like the others. I am the only player who wants to split the money up instead of leaving it as a lump sum. I am the only player who is psychotic. How much more information did you need before you realized I wasn't like all the other players you knew? Yet, you still labored under the delusion that I would play Pearl Harbor like every other player you knew. I do find that rather insulting.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You could have saved the response before you went to sleep and appended it when you woke up, even if that happened to be 12 hours later.
Also, everyone is unique. We still must hypothesize on what people will do otherwise even the most basic interaction, let alone running a game, would become impossible. I can think of 2 times already that I've surprised MJ, does this mean he can't make assumptions about me?
Finally, surprising and insulting are very different feelings. I'm not sure why it would be surprising that someone uses basic character analysis of a person based on the information they have, but I understand even less why it's insulting that this attempt is made.
Finally, surprising and insulting are very different feelings. I'm not sure why it would be surprising that someone uses basic character analysis of a person based on the information they have, but I understand even less why it's insulting that this attempt is made.
The assumption wasn't made based on information that he had. It was based on information that was completely irrelevant to the situation. That's like using a map of China to try to find The Grand Canyon. I was obviously unlike any other player. And yet, the assumption is that I will be like other players in my next world. I know it wasn't in any way intended as insulting, and I'm sure I overreacted a tiny bit. I would have thought you wouldn't make ANY assumptions about players. It makes more sense to me. Takes away the personal bias. You would get a clearer picture of them by going into it with a clean slate.
(Doing Therapy)
Two, 10 hours later
You could have saved the response before you went to sleep and appended it when you woke up, even if that happened to be 12 hours later.
This is completely unreasonable. I might as well just type everything I intend to post in a document file and never post anything at all. Who knows when something else will come to mind that needs posted?
Just because a courtesy is sometimes extended on the basis of handicaps does not mean that special conditions are always extended on that basis.
If you were the handicapped person, you would see it differently.
Actually 12 hours in a thread where MJ responds every 24 hours is still very viable. There really isn't a reason to need multiple posts to make a clear point, it actually obscures what you're trying to say. This is not an unreasonable practice and is proven by the fact that other people do manage to condense their posts into one, and on a rare occasion a second, post
You've raised quite a bit of commotion over not wanting assumptions yet are willing to state something as bold as "If you were the handicapped person, you would see it differently." This proves that everyone makes assumptions. Yours happens to be wrong by the way.
As to the first post, I've already addressed the fact that it was made based on information he has, quite a number of posts ago. People learn to read people. Not perfectly but it's a natural talent people develop. I'm not going to repeat my points however, it's all rather clearly stated a few pages back I believe.
Actually 12 hours in a thread where MJ responds every 24 hours is still very viable.
Well, the other thing is that I am on medical disability, do not work, and actually, hardly ever leave my apartment. I often go a week or more only going outside to go to the mailbox and back. This is what I do for entertainment. Another thing is that I label my posts (Doing Therapy). To me, this is in the hopes that it will be useful for psychosis research. I might not be (Doing Therapy) for both posts.
You've raised quite a bit of commotion over not wanting assumptions yet are willing to state something as bold as "If you were the handicapped person, you would see it differently." This proves that everyone makes assumptions. Yours happens to be wrong by the way.
I'm sorry, but this is another situation you've never faced. Are you handicapped in any way? Have you ever faced discrimination of any kind? I'm certain you have, but not like I do. I had a neighbor who swore up and down he would not show prejudice to anyone. He heard me have a psychotic fit, and declared me a "Dangerous crazy person." It's funny, a black person wouldn't want me to call them a nigger, a gay person wouldn't want me to call them a fagot, but neither of them would be likely to have a problem calling me a "Psycho" or "Crazy".
People learn to read people.
And he never read that I wasn't "Normal". I'm not insulted by it. I suppose I should make that clear. I'm surprised more than anything. Forget it. I want this dropped. It's kind of strange. This is one I've run into the ground and it's not a good one to run at all. Agree to disagree.
(Doing Therapy)
And being a paranoid psychotic isn't an "unusual circumstance"?
Is it? I think not, actually:
- You are and have long been a paranoid psychotic, and thus it is not an unusual circumstance for you.
- None of the rest of us are paranoid psychotics, and thus we don't have that circumstance ourselves, and it is not an unusual circumstance for us (it not being our circumstance).
- You have been posting on this board for a period of years now, and we have been interacting with you during that time, so it is normal for us to interact with a paranoid psychotic--and thus not an unusual circumstance for us.
For it to be an unusual circumstance, it would have to be something that doesn't happen very often. Every time you post it is the post of a paranoid psychotic, and thus it is normal for you, and for the board, and for the other participants in the board.
The other thing though is that oftentimes, ideas come to me hours later, so it would only make sense to post a second time.
This would seem to me to be a good argument against having you post again, at least in a game thread. In essence, the forum allows you to think about what you're going to do for as long as you like, but once you've decided what you are going to do and posted it, that should be final. If you think of something else, you should note it in a file on your computer (I have dozens of such files specifically indexed for use in various Multiverser forum games) and post it when it is again your turn.
As to non-game threads, your repeated posts seem more like you're a demanding petulant child who does not understand conversation and intends to talk over anyone who wants to engage you in discussion.
Yet, you still labored under the delusion that I would play Pearl Harbor like every other player you knew.
No, I wanted to test whether you would approach the situation differently from my expectations.
As Maxx says, that's what I said already.
The assumption wasn't made based on information that he had.
Now you're being insulting. I knew that you were arguing against interfering with the world in which you found yourself, and you did so based on a general non-interference argument, that versers are not natives of the worlds they visit and shouldn't become involved in whatever is happening in them. I also knew that you had some knowledge of Pearl Harbor (and whatever you say, you obviously knew enough to know how significant the impact of the Nimitz would have been had it reached the harbor before the Japanese did). I knew that to me your non-interference gabble sounded phony, like you were using it as an excuse. You disagreed with Graeme's and Scott's eco-friendly efforts at subversion (I'd have thought you'd have enjoyed being part of a group of immortal anti-establishment eco-terrorists, but maybe they weren't violent enough for you). You weren't really, to my ears, arguing that versers should never interfere with events in the worlds around them; you were arguing that you didn't want the game to be about a left-wing eco-friendly movement against a near-fascist right-wing business-oriented pro-industry anti-environment government.
I wanted to test whether I was right. I wanted to see whether you really were committed to the Prime Directive of non-involvement or whether in a situation in which you knew some of the immediate future events and some of the long-term consequences you might become involved. I picked a world of which I thought you had some knowledge, and challenged you to consider whether there might be any reason to change the future.
I learned the very, very important lesson about you, that you have absolutely no commitment to Non-Involvement; your commitment is to PLR (Path of Least Resistance) and self-serving self-preservation. That's fine. It's good that I know that--I know how to motivate you in the future.
I've actually put you in a trap at this point, but you haven't realized it yet. The consequences of not becoming involved are more serious than the consequences of becoming involved.
Well, the other thing is that I am on medical disability, do not work, and actually, hardly ever leave my apartment. I often go a week or more only going outside to go to the mailbox and back. This is what I do for entertainment.
So start a blog. It's just like publishing an article, but you'll want to check the box marked "Blog" before you type the title so it gets filed correctly when it's published. You can write whatever you want, and people who are interested can read it. No one will complain about how frequently or infrequently you post to it, people can comment if they like, and it won't be filling the forums.
I am handicapped and have faced discrimination. I do not seek to be treated differently for it, although I do not volunteer for tasks beyond my abilities.
If posting to a forum in a courteous and appropriate manner is beyond your ability, you are here voluntarily and do not need to post at all.
--M. J. Young
I've actually put you in a trap at this point, but you haven't realized it yet. The consequences of not becoming involved are more serious than the consequences of becoming involved.
Already knew that. The consequence of not getting involved is machines takes over the world. Whatever "trap" you're talking about has nothing to do with that.
(Doing Therapy)
Two
The consequences of not becoming involved are more serious than the consequences of becoming involved.
Wrong again. After reading Behind the Screens, non-involvement is my ONLY option. You'll see when you get to the game thread.
(Doing Therapy)
Three
Mistake
MJ, you keep saying that you thought Pearl Harbor would "sorely tempt" me to get involved. "Non-involvement would be sorely tested." I think is what you said. Why would you think that? Why would I be tempted to warn them? I want to know why you thought that.
To me, warning them would be the LAST thing I would want to do. Not warning them would have been the easiest decision I ever made. TO WARN THEM was the tough decision.
MJ has addressed this exact point multiple times John. From his perspective and most peoples averting a national disaster is an easy decision. You have made your points about why you would not, we see that. A lot of people would. He has answered this question more than once though already.
Right, I realized that right after I posted it. Who wouldn't want to save the lives of hundreds of people? Sorry MJ, no need to reply.
Thanks, John. I think that's the real point: who wouldn't want to save the lives of hundreds of people, and prevent the worst naval disaster in American history? Apparently, the answer is John Cross, who takes a broader view, sees those who will die as already dead (a time traveler's viewpoint for certain) and is concerned that lessening the impact of the Japanese surprise attack might so alter the future history of the world that everything would be far worse.
I've got a trap just like that only different in Sherwood Forest, but I can't talk about it at the moment.
--M. J. Young
concerned that lessening the impact of the Japanese surprise attack might so alter the future history of the world that everything would be far worse.
If you put me in a place where I could kill Hitler as a child, I wouldn't do that. For all we know, one of the Jews killed in the Holocaust grows up to become a dictator far worse than Hitler could have ever hoped to become. Better to deal with the known danger.
(Doing Therapy)
Ok I have followed this post for a few months, and have decided to weigh in on some answers people have been waiting for.
1) MJ gave me the plot of Pearl Harbor, it was up to the referee to get the player to the information he needed. Pearl Harbor is a military base, guarded by MP's. I used an MP to get John the information.
2) As for the botch in the jeep, the MP handcuffed John behind his back which I do not think was out of hand for the amount of ordinance John had in and around the van. John wanted to TK pulse the back of the MP's head as much as he could till he reached base. I made 12 rolls, 2 of which were botches, the first was no effect. The second sudden force applied to head forward. The MP's head hit the steering wheel of the jeep hard, and I rolled to see whether he remained conscious, he did not. I did not feel a driving roll would need to be made, since no one could drive the jeep, and the jeep veered off the road.
3) Your injuries were severe, due to facts, and dice. You hands were handcuffed behind your back, and the jeep was a classic open cover jeep. You got tossed, and the jeep rolled on you. The dice gave me the severity, and location, as the referee I gave the flavor text.
The rest of this is out of game things that played into the situation we have now:
4) I asked you post once a day, multiple posts with information scattered among them all made my job harder than it had to be. You reacted negatively. I stopped responding to multiple posts, and eventually it got another GM to deal with your posts. Simply put, you were used to MJ's limitless patience, which I will never be accused of.
5) You started ranting and raving about how I was putting your character through this, and demanded me to answer you. I don't react well to people demanding things of me, so I did not. This made you angrier and caused many posts back and forth poking at each other. The end result you never got the answers or satisfactions you were looking for.
6) When Gaming Outpost posts weren't enough, you started a two year campaign sending me malicious messages on myspace. When I still refused to answer, you accused me of many mental illnesses, etc.
So for the record and saving MJ having to answer any more posts on the matter.
Why did I take you as a player? Simple, you were taxing MJ with the shear amount of attention you demanded of him, and I was willing to take some of that burden away. It had nothing to do with liking or disliking you, in fact you had no impact on that decision other than it was helping MJ.
Was I cheating or overreacting with what happened. I don't think so, I took a logical path of event A leading to B and then C. I made rolls when appropriate, and applied logic to weave a story from them.
Did my personal dislike of you have anything to do with what happened? In game, no, your actions were your actions. Out of game, when a referee asks something of you, and you refuse to do it, throw a fit, or ignore him, he will take those feelings into account. What you refer to as "multiple mental illnesses on my part" can be linked to one simple phrase. To get respect you earn respect, and to this day, you haven't earned any with me with your actions, now years later.
Lastly, about your mental illness. I will go on record saying, that although I have sympathy that you are not sane, it does not mean the rest of us want it thrown in our face day in and day out. I also think you believe you can lash out at people and use (Doing Therapy) as a shield as to how we should treat your responses. To close you know right from wrong, these are gaming forums, please use them for that, gaming.
As for driving me from the boards, work, personal relationships from time to time take me away from them for long stretches, much more than John's posts do.
Adam
Oh, hello Adam. haven't seen you around for some time.
Thank you for that post, Adam. It's good to have you back.
If you see any players you'd like to run, let me know and I'll try to remember to toss them your direction when they verse out (or sooner if you feel comfortable taking over anyone's current game world).
--M. J. Young
MJ, I am forced to ask. You told me on several occasions that you learned more about me from the jeep crash than you possibly could have from any other opening. You learned most of what you did because it freaked me out and we had all of the discussions. Personally, I think if learning about players is your goal, then that negates any right you have to be upset about it, but my that's just my opinion.
My question is, which way would you have learned more In Game? The jeep crash, or me finding out where I am, trying to leave, and fighting with the MPs? I've told you what I think, which one do you feel you would have learned more from? I'm genuinely curious. I think if your objective is to learn about players, you should give them as many (limited) options as possible. Don't let them walk out the front door, but don't send a guy to shove a gun in their face 10 seconds after they get there either. Just curious what you think.
(Doing Therapy)
I doubt that you are forced to ask; in any event, I certainly am not forced to answer. That's a good thing, because any question that entails what the outcome might have been had everything been different is inherently unanswerable. We cannot even run a simulation to see what you would have done had it been different, because whatever you would do now is tainted by what happened in the first run.
So I can with complete honesty say that I have no answer for that question.
--M. J. Young
I understand that. Let me put it to you another way. Which do you think would be more useful to know? That I would get involved if I feared versing out with 40 broken bones (how hard I had to be pushed to get involved) or finding out that I would engage an entire police force in combat rather than get taken into custody (how hard I would fight to NOT get involved.) Which of those two would be more useful to know? I'm still just trying to figure out how this game works. I think the second would be more useful to know, but I'd be interested in your thoughts.
(Doing Therapy)
Both of those are useful. Neither is more useful.
--M. J. Young
Ya know, you keep saying that you thought I would have a hard time not warning them, that I would be "sorely tempted" to say something, etc. If I had ran through that like I was supposed to, I wouldn't have warned them. You would be thinking "John must really be dedicated to non-involvement to resist that kind of temptation" when there was no temptation whatsoever.
Two
MJ, you spent months setting up that scenario, finding someone to run it, bending over backwards to make it happen, all so I could completely derail the scenario with a single typed sentence. I think that's extremely funny in a morbid sort of way.
Um--I did not spend months on the scenario. I sent an e-mail to at least three and maybe five people suggesting that it would be interesting to see whether you would maintain your non-involvement in Pearl Harbor but that I was not prepared to run it. One of them responded that he could run it for us (that is, for me in that it saved me the trouble of doing a lot of research and set-up, and for you as the player), and so we agreed that at whatever point you versed out you would become his pr--er, player. I admit I gave it a second thought when you started getting involved fighting Godzilla, but it was not that important to me--I was much more concerned with what I would do with everyone else.
--M. J. Young
I admit I gave it a second thought when you started getting involved fighting Godzilla, but it was not that important to me--I was much more concerned with what I would do with everyone else.
I remember, as soon as I found out I was facing an MP at Pearl Harbor, I knew it wasn't going to go well.
Two
MJ, you said that "involvement" meant doing something which would have a meaningful impact. Killing the MP would have a meaningful impact, would it not? His family would think so, anyway..... I would be getting involved by trying to not get involved.
Three
Hey Adam, if you're still following this, I gotta question for you. Do you think you would have liked to have ran that scenario with me gun-fighting the MPs? It certainly would have been more interesting than what did go down. Just curious what your thoughts were on that.
(Doing Therapy)
Well first, it didn't matter what I would have liked, the MP has a job, and he will do his job to the best of his ability. As a trained Military Police officer, I'm sure his low two@ skill with his weapon with his low 2@ RSV would have made a gunfight a bad proposition for you, which would have likely versed you out. That probably would be bad for you, since I would send you to a world that was different from anything before, and based on your responses here, you probably wouldn't like the world.