Apparently my use of the phrase "pseudo-rational explanations" has irked and upset one of my players. As Inego Montoya says to Vizzini, I don't think that word means what you think it means.
I first started using the phrase when I was writing the Multiverser rules. It addresses a problem inherent in fantasy and science fiction. That problem is that explanations and solutions have to "make sense", but they are nearly always based on indefensible premises.
For example, our maxim for magic states that "magic is controlled by the expectations of the user". This means that anyone performing a magic ritual who does not believe in magic will not get the magical result; he will get his own expected result, which is that nothing will happen. It also means that it makes sense that the more a spell caster does to focus his own mind on his own expectations, the stronger his chance of success at magic will be. Thus ritual is critical to magic.
All of that makes perfect sense--except the part where magic is controlled by the expectations of the user. That part we made up out of whole cloth. We made it up because it feels rational and gives us most of the results we want--it makes ritual important, it puts all magic-users on a level playing field, it allows any kind of ritual elements to have significance within the game world, and it makes it clear why you have to believe in magic to use magic. But there are a lot of people on this board who can tell you that the premise is faulty. There are plenty of fictional scenarios where someone who did not believe in magic "accidentally" triggered it. Multiverser has to use some pretty fancy work-arounds to make such stories possible.
Thus the way magic works in Multiverser is a "pseudo-rational" explanation. It is logically consistent given acceptance of a completely indefensible premise.
There are a lot of other examples of this in Multiverser. Most of the high-tech stuff is built on pseudo-rational explanations--using sub-universe generation to exceed light speed, relying on quantum non-locality for instantaneous interstellar communications, bending space, creating wormholes, traveling through hyperspace. A lot of the detail in magic works this way, such as gates through the border supernatural to other universes. You'll find it in psionics--psionic devices function because their molecules are aligned in a psionically-sensitive or active array similar in principle to the way molecules are aligned in magnets. Even some of the high-bias bod skills, like non-corporeality and actual morphing and body linking symbionts. All it means is that certain premises which are completely indefensible have to be accepted in order for certain ideas logically to work in play, and so everything is rational except those premises.
It does not mean, as someone seems to think, that I'm blowing smoke in your face, trying to get you to accept something as so that isn't really logical. It means that it is really logical given that we accept the basic premises of the game world. These things are possible because these assumptions are made, and if we make these assumptions these are the logical conclusions from it. It does not mean that those things would therefore be possible in the real world, only that we've accepted them as possible and offered a logical explanation for why they work.
--M. J. Young
And now you're doing it again. OK, so maybe that wasn't the proper word to use, but you're still doing what I accused you of. Completely avoiding the issue in favor of some semantic detail. Whatever that word means is not the issue. You're going off on a tangent instead of addressing something right up in your face. Pseudo-rational explanation seemed as good a term as any to describe it. When faced with the knowledge that you're wrong, you try to explain that you're still right, and you often go to great lengths to do so. This thread is just another example of what I was talking about.
Let's see, it only took you FOUR YEARS to admit that you were wrong in my knowledge of Pearl Harbor. When I explained to you that I didn't know anything, you tried to explain to me that you were still right. It only took you FOUR YEARS to admit that you were wrong about my desire to get involved there, despite numerous explanations of my feelings about that event. Now, in my game, you say that you will let me show you where it is demonstrated that the Terminators are sentient, but no matter what reasoning I use, you won't admit that you're wrong, you will just give some pseudo-rational explanation (or whatever in the hell term it is) to explain that you're still right. You have a VERY difficult time admitting when you're wrong.
You were talking about getting requests for Final Countdown. THAT was why I did that movie. I did it as a favor to you. It had nothing whatsoever to do with an interest in the historical event. You still clung to the idea that I was an expert on Pearl Harbor until very recently. I bet you even still believe that Adam "Did the right thing" as far as how to introduce me to that scenario. I'd think that would have been proven wrong a hundred times by now. If I had known you were going to assume I was an expert and send me there based on that, I never would have done it. No good deed goes unpunished, as they say. Now, this very thread. You're trying to argue semantics as opposed to admitting that maybe, just maybe YOU might have a problem. This very thread is an example of what I'm talking about. You try to explain that you're right, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. It gets a tad annoying after a while.
Remember what we talked about before, John. Don't argue with MJ. You're not going to convince him, in all likelihood, and you're just going to make both of you mad.
Let us suppose you are right. MJ is unreasonable and will not learn better. Then what reason do you have to argue with him?
Remember what we talked about before, John. Don't argue with MJ. You're not going to convince him, in all likelihood, and you're just going to make both of you mad.
By which you prove my entire point.
Let us suppose you are right. MJ is unreasonable and will not learn better. Then what reason do you have to argue with him?
He said that he goes into a depressive funk if he doesn't allow himself to get angry. I go into psychotic rages if I don't express my anger. I don't think that's going to be a problem anymore, but why take the chance?
Well, as an observer of this debate, it looks more like MJ is trying to calmly explain his standpoint, and John is getting frustrated either because he doesn't understand, or he somehow believes that MJ's statement has nothing to do with whatever this is about.
John, have you ever considered that your arguing with MJ is not only distracting and offensive, it also turns MJ's workday into a chore? Seriously, could you imagine if, every other day, while you are working, someone came into your workspace and started an argument over something? It's likely to drive anyone to distraction. Frankly, I'm surprised MJ can put up with it. He shows remarkable restraint.
Frankly, I'm surprised MJ can put up with it. He shows remarkable restraint.
Honestly Brock, so am I. I just get frustrated easily when it seems like no one is listening to me.
Well, when you act like this, I'm less likely to listen to you. :)
I really want to say something here, but I think I will wait until I'm absolutely sure I can phrase it productively.
And if its attention you seek, then may I reccomend creating something beautiful and interesting like a world?
After rereading the blog entry for today, I almost feel bad for adding an additional burden to your day. It just seems to me that you're saying you would let me prove something, but no matter what explanation I gave, it wouldn't be good enough for you. You're just going to give me some pseudo-rational explanation (or whatever in the hell the preferred term is) and write me off. Effectively blowing smoke in my face. You refused to admit that you were wrong about my knowledge of something else, even after I repeatedly explained it to you. This is something that I know, and you STILL won't accept that you could maybe, just maybe be wrong. It bugs me.
"I'm the ref and I'm right."
M.J. Young.
You've never said it in those words, but you've been saying it for years.
I am observing the power gamer in his natural habitat.
You rang?
But a good power gamer has a sense of humor about himself (that is, the power gamer that does not drive the referee to murder.)
Let me boast proudly of creating a beginning level Champions superhero that could take on the Doctor Doom of that world,a dn kick his teeth in.
Not as cool as being Wurld Champeen, but still, its something.
Define power gamer.
In The Racial Discrimination Thread, when I was telling you about how you could have become a molecular biologist, you even flat out said "There's no way you will convince me of this, no matter what you say" or something very like that. You even admitted flat out that you weren't going to change your mind on something, no matter what evidence was presented. Even the quote from the Bible wasn't enough to convince you. "He is the potter, you are the clay." So you're saying that not even God would have been able to steer your course in that direction if He so chose? And you say that I make a mockery of God.......
If that isn't giving me a pseudo-rational explanation and writing me off, I don't know what would be.
A good power gamer also knows how to turn that attribute on or off sometimes. I tend to be a power gamer in some board games, electronic games, miniatures, and d&d (I consider d&d a miniatures game that gives the dm a little more room for role-play).
I however am happy to be a weaker character simply to make a game more interesting in more role-play intense games. I used to not be able to do this easily, but after I started it really makes some role playing systems much more enjoyable. Call of Cthulhu in particular.
This is more of a self revelation than advice for anyone, but I thought it was worth saying.
As to the definition of the power gamer, there are a couple of definitions, and it's loosely bounded normally.
Unless they're talking about it in a different sense a power gamer is a person who strives to make his character uniformly better, not necessarily based on character development but a numbers game to raise efficiency and raw power.
It's also referred to a as a min/max'er. One who designs a character to purposefully minimize weakness and maximize strengths.
Just so you know John your arguments have been phrased in the sense of they're sentient because they're sentient and I know terminator better than you. As to the argument that MJ could have been a molecular biologist I believe the issue here is how MJ is defining self and your willingness to ignore that all for the sake of saying a person can be anything. If you change everything about a person in order to change the profession they would be does not mean they are that person. They may have the name MJ Young but in no way is our MJ Young.
MJ had stated previously that the terminators were normal AI, it's not like he pulled this in because he didn't want the skill to work, he was only remembering something he had previously established. He MADE that world, it is what he envisions. Now if you can explain why what he envisions should be defined as sentient then you have a good chance. That means finding an example in the movies, only the movies, not the books, not the tv shows, not fan forums, not quotes from the creator, but facts from the same movies that MJ watched and based the world on. Barring doing that you have absolutely no right to complain that he won't just admit you're right.
Also you're lucky you still have a referee. I've dropped players for being less of a burden than you're being and I every referee/GM I know (excluding MJ) would have dropped you.
If you change everything about a person in order to change the profession they would be does not mean they are that person. They may have the name MJ Young but in no way is our MJ Young.
He said that he could see himself as a rock star. In what way would that be the same person he is? It would be an offshoot of what he could have seen his life taking, but it would in no way make him the same person. That's like saying that Axl Rose is the same person as Mark Joseph Young, just because Axl Rose used to play RPGs.
That means finding an example in the movies, only the movies, not the books, not the tv shows, not fan forums, not quotes from the creator, but facts from the same movies that MJ watched and based the world on. Barring doing that you have absolutely no right to complain that he won't just admit you're right.
And what I'm saying is even if I found it, he wouldn't accept it. He would give me some pseudo-rational explanation (or whatever in the hell you call it) and write it off.
Eric sent me to Gamemastah's Trap and Barney World, and I all I got was this damn belt, and world ender plutionium scale. Wait I should have sparred with that guy, that belt makes all my hand to hand attacks lethal :P Thanks Eric! :P
The power gamer turns vinegar into fruit punch flavored Gatorade, and Haterade for all the rest :P
LOL.
Feeling stupid about using that, but I was laughing.
MJ could have relatively easily been a rock star, and still been mostly the same person with differing circumstances. He's a musician, among other things.
Alternate moi's are Senatorial aide, drunken bar fight murderer, nuke tech on a sub, supply clerk on an aircraft carrier, comic shoppe owner, survivalist....but being the owner of a golf pro shopped is extremely unlikely for me. According to MJ, one of my dops is a vampire hunting preacher.
Let's see, it only took you FOUR YEARS to admit that you were wrong in my knowledge of Pearl Harbor. When I explained to you that I didn't know anything, you tried to explain to me that you were still right. It only took you FOUR YEARS to admit that you were wrong about my desire to get involved there, despite numerous explanations of my feelings about that event.
I think that you simply never understood what I was saying.
What I was saying was I may have been wrong about how much you knew about Pearl Harbor, and about whether you would have wanted to become involved if you knew the attack was imminent, but I was not wrong that it was a good world to use to find out whether you would get involved. It turned out that Adam's opening was a wonderful way to bring about that circumstance, and so Adam's opening was the right one for determining what we wanted to know, and we learned that yes, pushed hard enough, you would get involved. You were not completely committed to non-involvement the way the complete pacifist allows himself to be pinned against the wall and punched in the gut multiple times without defending himself (and I know that guy).
So I admitted immediately that I was wrong about how much you knew, but said it was irrelevant to whether it was a well-chosen world.
And if you can show how it is that Pearl Harbor did not show that you were willing to get involved given the right incentive, then one of us is not really in touch with reality. You did get involved; Adam found the right incentive. End of story.
"I'm the ref and I'm right."
M.J. Young.
I'm going to try not to be offended by that statement. I see six other active players in today's game (and I know there's another couple posting on the board who did not post to their game threads), and I doubt there's one of them who would say that I have said that in my running of their games. It's certainly true that my credibility to define what is real in the world exceeds that of the players, and in that sense I'm right by virtue of the fact that I define the worlds; but I don't think I've ever been accused of being unreasonable about it before now--not even by Maxx, and I fought pretty hard against most of what Maxx wanted to do.
I remember when my wife called the first grade teacher of one of my sons completely incompetent, and the other teachers gathered in the hall to console her that she really was a good teacher and shouldn't take the accusation seriously. I doubt she was completely incompetent, but she really didn't know how to teach my son or deal with his mother.
So maybe we're just mismatched. Or maybe as others have suggested you are simply a belligerent player who wants to fight every decision the referee makes which he doesn't like. That actually puts you in the category of Rules Lawyer, not Power Gamer (or Munchkin), except of course that it's rather difficult to argue with the designer of a game that he's not applying the rules the way they're intended. If you're going to fight with the referee because you don't like what's happening in your game, you're going to wind up without a referee, or with one who is very harsh in his rulings.
In The Racial Discrimination Thread, when I was telling you about how you could have become a molecular biologist, you even flat out said "There's no way you will convince me of this, no matter what you say" or something very like that. You even admitted flat out that you weren't going to change your mind on something, no matter what evidence was presented. Even the quote from the Bible wasn't enough to convince you. "He is the potter, you are the clay." So you're saying that not even God would have been able to steer your course in that direction if He so chose? And you say that I make a mockery of God....
On the theological point, au contraire, the point about God being the potter (at least as Paul uses it in Romans) is that I can only be who I am, and can't object that God made me who I am and not someone else who would have done something else. Had God made me something else, I would not have been me, and the argument that God should have made me someone else fails precisely because had he done so He would have made someone else, not me.
Am I too foolish to think I might have been a rock star, but never a molecular biologist? Maybe. On the other hand, I have always been squeamish about all things biological, even in grade school, avoiding biology in middle school and again in high school, reporting kids who ripped open dying frogs. I not only squirm when my wife talks about some of her patient care, I squirm when she rolls her fingers over her earlobe and mentions the lump that forms around the piercing. I consider pierced ears barbaric, and can't think about them without getting a bit unnerved. Bodies bother me, and the more when they are open. As to being a rock star, I am still in a rock band, in which I sing one of the lead vocals and play guitar, bass, and keyboards, as well as writing most and arranging all the music, and quite honestly if we were given the opportunity to go on tour tomorrow you wouldn't hear from me again until the tour ended--and maybe not even then--because music has been my dream since elementary school, and it is a severe disappointment to me and a major contributor to my depression that I'm not doing the music in a big way. So sure, I can easily see myself as a rock star, but I can only see someone else who has my name as a molecular biologist.
Game designer and referee and writer are what I do. Musician is who I am. I'm really out of phase with my own self-identity. But then, there are a lot of other things I could do, and a lot of things I have learned I could never do, and understanding that has helped immensely.
--M. J. Young
So maybe we're just mismatched.
You're depressed, I'm psychotic. From a medical standpoint, those two are polar opposites of each other. If we put our heads together, we would be normal. So yeah, mismatched. It's not our fault, it's in our biology.
I've told you before, if you want to suspend my game until you get over your ire, or even kick me off the board completely, ask nicely.
"In The Racial Discrimination Thread, when I was telling you about how you could have become a molecular biologist, you even flat out said "There's no way you will convince me of this, no matter what you say" or something very like that. You even admitted flat out that you weren't going to change your mind on something, no matter what evidence was presented. Even the quote from the Bible wasn't enough to convince you. "He is the potter, you are the clay." So you're saying that not even God would have been able to steer your course in that direction if He so chose? And you say that I make a mockery of God.......
If that isn't giving me a pseudo-rational explanation and writing me off, I don't know what would be."
On the Contrary, if MJ really said what you claim, then it would have been irrational, not pseudo rational. As MJ explained, Pseudo rational refers to something that is only rational when a given premise the rationale depends upon is accepted at face value.
Irrational is a refusal to see that the given defense is not logical, continuing to defend long past the point it has been debunked.
This is not to say I think MJ is irrational; quite the opposite is true, in my eyes.
And if you can show how it is that Pearl Harbor did not show that you were willing to get involved given the right incentive, then one of us is not really in touch with reality. You did get involved; Adam found the right incentive. End of story.
Yeah, and all he had to do was simultaneously force me to become more involved than I would have ever chosen to become and practically force me into the story, as well as turn my character into a cold-blooded killer. Not to mention the fact that it was discovered completely by accidental and unexpected means. If I hadn't pulsed the MP, you would think I was dedicated to non-involvement, because I had no desire to risk ruining the future history of the United States.
Actually, tiresome as this involvement debate has become, especially the what ifs and might have beens, I must say that eventually MJ would still have discovered you are a path of least resistance/most benefit type player. That can't be hidden forever. It would have taken longer, and he may have sent you to more worlds to test how far your 'non-involvement' policy goes, until it eventually broke and the truth came out. That was part of the 'getting to know the player in order to place him in the world he would be most interested in' stage. And look what has happened since then; I mean, how much are you enjoying Terminator?
Actually, tiresome as this involvement debate has become
You think it's tiresome? Try living inside my head. You guys just have to deal with it here. No matter how "tiresome" it is for you, you're getting the better end of the deal, I assure you.
And look what has happened since then; I mean, how much are you enjoying Terminator?
(Laughing) And if I'm right, I can't even verse out of it.
You think it's tiresome? Try living inside my head. You guys just have to deal with it here. No matter how "tiresome" it is for you, you're getting the better end of the deal, I assure you.
There is no deal. A deal implies an exchange of benefits or penalties or combination of the two, imposed upon each other by separate parties.
You have imposed upon us the penalty of a tiresome and repetitive debate.
We have imposed no penalty upon you.
Therefore, there was no "deal". It is tiresome and annoying.
Also, have you complained about every world you've been to so far?
I've obviously heard complaints about pearl harbor, complaints that Dancing Princesses (or whatever world it's called, I think that's close enough) didn't have a good enough hook to get you, complaints that the spaceship (TerraNova?) should have been possible if you split up or you shouldn't have been allowed to split up, and complaints about terminator.
Are you just not enjoying the games? In which case I wonder why you continue. If you are enjoying the games then I wonder why you complain so much.
You have imposed upon us the penalty of a tiresome and repetitive debate.
We have imposed no penalty upon you.
Every hour that anyone else has spent dealing with me on this represents probably 10 hours that I have had it running through my mind. I hate it too. If that's not a penalty then I don't know what would be.
I've obviously heard complaints about pearl harbor, complaints that Dancing Princesses (or whatever world it's called, I think that's close enough) didn't have a good enough hook to get you, complaints that the spaceship (TerraNova?) should have been possible if you split up or you shouldn't have been allowed to split up, and complaints about terminator.
Dancing Princess I was trying to understand. I had an awesome time. I wasn't complaining about it, I was trying to understand it and learn from it. Dancing Princess was actually one of my favorite worlds, if you must know.
TerraNova I was trying to understand. I likewise had an awesome time. Likewise, not complaining, trying to understand and learn. The most significant thing I learned is why players get involved. If you don't, it gets kind of boring kind of quickly.
Terminator I know too well for the referee. I'm still enjoying it. Maybe I can educate the referee. He's taught me so much, time to return the favor. I think I just need to forget what I've learned from other sources for the moment, until I'm actually engaging a machine. Then I can put my knowledge of their weaknesses to good use. Reese actually could have crippled the Terminator in the Tech-Noir gunfight, if he hadn't been trying to save Sarah. A shot to the eyes, a shot the knees, either of those would have crippled it. His objective was to get it away from Sarah, so no time for fancy crippling shots. I'll just put that to use when I face one.
I wasn't complaining insomuch as I was trying to understand and learn. If trying to understand something equates to complaining to you, then I bet you don't ask many questions to understand things. You probably don't learn much either.
Are you just not enjoying the games? In which case I wonder why you continue. If you are enjoying the games then I wonder why you complain so much.
On the contrary, seeing "Last Poster MJ Young" on the thread is often the highlight of my whole day. Pearl Harbor was a 30 roll. That was 1 in 1,000 bad luck, for everyone. That was an anomaly. I probably would have sent me there too if I was MJ, and we both would have made the wrong choice.
For what it's worth, I'm sorry for all the trouble I've caused, but just believe me. I've suffered for it.
Two
If you really must know, Pearl Harbor was the ONLY world I've really complained about at all. I may have gotten frustrated with certain things in other worlds at times, but for the most part, I was just trying to learn from them. The rest of the supposed "complaining" that I'm being accused of was just trying to learn from the experience. May I remind you that I am also the least experienced gamer here. What you saw as complaining was me trying to learn from the worlds. That's why I asked why the referee didn't try to get me through TerraNova. Trying to learn about different refereeing styles. Asking about the plot hook in Dancing Princess, trying to learn what motivates a "normal" player. If you don't learn from your mistakes, you're doomed to repeat them. If you see asking questions and trying to learn as complaining, then you should probably never become a teacher.
Quoting Mike, John wrote:
You have imposed upon us the penalty of a tiresome and repetitive debate.
We have imposed no penalty upon you.Every hour that anyone else has spent dealing with me on this represents probably 10 hours that I have had it running through my mind. I hate it too. If that's not a penalty then I don't know what would be.
I know you don't perceive how foolish this sounds; maybe I can help.
- I know it's really bad for me to take ten dollars out of your wallet and give it to my landlord, but for every ten dollars I've taken from you I've paid a hundred dollars myself, so really you're getting the better end of the deal.
Permit me to say that we all have some sympathy for your struggles and your pain. We also all have our own struggles and our own pains. You are to some degree adding to our struggles and pains by burdening us with your own. You do it expressing the attitude that no one else suffers the way you suffer, no one suffers to the degree that you suffer, no one else's problems are as bad as yours. More than that, you treat it as if the only problems we have are your problems with which you burden us, and since that is so much less than the level to which you must bear those problems we should be grateful that our shares of your problems are so much smaller than your shares of your problems.
No one here has asked you to share our problems, except perhaps me, because I sometimes complain (to no one in particular) in the Blogless Lepolt or here on the forum of some of my difficulties. Shame on me. I do it much less than I once did, in part because my wife doesn't like her problems publicized, and most of my problems are in some sense hers as well. But I've noticed that learning about the problems of most of the people on this board requires meticulous attention to nuances in their posts and posting habits, and learning about yours requires only reading threads on the forum that are not there for you to express your problems but become opportunities for you to do so anyway.
I'll bet you know nothing about:
- The death of Adam's mother.
- Brock's financial problems that left him without a computer for a while.
- Nikolaj's work with impoverished children in Eastern Europe.
- The death last year of John Mastick's wife.
- Harry's loss of his job.
- The flooding that devastated Eric's neighborhood.
I'll admit that I don't know a lot about the subjects I've mentioned; but those are all details culled from interacting with these people, most of them through this forum and the rest mentioned here. You are not interested in everyone else's problems, except to the degree that you can tell us that yours are worse. I know you have problems. I am not persuaded that yours are the worst of everyone here. I am persuaded that yours are the ones most often mentioned here, thanks to the fact that you are so totally self-absorbed that you are constantly telling us about your problems and never noticing much about ours.
Now, on other subjects--
Reese actually could have crippled the Terminator in the Tech-Noir gunfight, if he hadn't been trying to save Sarah. A shot to the eyes, a shot the knees, either of those would have crippled it. His objective was to get it away from Sarah, so no time for fancy crippling shots. I'll just put that to use when I face one.
I'm running fragments of four movies through my head looking for any evidence that this is true. I certainly agree that it makes sense for visual sensors and articulated joints to be vulnerabilities on a humanoid machine just as they are on a human body; but I think that we're going to have to rely on die rolls to tell us whether your "fancy crippling shots" wind up being crippling in play. But you don't face a T-800 for a while yet, so that information might not matter for a while.
May I remind you that I am also the least experienced gamer here.
I've let this statement blow past several times without challenge, because it has been difficult to prove or disprove. However, I can now say categorically that it is not true. Although I cannot say who is the least experienced gamer here, I can say that Nikolaj has less experience than you.
- You had played Multiverser briefly and seen how it works prior to starting on this board, and you later realized that you had had one experience playing some other role playing game briefly many years ago. Nikolaj contacted me by e-mail because he had heard that role playing games were works of evil and knew that I contended otherwise, so with no experience at all he wanted to find out for himself by becoming involved in a real role playing game run by a Christian.
- Nikolaj started several weeks after you did, joining your game in progress, which means you started first.
- After several weeks (I want to say a few months) of play, Nikolaj withdrew from the game, politely giving me his reasons by e-mail. He remained out of play for at least a year, possibly longer, during which time you played constantly.
- Nikolaj has since returned, but because his situation takes him away from home into impoverished areas for extended periods his play has been sporadic, while yours has been the most consistent of anyone on the board.
If you see asking questions and trying to learn as complaining, then you should probably never become a teacher.
That's certainly valid advice. However, many of your questions are phrased as challenges, and some which are probably not intended so come across that way. Challenges sound like complaints: "Why did this not work the way I expected?" sounds like you mean that you didn't get your way and you want us (or more usually me) to justify that fact. Having to justify every decision, or even many decisions, is very tedious and time-consuming, and makes the game a lot less fun for me. I don't want to say "I'm the referee, so I'm right," but you know, there is a significant degree to which something like that is true. That is, role playing games run by a distribution of credibility between the participants. Credibility means each participant is deemed to be correct when he makes statements about the shared imagined space that are within his sphere of credibility. When you say, "I'm going to try to do this," it is within your credibility to state what your character tries to do, most of the time. It is within my credibility to state whether or not he succeeds. There are certain authorities (the rulebook, the dice, the character sheets, the world designs) which I consult in reaching my decision, and I am expected to be impartial, reaching a decision based on those authorities, but ultimately it happens the way I say because I have been designated the person who gets to say what happens. Maybe the bullet kills you; maybe the gun manufacturer killed you; but I'm the guy who pulled the trigger, and culpability falls to me. In that sense, it happened because I said so; I'm the one who gets to say. Hopefully, I said so because a fair reading of everything involved led to the conclusion that this was a fair outcome. All my other players seem to think so most of the time.
I hope this helps.
--M. J. Young
I'll bet you know nothing about:
* The death of Adam's mother.
* Brock's financial problems that left him without a computer for a while.
* Nikolaj's work with impoverished children in Eastern Europe.
* The death last year of John Mastick's wife.
* Harry's loss of his job.
* The flooding that devastated Eric's neighborhood.
And in what way are any of these caused by or related to gaming? Just as you didn't know that several months ago, my aunt spent 2 days torturing me, only to end up ripping me off for $200. Now if Adam's mother was killed when a stack of Multiverser rulebooks fell over on her, I would certainly not begrudge him complaining about it here. The problems I espouse on here are game-related, and you can and have helped me to solve them. For that, I will always be grateful.
Let me highly reccomend for MJ's sake that I run John's game instead of MJ. Of course, John might not appreciate this because my rules would be 1)One post to object to my decision. 2)One reply to the objection. Decision final, no further appeal or conversation on that topic.
Of course, I know that John would try to break that rule, but I am much better than MJ at ignoring people. I KNOW reason and logic won't work. Only experience will teach. One reason I am better for this is that I am a condescending pompous snot. John doesn't need someone to argue with him. He needs someone to smack his fingers with a riding stick and laugh at him when he's being silly.
It would probably be good for John. Force him to move forward instead of always looking to the past, and trying to defy his GM. And it would definitely be good for MJ who does not need this stress.
I've told MJ several times that if he wants me to leave the board, ask me nicely. Even in this thread. It wouldn't be the first time I've been asked to leave a social group I was a member of.
Well, how about you volunteer to have your game run by me rather than MJ?
I'll leave that one up to MJ. So, how about it Mr. Young? Ask me nicely to leave, ask me nicely to be run by Eric, or keep doing it yourself? Your decision. I can't get much more fair to you than that.
Two
From a post above.
The problems I espouse on here are game-related, and you can and have helped me to solve them. For that, I will always be grateful.
If Eric hadn't replied to that post, I would have deleted it. I saw how ignorant and stupid I was being. Except for the part that I quoted, just forget the rest was there. Eric replied before I could delete it. It was one of those things that sounded good when you're pissed off, but an hour later, you're kicking yourself for saying.
Let's see, John.
You went to the following worlds...
Pearl Harbor 1941
Dancing Princesses
B Movie World
Terminator
Is that right? And is that in the right order?
Also, what are your favorite five movies, and books?
Yes, I'm being pushy or pushing this forward as you like.
B Movie Monster World
Pearl Harbor
Dancing Princess
TerraNova
Terminator
Five favorite movies:
Terminator (obviously)
What Dreams May Come
Stardust (Excellent fantasy flick)
Iron Man (Tony Stark putting his own life on the line to protect people from the weapons he created. That's a hero.)
Earthsea
Favorite books
The Outsiders
The Road
Bag of Bones (Stephen King)
Left Behind Series
Don't really read a lot of books. Believe it or not, I like Terminator for the love story between Reese and Sarah, not so much for the action. Reese is easily my favorite movie hero.
Favorite TV shows
Enterprise
Start Trek Voyager
Quantum Leap (I really like Scott Bakula)
Maybe it would be a good thing for you to take it over. I'm not volunteering for anything, I'm not giving an opinion either way. I'm still leaving it in Mr. Young's control. His decision.
"Ask me nicely to leave, ask me nicely to be run by Eric, or keep doing it yourself? Your decision. I can't get much more fair to you than that. "
So you know, this comes across as "I will not leave unless Mj asks me with respect and kindness, because I am too ornery to leave if he asks neutrally or rudely, and will likely make trouble if he is not exceptionally nice. I am being very fair to you by offering an ultimatum about the actions you will take regarding me, because I am better than you."
Having read a lot of your text by this point (I've even spent time digging in the archives), I believe you meant: "I am sorry if I am being troublesome to you, but i don't believe I can change enough to stop being troublesome, so if you want me to, I will leave, even though I love it here. Or I can be run by Eric, and thus be less troubling to you. (As a compromise)"
Is that about right?