In a somehwat similar manner to Kyler's soft spot for abused little girls, I have a soft spot for anyone who has been abused.
You don't seem to have one for me. When I was 7-8 years old, there were about a half-dozen guys who would follow me to and from school every day, making my already miserable existence even more so. Every day I asked the same question "Why are you doing this to me?" And every day, I got the same answer. "Because you're a NERD!!!!" To this day, I still don't know what a "nerd" is. However, considering that there were 6 of them, and at least 2 of them were 4 years older than me, I'm forced to conclude that a "nerd" must be someone who is too small to fight back.
Years later, I was relaying this story to my next-door neighbor. He said "If they were picking on you, then they were leaving everyone else alone."
It took me a long time to understand what he meant by that.
I operate under Multiverser rules; according to the appendix on time travel in the back of the Big Book, travelling back in time purposefully to change an event will result in not travelling back in time to change the event if successful which will result in travelling back in time to change the event which will result in not travelling back in time to change the event which will result in travelling back in time to change the event and so on and so forth.
Of course, if we're talking about interdimensional travel and not time travel then it doesn't really matter anyway, does it? You can't change anything by going back in time, in that case, so no one would do it.
I'm watching Daredevil. He went blind when he was 10 years old. Brock's like "Oh that's horrible. Let's improve his life by fixing that."
Before he was blind, he was constantly afraid and bullied by other kids. When he went blind, he became "The Boy Without Fear." His echolocation sense is as good if not better then eyesight. He became a hero. Had he not lost his eyesight, he would have just been another kid who lived a bullied life. Even if he didn't become Daredevil, he did become a successful attorney. Would the sighted, bullied version of Matt Murdock have had the courage to do that? I'd say that losing his sight was the best thing that ever happened to him.
Bad things happen. They make us who we are. I would have rather not gotten banged up in the jeep crash. I wouldn't change it though. It let my character "Break Free". It let him let his true nature loose. Who needs to be civilized and respect authority when you're an immortal who is armed to the teeth? It was the best thing which could have happened to him.
(Doing Therapy)
Right, John. In that situation, were I to see the bullies picking on you, I would have been the one to leap into the middle of things and shout at them to leave you alone. I have done so before. I do not abide such behavior.
I don't have a problem with it anymore. I got picked on and bullied for being psychotic. Now, the fact that I'm psychotic means that I'm on medical disability and they are paying for my apartment. I love it when things come full-circle like that.
(Doing Therapy)
everyone gets picked on.
It's actually a real problem these days, or at least one that's getting a lot more attention from the media.
As for Brock's standpoint, after I started fighting back I made it a personal point to stand up for anyone who was being picked on. I don't do it so much anymore, for the simple reason that if you come to the rescue all the time, it only gets worse; the bullying intensifies when you aren't around, the person you help feels becomes even less able to protect themself, and you make a personal enemy of the bullies.
As for Brock's standpoint, after I started fighting back I made it a personal point to stand up for anyone who was being picked on.
There was a kid I went to school with. He had a hormone problem and stopped growing when he was 8 years old. He looked and acted very much like an 8 year old boy. Someone that small becomes an obvious target. One day, a guy took his wallet. Me and two of my friends saw it. We all cornered the guy. I told him "You either give him back his wallet, or you're going to fight all four of us." He could have easily taken us one at a time, I'm certain of that, but apparently didn't want to mess with all of us at once. The little guy got his wallet back. That was a good feeling though. To my knowledge, the little guy never had any more problems with him.
*gawks in speechless wonder at Harry's most recent post for a moment*
You meant, "Well, spit"; ...right?
In Star Trek TNG, Tasha Yar, a 5 foot 6 blonde woman is the Chief of Security, as well as being a Tactical Officer. Worf, a 6 foot 4 Klingon is a Tactical Officer. Am I the only one who thinks the 6 foot 4 Klingon is a MUCH better choice for Chief of Security? As much as I liked the character of Tasha Yar, I must say that the show was improved when Worf became Chief of Security. Anyone else with me? Don't get me wrong. I wouldn't turn my nose up at having Tasha Yar watching my back in a fight, but something just tells me the 6 foot 4 Klingon would be better able to protect my life.
I think part of the point was that in the kind of world in which they lived, being a 6'4" Klingon warrior only makes you a bigger target.
One of the "Security" people aboard The Destiny is Ishara. I made him Oriental because I wanted to make him a bit inscrutable; but he has no listed martial combat skills. His philosophy is that no one will ever get close enough for them to be useful.
I had a character in Star Frontiers years ago on whom this attitude might be modeled. He did have martial skills, but most weapons, and particularly most effective weapons, were ranged. At one point he picked up a sonic disruptor (not swearing to the correct designation). It had a short range of two meters, in which it did I think 6d10 of damage; it did 4d10 to ten meters, 2d10 to twenty meters, and d10 to thirty meters. It was technically a ranged weapon, but was pretty worthless at range--but within martial combat ranges, it outstripped everything. I really quickly learned that this guy should never use a 2d10 machete in close combat, because he could blow holes in opponents with the disruptor.
And I think part of the charm of Tasha was that you would underestimate her. With a disruptor in her hand she could beat Worf. Sure, she didn't even know how to hold a batleth, but as Indiana Jones demonstrated against the impressive swordsman, to use a martial weapon you've got to get within martial range.
That is just amoral. You say that you would allow a human being to undergo years of suffering so that you can enjoy the soulful sound of the voice her suffering has spawned?
Brock, I don't want to put words in John's mouth, but I think it was his point that Loretta Lynn would have considered the pain she suffered a price worth paying for the outcome. I don't know whether that's true.
John, I think you vastly overestimate the value of Loretta Lynn's music. You challenge us to prove that no good ever came from it, but there are two other sides to this. You haven't proved that Loretta Lynn would not have made equally great music absent her suffering, and you haven't proved that those goods would not have come from someone else's music.
Personally I find country music mostly worthless, so I'm not in a good position to judge. I can't name a single song Loretta Lynn ever sang, and have no desire to be educated on that field. I'm sure that Loretta Lynn has had a positive impact on some people--as have Willie Nelson and Dolly Parton and any other country singer you can name. I'm not sure that she has had a more positive impact on more lives than have Jay Truax[1], Brooks Williams[2], Ted Sandquist[3], or Kathy Troccoli[4], and if you've heard of any one of them I'll be quite surprised. The popularity of vapid songs by the likes of Lynn instead of the genuinely positive music of artists like these makes me feel that it would have been better for such songs never to have been written. But then, that's only my musically- and spiritually-educated opinion.
When I was 7-8 years old, there were about a half-dozen guys who would follow me to and from school every day, making my already miserable existence even more so.
I don't have much sympathy for that because I also went through it, and I learned to live with it and get past it.
That is, I certainly understand what it was like, I just don't understand why you never got over it. You've mentioned it a dozen times in various contexts on this board, and it's never been particularly relevant to anything other than "I deserve sympathy because I was treated by other kids much like the majority of kids in the world." I doubt there are many on this board who were not regularly beaten and persecuted by other kids when they were in grade school, maybe high school, possibly later. It's how strong kids with high insecurity levels make themselves feel important, by proving they can beat up weak kids.
I once had a kid with a wooden leg tell me that he wanted me to meet him after school so he could beat me up. I said I wasn't going to do that, and I thought he would look stupid trying to prove his strength by beating up someone who had no desire to fight. He ambushed me anyway. I bit him. He complained that I didn't fight fair. I told him I that I had already said I did not want to fight, and he couldn't make the rules.
Eric (Ashley) is a big guy, but I'll bet he had his turn as the weakling, too. I know, because I've heard the story from Big Brother Archie (on whom I have modeled many characters, from the muscleman in the Reptile House team to the big fighter in the tower scenario). In eighth grade he was a little fat kid whom everyone attacked for fun. Over the summer he grew twelve inches and became the incredible hulk. That fall guys were lining up saying, "remember me, your old friend?" He simply looked at them askance, thinking, "I remember you."
The biggest problem with the Daredevil example is that his enhanced senses were not a consequence of his blindness, but a separate independent consequence of the cause of the blindness. Thousands of people go blind every year; none of them develop his enhanced sensory abilities in other senses. Besides, if you'd asked him, he'd have said that he wished he'd never lost his eyesight, whatever the benefits he got for it--and since the two are independent, why couldn't he have gotten the enhanced senses and not lost his eyesight? Multiverser characters do that all the time.
In the game world, I don't mind when bad things happen to the characters, because it makes for interesting stories. In the real world, well, I figure the reason bad things happen is so that good people can prove their love and kindness toward those in need.
I've really been fixated on the sheep and the goats of late (Matthew 25:31ff). One point that catches my attention is that the goats never actually did anything bad. When he was hungry, they didn't steal his food; when he was thirsty, they didn't poison the water; when he was naked they didn't burn his clothes. They didn't make him sick or put him in prison. Their guilt was entirely that they were never kind. They never did anything to ameliorate the suffering of others.
We're not here to survive. We're here ultimately to die, but along the way to make the lives of others better as we do so. Spend your life on others. At least, learn to do so through your character, and then see if you're willing to do that in reality as well.
--M. J. Young
[1]Jay Truax was bass guitarist in Love Song, which launched Chuck Girard, and on the Paul Clark and Friends albums which also featured Phil Keaggy, and in other Christian contemporary music productions.
[2]Apart from being someone I worked with in college, Brooks Williams is a moderately successful underground guitarist/vocalist mostly in New England with several albums to his credit.
[3]Ted Sandquist was one of the elders at Love inn in Elvira, New York, operational base for such as Phil Keaggy, Scott Ross, and others, and composer of worship tunes in the 1970's.
[4]Powerful New York alto Kathy Troccoli debuted in contemporary Christian music in the early 1980s with Stubborn Love, a powerful and encouraging song on an excellent album.
I think part of the point was that in the kind of world in which they lived, being a 6'4" Klingon warrior only makes you a bigger target.
And since I'm 6'2" and weigh over 250 pounds, I'd much rather have someone standing next to me who is larger who would get shot at first. That's far from the original point I was making, but it still holds true. The Klingon is the better choice. If they're shooting, he will get shot first. If it comes to a fist fight..... I don't think I need to explain further.
Brock, I don't want to put words in John's mouth, but I think it was his point that Loretta Lynn would have considered the pain she suffered a price worth paying for the outcome. I don't know whether that's true.
It is quite true.
(Doing Therapy)
John I see your not putting "Doing Therapy" below these posts, so here is a question do you ever wonder why the MP handcuffed you behind your back in a jeep :P
Adam, you can spin this any which way helps you sleep at night, but the ULTIMATE reason for it is because YOU are a sadistic jerk who enjoys hurting players. Everything you did suggests a sadistic attitude. I rolled a perfect on my persuasion check. Shouldn't that have meant he didn't handcuff me at all? You forgot the dice rolls in lieu of your own sadistic agenda. Even using that opening suggests sadism. You were trying to force me. No matter what your assessment was, a perfect persuasion meant that I got an MP who was trusting and a little bit gullible. He wouldn't handcuff Charles Manson. You should have played him like that. Nope. You just went with your own sadistic assessment. Then why did you roll the check at all?
I can't believe you actually thought I would want to stop the Pearl Harbor bombing. God already allowed it to happen. If God in His infinite wisdom allowed the bombing to take place, who am I, a mere mortal, to usurp that? As obvious as it is to you that it should be stopped, that's how obvious it is to me that it should have been allowed to continue.
I woke up with it in my head. You ask why I can't get over being bullied? I can't even get over a stupid game world.
yawn
I think you need some fresh material, A1nut
You're beginning to bore me
This is essentially the same argument you made previously in this very thread, to which my response was and is that I'm in a game with Adam and he doesn't seem sadistic to me.
No Kyler, now that I think about it, I'm asking a mechanics question. How are persuasion checks used? I didn't think anything of it until he mentioned it. When I reread that, I had to wonder. Adam was talking about it not being SOP in the 40s. He brought it up. That, plus a perfect persuasion check, I have to wonder.
You saw that as a test of non-involvement. I saw it as a prime example of why versers should not get involved.
(Doing Therapy)
Two
The world makes so much more sense when I'm high. When I wake up with this in my head, which is less and less often lately, I'm furious. When I light up, things make more sense. I'm calmer. I'm more relaxed. It doesn't bother me as much. Of course, things bother me much less than they did 6 years ago, whether I'm high or not.
You gotta look at this from where I'm sitting. That was an angry manic fit. All I did was write a sternly-worded letter. Six years ago, an angry manic fit meant I was ready to break something. Well, at least I wouldn't have been in any condition to use a computer......
(Doing Therapy)
Using a persuasion check to determine the response of the MP would have been perhaps a more fair method of determining his response, but I don't by any means try to infringe on other GMs game running styles.
Speaking of which, I think you're running me in a game;
Could I get a freaking post already?
=P
The first to John, it was my first game GMing and my grasp of the mechanics aren't as good as they are now. The second being, he was persuaded not to shoot you on sight with a Van and a Soviet Weapon in the Van. Pearl Harbor is on an island, and you were seen near a futuristic van. With world events, he would have been well within his rights if he saw you as a threat (and based on your stockpile), to shoot you. I can't remember if there was a check or not, but the situation was favorable until you started with the phrase "Keep hitting him with a TK pulse in the back of the head until we get to base." Not an exact wording, but close enough.
John if I was sadistic, I would have had them bound you to a table still alive, and start cutting you open to see what was different about you, while you were still alive :P
That's always fun.
Really, though, it's only been 2 weeks since my last game post from you A1nut =p
I had read over the Pearl Harbor game a while ago when I was interested in this discussion and wasn't at all shocked about what the MP did given the rolls.
Yes, you can get a perfect persuasion, not it does not mean you are going to get what you want.
If you try to convince someone of something absurd enough, it can be a difficult persuasion check for things to not get dramatically worse as Adam mentioned.
Also stop bad mouthing Adam's GM'ing style, no one is going to believe it.
As to what MJ said, true 'dat. How do you think my character Tadeusz in WAW got so furious? I suspect that the natural turn of my personality may be more toward laughter and wonder and speculation than righteous indignation. But we recover, day by day, and sometimes event by event. I've found roleplaying to be cathartic at times.
Its possible that beheading the mass murderer before he became the Huntsman dude and then killed many more, might help expunge some of your anger, John. Might not. Might be just fun.
I guess there's a mechanics question on the board: how do you use a persuasion check?
I would say these are the parameters.
- A character must be attempting to change the opinion or decision of another character. "Character" in Multiverser includes anything living, including trees, of course, so that introduces other parameters.
- The character must be attempting to communicate in a manner that the target character can understand. It must be possible for the target character to comply with the persuading character's suggestion. I am not going to fly to the moon no matter how persuasive you are.
- The level of probability that the character would succeed converts to several factors. It is possible that under the circumstances no check would be required at all--as if the persuading character yells "Run!" while he is running in the direction of the target character with a small dragon galloping behind him nipping at his heels. A simple check is there to tip a character's opinion who really could go either way--you want him to order the hot dog instead of the hamburger, and it matters to you but not to him, so your successful simple check decides him. A difficult check suggests that you are trying to change his mind.
- This is where one of my fundamental rules comes into play: a player cannot do to a non-player character anything which a non-player character cannot do to a player character. No matter how eloquent Adolph's speech might be, Eric is not going to support the Nazi extermination of the Jews. That means that no matter how persuasive Eric might be, Adolph is not going to give up his effort to conquer the world. One way this is approached is by recognizing the rational boundaries of what your persuasion might or could not accomplish. Could you talk a guard out of arresting you? Maybe, if you can provide a suitable explanation or a suitable bribe; but you only get one chance, and it's a difficult check, and you'd better be very clearly attempting to do exactly that, and know which of those ways you're doing it. And it would have to be a situation in which the referee does not already know the character of the character--I might know that this particular individual would never take a bribe, or that he is looking for one, and that would eliminate the difficult check. That, though, assumes that this is not a random character encounter, but a specific chosen character with a determined personality. Otherwise, you have comparative relative success--you get to roll your difficult persuasion check, but he gets to roll his difficult will power check. If you fail, his roll becomes irrelevant, because you did not have a chance of persuading him. If you succeed and he fails, then you've persuaded him. If you both succeed, then there's a balancing act in which a tie means that you did not persuade him but he heard you out and sees you have a solid argument which he respects. You have to beat him to persuade him, and the degree to which you have the better roll is reflected in the degree to which he is persuaded--as also the degree to which he has the better roll is the degree to which he is antagonistic to your position.
- You have several times said you had the perfect roll. The only perfect attribute check in my mind is the 3@10 attribute rolling a 39, and I've never seen it in play. Adam just had an excellent persuasion check--28 rolled against a 2@10 persuasion. Sure, a 29 would have been a better roll for him; but his roll is a lot better than a 19 would be for a 1@10, and probably I'd treat a 19 for him better than I would a 19 for a 1@10, simply because he is the more persuasive character.
- Ultimately the question you have to ask is, would I think this were fair if it were done to my character? Sometimes the answer is yes--sometimes it is perfectly fair that I will be persuaded to do something I am reluctant to do, simply because someone is extremely persuasive and I can't at that moment think of a reason to resist. I'm reminded of Bill Cosby talking about hearing the youngest child screaming, "Mine! Mine! Mine!", and being compelled to rise from his chair, find what is bothering the child, and tell the other child to give her what she wants so she will be quiet. "But Dad," the offended older child says, "it's mine!" "Give it to her anyway. If it's any consolation, she has some of my things, too." There will be times when your character will be persuaded to do what you don't want him to do and don't think he would do, given all rational understanding of the situation. That's part of why it's there: because players are usually rational and characters sometimes are not. But when you pull that on a player, you'd better know why it is that his character is compelled to do something he thinks the character would not do, and you'd better remember that the tables can be turned. Whatever is allowed to either side is allowed to both sides.
Maybe that answers it, to some degree?
--M. J. Young
"PEARL HARBOR DESTROYED BY JAPANESE AREAL ATTACK!!!!!"
This causes a public outrage. This incites people to fight. This motivates soldiers to join. Once they join, "Remember Pearl Harbor" is their battle cry. End result, we win WW2.
"PEARL HARBOR SUCCESSFULLY DEFENDS AGAINST AREAL ATTACK."
This doesn't. This restores people's faith in the military. They don't want to join, the military must have it under control. Fewer soldiers joining, less motivation to fight. End result, we lose WW2.
A prime example of why versers should not get involved.
(Doing Therapy)
I think both would cause public outrage and a distrust in the media.
Arguably, that would be a superior end. Japan outraged Jacksonian America by fighting a dirty war, so we gave back as good as we got. Hitler also declares war on America at the same time.
Now imagine Japan decides to back off after a bit, and accept a negotiated peace. After all, America is calmer, and Japan is scared. Now America can deal with Hitler alone.
Don't know how likely that is, but it could work.
Kyler, let's just say for a second that I'm right though. You're dropped in Pearl Harbor, you stop the bombing, and change the future history of the world. What would you do 10 years later when you saw German tanks rolling down the I-70 freeway? I bet you would never again get involved. A well-meaning verser could potentially ruin an entire country with what they thought was "the right thing to do."
Pearl Harbor was a tragedy, but it was a necessary tragedy.
We've been over this; whether we sustain heavy casualties or barely any at all, it was still a sneak attack; I'm pretty sure that if you don't provoke me and I punch you in the mouth you'll be upset whether your jaw is broken or not. The president already wanted to jump into the war, and viewed this as a great opportunity to get in on it; the media trumped up Pearl Harbor as a great excuse to get involved.
As long as you don't actually prevent the attack altogether, I don't see America not joining the war; at the time, war was still considered as sort of a rite of passage for young men. As for less men joining the army because the attack was less crippling to us, refer to the earlier example of being punched in the mouth.
bump
bump
You didn't answer my question Kyler, you just told me why I was wrong. Assume that I'm right, and preventing Pearl Harbor does cost us WW2. What would you do then?
You didn't answer my question Kyler, you just told me why I was wrong. Assume that I'm right, and preventing Pearl Harbor does cost us WW2. What would you do then?
bump
Sorry, but when did we adopt the policy that if you attack us and we defend we just give you a free pass for the attack?
It's still an attack, just because they failed doesn't mean they won't be made to pay, whether by treaty or being decimated.
bump
bump
AND YOU'RE STILL NOT ANSWERING MY QUESTION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I asked What would you do if stopping the Pearl Harbor bombing DID cost us WW2? No one has answered that. You keep telling me why it wouldn't cost us WW2. SUPPOSE THAT IT DID!!!!!!!!! WHAT WOULD YOU DO THEN?????????? No one has answered me on that, you just keep telling me why it wouldn't happen.
I didn't answer your question on two parts:
1. It was addressed to Kyler specifically
2. Making a logical decision based on an illogical assumption as the one you proposed still leads to an ultimately illogical process.
There is no reason to believe that if we were attacked, whether as a success or defense, that we would decide to take no action.
As to what I'd do, I'd probably brush up on my german language skills and theory of nuclear power and become a spy for an underground US resistance by infiltrating the german research teams.
It depends on who I am, honestly.
Being as I'm a verser, that means that it's likely that I have certain undisclosed abilities. It's likely that I would make use of these undisclosed abilities to either convince people to go to war or to go and kill the people responsible for the war in the first place.
Presuming that I was neither successful nor died in the attempt and Germany invaded America, they'd still have a huge challenge on their hands. We're a feisty lot, we Americans.
Oh that was you. I didn't see who the poster was, I thought it was Kyler.
We've been over this; whether we sustain heavy casualties or barely any at all, it was still a sneak attack; I'm pretty sure that if you don't provoke me and I punch you in the mouth you'll be upset whether your jaw is broken or not.
Yeah, but how badly would I hurt you if my jaw was broken, as opposed to if it was just a love tap? That's the point I'm making, which everyone is missing.
Um, someone swings at me I'm going to put them down regardless of if they hit or not.
If someone attacks and you don't take action to prevent them from being able to try again you're doing something wrong. It's a very militaristic line of thought, but then again we're trying to figure out how the military will react.