Jhiaxus,
I'm learning all the time. And one thing I'm trying to learn is how to be patient in games. Its okay if th eplayer lasts more than a week in a world....I gotta tell myself this again and again...:)
I see Oak's game, which you find annoying, as an opportunity for me to figure out a new gaming technique. Oak has his very particular style...he wants as much information as he can possibly gather.
Now, he is making the arguement to God "God, I'm stupid, tell me what to do." A fair arguement. I've tried to reply with riddles, but not everyone is good at or enjoys riddles (I'm not good at solving them).
But I think I read one book or one of MJ's comments about Gideon, where God said 'ok, Gideon, I'm going to double up the proof for you (which is basically what Oak is asking for), but since you have more proof, I'm going to make it harder for you.'
So its an interesting problem to deal with as a GM. It helpsme to grow in skill. And it helps me to some time in the future perhaps write a book about a guy who has Oak's abilities. How would I write that, and still keep it interesting? I suppose I could do like a couple books I've read where the hero just plows through everything that opposes him without much trouble whatsoever....but that seems a bit problematically boring.
As to John,
I'll give him rules about how th egame is played, and then I'll give him situations, and he will deal with them how he likes. If it annoys me enough, I'll quit (not a problem so far).
I'm teaching him how to play mostly not by preachment, but by experience.
I'm reminded of my Silk NPC character story. The one that goes...there I was at a con table as a player, and the GMs had this Silk character which they'd modified from tough to insanely tough. They could not see th eproblem with her, although several eloquent people tried to explain it to them. So I arranged to get the character, and took out three of the four baddies pretty much by myself.
At which point, they began to see the light.
I suspect some people cannot learn in some ways. For myself, I have a hard time making a difficult moral judgment based strictly on reason. Prayer and faith work better it seems to me.
As to you Jhiaxus,
Probably a fair chunk of the time, you're teaching me.
Now, he is making the arguement to God "God, I'm stupid, tell me what to do." A fair arguement. I've tried to reply with riddles, but not everyone is good at or enjoys riddles (I'm not good at solving them).
Supposedly, 85% of kindergarten students could solve this, but only 17% of Harvard students could solve it. I solved it.
What is stronger than God,
More evil than Satan,
Poor people have it,
Rich people need it,
And if you eat it, you will die?
(Doing Therapy)
@ Eric
I figured, I have no problem with Oak's style of play, it is just not my style of play. As to John, I figured, and you do challenge me as well.
MJ wrote:
But you're right: I told you to be yourself, and you revealed who you were. I'm not so much annoyed at what you did as I am at who you turned out to be.
Brock replied
He means he disapproves of what you did, specifically psionically pummeling the back of the MP's head just to mess with him. He means you revealed that your true nature is petty and mean for no other reason than that others have been mean to you.
It isn't just annoyance, though, knowing him; he is probably sad for you too.
The reason I asked for an explanation was because I wasn't sure if I should take that statement personally. If what Brock is saying is correct, it sounds like I should. So I should be ashamed because I'm not a cookie cutter player? I don't just fall in line and follow the herd, so you feel sad for me? There's something wrong with me because I've had unique experiences which shaped me into someone who wouldn't run through that scenario very well? And this is MY fault? You picked the world based on baseless speculation about me, and there's something wrong with ME because all your speculation was incorrect?
You're 100% right John, everyone else is to blame for the fact that your actions are that of a bully whenever you are given power. It's definitely not your fault that you do things that insult others, or are rude, or bully people, or refuse to comply with social codes of conduct.
It's obviously OUR fault that we're insulted by the inconsiderate things you say.
It's our fault we don't see that your poorly delivered words weren't meant to be rude.
It's our fault that you were bullied and thus bully anyone if given the power to do so.
It's our fault that you post multiple times without response, despite the fact it's a common convention and sign of respect to wait for the response first.
These are all obviously our fault.
Now you have mentioned before that forums aren't great for conveying meaning, so I'm going to break that all down for you. I'm upset because you're an inconsiderate jerk to half the good natured people here. This entire post until this paragraph was dripping in sarcasm, and relatively scathing. You have insulted so many of us on so many occasions that I doubt anyone cares that you're insulted over the fact MJ made a speculation (it wasn't baseless).
Also, get over the idea that you're oh so unique because you don't fit the cookie cutter gamer. I doubt many of the people here fit "cookie cutter gamer". Furthermore I highly doubt you could derive a description of such that would fit even half of us here, let alone all.
Grow up.
These are all obviously our fault.
No, it's nobody's fault. Shit happens.
Also, get over the idea that you're oh so unique because you don't fit the cookie cutter gamer. I doubt many of the people here fit "cookie cutter gamer". Furthermore I highly doubt you could derive a description of such that would fit even half of us here, let alone all.
I was the first player to not go after the princesses in Dancing Princess. Seems fairly cookie cutter to me.
(it wasn't baseless).
MJ has seen Army of Darkness. I should then conclude that he's interested in the occult.
He's seen the profanity-laced Terminator franchise. I should then conclude that he has no problem whatsoever with hearing profanity.
He's seen Planet of the Apes. He must believe that humans evolved from monkeys.
That's about the same kind of logic he was using.
(Doing Therapy)
John,
Let me reccomend you delete that last post. Suggesting, even not seriously, what you suggest in your Navigator example would very likely result in a broken nose in a lot of venues around this fair nation. Find another, less inflammatory way to make your point.
And Merry Christmas all...or as the Conservative Crawfish put it...
=====
To My Few Democrat Friends:
Please accept with no obligation, implied or explicit, my best wishes for an environmentally conscious, socially responsible, low-stress, non-addictive, gender-neutral celebration of the winter solstice holiday, practiced within the most enjoyable traditions of the religious persuasion of your choice, or secular practices of your choice, with respect for the religious/secular persuasion and/or traditions of others, or their choice not to practice religious or secular traditions at all. I also wish you a fiscally successful, personally fulfilling and medically uncomplicated recognition of the onset of the generally accepted calendar year 2011 but not without due respect for the calendars of choice of other cultures whose contributions to society have helped make America great. Not to imply that America is necessarily greater than any other country nor the only America in the Western Hemisphere. Also, this wish is made without regard to the race, creed, color, age, physical ability, religious faith or sexual preference of the wishee.
To My Republican Friends:
Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year!
http://theconservativecrawfish.wordpress.com
"Trust me Brock. If you lived through some of the things I have, you'd probably despise authority figures too."
...ever had 4 gang members beating the crap out of you while another says in no uncertain terms that "you better do what my cousin says when she tells you, or we will shoot you"?
...ever seen your father pick your mother up by her throat and throw her repeatedly against a window to see if it would break?
...ever had your stepfather kick you in the leg so hard it caused crippling pain and a severe SCFE, plus a bone chip breaking off inside you? (link: http://www.seattlechildrens.org/medical-conditions/bone-joint-muscle-conditions/hip-conditions-treatment/hip-disorders/slipped-capital-femoral-epiphysis/)
...ever watched a close relative slit their own throat?
...ever watch your only grandmother slowly slip away from this life over a period of 2 weeks while your father laughs at his own mother's dying?
...I can go on if you want...
"What is stronger than God,
More evil than Satan,
Poor people have it,
Rich people need it,
And if you eat it, you will die?"
Closest thing i can think of is cockroaches
Yeah, and I bet all of that had an impact on you, right Brock? You don't like your stepfather because he did something mean to you. I don't like police because they did something mean to me. Aside from that, I see no correlation to what you said. My point was that experiences guide and mold who you are. If anything, you're supporting my statement.
If you want to compare who had a rougher childhood, I think I'll just be nice and hand that to you. That wasn't the point I was making though.
As far as the riddle, the answer is NOTHING.
Nothing is stronger than God
Nothing is more evil than Satan
Poor people have Nothing
Rich people need Nothing
and if you eat Nothing you will die.
That riddle is hyperbole and inaccurate (poor people have nothing is inaccurate, for example. Not touching a religious debate right now). No wonder I didn't get it.
Ah. I see. I somehow forgot the sentence that actually makes my point...I was in a bit of a rush. I do not have a problem with authority. I have a problem with bullies. Bullies do not necessarily have authority, they just act like they do.
I see authority figures as the ultimate bullies. What's the difference between the MP and the guys that pushed me around in school? The MP has a legal right to do it. Other than that, no difference.
Try being put on the news, top story for over a week, because the cops felt like making your life miserable. They knew I was innocent of what they were accusing me. They just had the legal right to be bullies.
Two
Ya know what? Now that I think about it, Brock, wouldn't you be sorely tempted to "Repeatedly TK pulse" the back of your stepfather's head if you had the chance? That can be a metaphor for whatever you can imagine it to be. I didn't see that as being a bully, I saw that as striking back at a bully. Give a normal guy a badge and a handgun and he thinks he's God more often than not. That was striking back at a bully, not being one myself. At least that's how I saw it.
(Doing Therapy)
Third
Speaking of Fraggle Rock. I saw on a "Making Of" DVD featurette that the same guy does the voices of Gobo Fraggle, Pa Gorg and The Talking Trash Heap. Most people are lucky to have one good singing voice. He has at least three good singing voices.
(Doing Therapy)
We planned on visiting today, but our destination is under two inches of snow (don't snicker too loudly New Jerseyans), and my brother and family are doing the Puke Concerto. So we've rescheduled.
And that means, we stayed home for a quiet Christmas (as we'd already opened our gifts on Christmas Eve). We played BESM: Interstellar Draconic Colonizaton Service, and some of a solitaire puzzle game called Treasure Quest. Shadow has his Harry Potter Lego game going, and T-rex is watching, the Lady Dulcinea is doing her intermittent sleep thing, and I've just put a precooked ham to warm in the oven, and on the TV, the NBA is playing although I'm not paying attention. I'd rather have football.
We did watch the Disney Christmas Parades.
Its an easy day. Thank the Lord Christ for his goodness.
Mistake
(Doing Therapy)
You have a point there John. Now let me say that there was probably more to it as well which you're not mentioning.
And my ladywife's and mine relationship is not perfect, but one of the wonderful things she does is that she rarely brings up the past mistakes or arguements we've had. This is Christmas, not Festivus. :)
Merry Christmas.
And Miami is leading LA right now.
And my ladywife's and mine relationship is not perfect, but one of the wonderful things she does is that she rarely brings up the past mistakes or arguements we've had. This is Christmas, not Festivus. :)
You've got a point there Eric. If you check again, you will see that the post has been edited out.
(Doing Therapy)
Excellent.
Mistake
I don't let myself get annoyed with him. Well, not overly annoyed anyway. I guess I just don't understand why everyone can't do that.
Obviously you are not the only person who can do that. On the other hand, he is your best friend. All friends tolerate some aspects of each other, either because the return is worth the effort or because they are caring people who think it more important to give a benefit than to receive one.
There is, however, a difference between whether someone can tolerate you and whether they must. You seem to assume that there is an obligation on the part of everyone here to tolerate you, and no one has that obligation. Most of those here have chosen to do so to some degree, but for many you have abused their tolerance to its limits and they are choosing to distance themselves from you. That's unfortunate, because you do have much to offer and could benefit much from them, but it's also predictable.
I still take great exception at the leap from "John likes guns and has seen Final Countdown" to "John is an expert on Pearl Harbor and will certainly want to stop the bombing."
That's because you've mischaracterized it. It was "John is pushing for a non-involvement stance, but I know that he's familiar with Pearl Harbor and most people would be hard-pressed not to become involved there, so let's see if he is serious about non-involvement." I could have put you on the Titanic, but the difficulty there is that when the ship starts sinking you have to decide whether you're going to save yourself, and so to some degree you are inherently involved. It could have been The Alamo, but most people don't know enough about that story to know how to be involved or not.
But you're right: I told you to be yourself, and you revealed who you were. I'm not so much annoyed at what you did as I am at who you turned out to be.Please explain this statement.
I expect people to be altruistic. Call it my optimistic streak: I think that it's normal for people to take action to help others if put in a position where they have the power to do so. Intellectually I know that that's really not a majority of people--most people are in fact selfish and self-centered--but since I am not I usually fail to expect it in others. Non-involvement is one of two things. One is an affirmative belief that whatever happens is the best thing that could happen for everyone involved, and to interfere can only make the world worse. That is not you. The other is the belief that no one else matters, and whatever you've managed to get for yourself you intend to keep for yourself, watching your own back and making sure that you get yours and everyone else gets theirs, as long as yours is all the good stuff.
You seem to be the sort of person who really does not care about others. That explains why you are also usually alone.
What's the difference between the MP and the guys that pushed me around in school? The MP has a legal right to do it. Other than that, no difference.
Which means that the MP does what he does for the benefit of the majority, and the bully does it for the benefit of himself.
Which means that you're the bully, because you do everything for your own benefit.
You've become what you most despise.
That's actually relatively common.
As to your comments about being bullied, no one here sympathizes not because we don't understand but because we do, all too well. The majority of gamers, as a demographic, were the nerds and geeks who were bullied by the cool kids and the jocks. We've all been beaten and harassed and mocked. We managed to come through it with understanding for others. You didn't. Thus we wonder why you failed to learn the importance of caring for others, and instead embraced the path of the bully, attacking those weaker than yourself.
--M. J. Young
"John is pushing for a non-involvement stance, but I know that he's familiar with Pearl Harbor and most people would be hard-pressed not to become involved there, so let's see if he is serious about non-involvement."
But I am not and I never was "Familiar with Pearl Harbor" except that it existed and had been attacked. I remember, this was years ago now, you wrote "I got the notion that it would be interesting to make his next world Pearl Harbor. After all, I knew that he knew a lot about that attack." And this was AFTER I had told you several times that I knew next to nothing about the attack. You never "Knew" that I knew anything about Pearl Harbor. You knew I had seen a movie which was loosely based on it. I can sum up the entirety of my knowledge in one sentence. "December 7th, 1941 Japanese fighter bombers attacked the naval base at approximately 9:30 in the morning." I seem to remember something about 29 planes being launched in response, but that could be anything. You NEVER "knew" that I was familiar with that, except that it existed. I take great exception to that. You've seen Army of Darkness. Are you familiar with the occult?
(Doing Therapy)
I'm a bit sick, so I'll possibly skip gaming for a few days.
Get well soon.
If you saw a woman crossing the street, and she was right in the path of an oncoming truck about to run her over, what would you do? You would run out into the street and save her, right? Congratulations. You just completely destroyed the future of the United States. (Star Trek TOS, episode The City on the Edge of Forever)
Now imagine saving hundreds of people who were supposed to die.
I've decided to summarize the opportunities you had to not become involved, as far as I'm aware despite not having read the original thread:
I. You COULD have simply run away when you realized where you were. That would probably have ended with you being shot, and I personally wouldn't have done it, but it was an option.
II. You didn't have to TK pulse the MP, who was after all simply doing his rather important job of protecting against sabatoge the base commander believed he had been warned about by intelligence (He recieved some vague warnings from his boss about enemy action) through bringing in someone who had gotten too close to reasonably have done so by accident. Even ignoring that, distracting someone operating a motor vehicle you were in was a pretty stupid move. Assuming you didn't, the following two things could have occured:
a. You manage to talk your way out without giving any kind of warning. It would be kind of difficult, but you might have been able to pretend to have been testing them on the orders of ONI, or played on their assumption that only Japanese people would be spies for Japan, or something.
b. Failing that, you could simply suck up being detained for some period of time or shot outright and versing out.
3. Assuming you did TK pulse the MP, you could have versed out with 43ish broken bones. If you ended up somewhere that didn't have the facilities to take care of you, you'd soon verse out again until you ended up versing into the emergency room of a 23rd century hospital or something. I'd actually be more worried about not versing out during the attack; they'd almost certainly detain you indefinitely afterwards, given the attack occurring shortly after you showed up.
At no point did you have to warn them about the attack. The penalties for not warning them simply exceeded your reluctance to alter history. I think that's what ticked MJ off; you showed that you're willing to destroy the future of the united states for your personal convenience. Many of us would have warned them, but we'd have done so because we think it'd lead to a much better future. You don't think that and you warned them anyway.
At no point did you have to warn them about the attack. The penalties for not warning them simply exceeded your reluctance to alter history. I think that's what ticked MJ off; you showed that you're willing to destroy the future of the united states for your personal convenience. Many of us would have warned them, but we'd have done so because we think it'd lead to a much better future. You don't think that and you warned them anyway.
Ya know what JTM? That was in the back of my mind the whole time, but I could never get it to come forward until now. I did what I perceived would destroy the future of the world just to save my own hide. That's definitely NOT dedicated to non-involvement. In my defense though, it was one of those things that you would do in a moment of fear that you would regret for the rest of your life. That's how deeply into his head I got.
That's why I say it feels like it was "supposed" to go the way it did. I lost my bet that I would never warn Pearl Harbor.
I could spend the rest of my life telling MJ how sorry I am for all of this, and it would never be enough. It would also waste a lot of his time saying the same thing over and over. So, I won't do that.
(Doing Therapy)
Well, see, the point of the whole exercise was to find out how dedicated to non-involvement you were. From previous comments, I presume MJ figured that you'd want to stop the bombing and Adam figured you wouldn't and threw in the opening with the MP to see if the threat of being indefinitely arrested as a spy would convince you to interfere because he judged your philosophy more accurately. If you hadn't stopped the bombing, they might have sent you into a higher-pressure world, or some historical event like the burning of the Library of Alexandria with a great deal of clearly negative fallout over the long-term until they found the limits of your dedication, either in personal consequences or circumstances.
I think Adam thought I would want to warn them. That opening is perfect for someone who would want to. I think it's completely wrong for a non-involvement player. Barring an exceptionally bad GE roll, you would sit in a holding cell for 2 days. Either you verse out or you don't. If you do, problem solved. If you don't, you really think anyone is going to care about some smartaleck trespasser after the attack? No pressure. Sit in a cell and wait. That opening is perfect if the player is absolutely certain to warn them. If I had known where I was beforehand, I never would have been arrested. Gunfighting the entire Pearl Harbor police force. John must REALLY not want to get involved here. I couldn't commit murder. If I'm trying to run, it's self-defense for me to open fire. At least that's my perception.
(Doing Therapy)
For the record, I don't expect anyone to do anything when I run them. I provide the plot hooks, some sharper than others, and it is up to you to make the story. If you decide to not to take the hook, you can find your own, or do nothing, but in the end you are still at the mercy of the GE roll. If the GE roll is bad, and you try to do nothing, something will happen. You just made it easy for me to set events into motion. It's in the players interest to provide the GM with options, or direction. I say that as a player and as a GM. Just putting this out there, so no one is wondering why, or why not I did something.
I've been meaning to ask you. Why did you use that opening? There's a hundred ways you could have opened that. You used the single worst you possibly could have used. Why did you use that one? Say something like "Because it's realistic" or something and you lose what little respect points you have with me. A real reason.
(Doing Therapy)
Sorry John, I thought I made it clear, that I won't talk about that anymore. If you want reasons why, go over the previous posts. They have that information in them.
But in the post right before that, you did talk about it. Make up your mind. If you don't tell me, I must go with status quo, that you're sadistic and try to force players. Prove that assumption wrong. Or not. Up to you.
(Doing Therapy)
I talked about gaming theory in the post above that one, not about that particular situation. I'm sorry if you associated the two as one and the same. :P
John wrote
That opening is perfect for someone who would want to. I think it's completely wrong for a non-involvement player.
I'm not at all sure I agree.
Certainly if you want to warn them, this makes it easy: you're going to be taken to people who can do something with your warning. In fact, if I thought you were eager to save the world, I would probably not use this opening, because I'd want to give you some obstacles for getting to the people in charge to deliver your message in time.
But if you do not wish to warn them, if you want to be as uninvolved as possible, then this opening forces you to work at being uninvolved. There's no point in saying you believe in non-involvement if all you mean by that is you're too lazy to do anything to help anyone. If we want to see how devoted you are to non-involvement, we have to make it difficult for you to be uninvolved.
If we dropped you somewhere from which you could easily escape undetected, all we would learn is that you would not make any effort to warn Pearl Harbor of the impending attack. What we needed to know was not whether you would make an effort to warn them, but how much effort you would make not to do so.
Now, I'd have thought that you'd have seen the Pearl Harbor assault as the perfect opportunity to put all those weapons and ammunition to good use, shooting down incoming Japanese planes. I'd have been wrong. Adam called it--you needed to be put in a position where you had to work to get out of being involved. Rather than working to get out of it, you made the situation worse and broke when you didn't like the price.
James is right--there are a lot of ways you could have avoided being involved. Some of them were not all that difficult. They proved too difficult for you, because you're not a non-involvement player, you're a path of least resistance player. That's an entirely different game, and we needed to know that to know how to run your worlds.
--M. J. Young
But if you do not wish to warn them, if you want to be as uninvolved as possible, then this opening forces you to work at being uninvolved. There's no point in saying you believe in non-involvement if all you mean by that is you're too lazy to do anything to help anyone. If we want to see how devoted you are to non-involvement, we have to make it difficult for you to be uninvolved.
I'm gonna say it again, pay attention this time. What's difficult about sitting in a holding cell for 2 days? Barring an exceptionally bad GE roll, that's exactly what would happen and you know it. Tell me where I am, watch my reaction. Does he run or head for the base? Respond accordingly. Which would be working harder to stay uninvolved? Sitting in a holding cell for two days or gunfighting half of the army? Thank you. Next question.
I talked about gaming theory in the post above that one, not about that particular situation. I'm sorry if you associated the two as one and the same. :P
Then I must go with status quo. You're sadistic and enjoy forcing players. Sorry. I told you that.
(Doing Therapy)
Two
I realize my viewpoint is a rather extreme case. It's from the extremes that you learn. If I had known where I was, I never would have gotten arrested. If I had gotten to the base in one piece, I would have said "Unless you have something specific in mind for the next two days, you might as well skip ahead to the attack, cuz I ain't gonna tell them a damn thing." WHAT'S THE DIFFICULTY IN THAT?????? Tell me where I am. I'll run like a bat out of hell. When the MP's come for me, it will be self-defense, and I can put those guns to good use. I can't commit murder. I can defend myself. You'd learn a lot more that way.
(Doing Therapy)
Third and last
Now, I'd have thought that you'd have seen the Pearl Harbor assault as the perfect opportunity to put all those weapons and ammunition to good use, shooting down incoming Japanese planes.
You're talking about shooting down a plane going about 300 or so MPH with an AK-47. The only way you could have a chance to hit it at all is if it was flying low and coming straight at you. In which case, it has a couple of 50 cals with which to shoot back. Not a very bright move.
(Doing Therapy)
Which would be working harder to stay uninvolved? Sitting in a holding cell for two days or gunfighting half of the army? Thank you. Next question.
The former. Non-involvement means you will not influence events. Going on a killing spree is sadism, not non-involvement. By killing the soldiers, there are that many less soldiers to defend against the attack, meaning it may have been even more successful, and the Japs may very well have occupied the harbor, then used it as a staging ground for a major offensive deep into USA territory.
Non-involvement is about not impacting the world's events one way or the other. you are a "don't $@%# with me, and I won't $@%# with you" player. I have one of those in my Shadowrun group. It isn't that uncommon, you are just an extreme case.
potential spies are held and likely beaten until it is ascertained definitively they are not spies. that isn't done in two days.
John, showing up as a likely enemy spy two days before a massive surprise attack makes it likely you'd stay in the cell for the rest of the war.
The former. Non-involvement means you will not influence events. Going on a killing spree is sadism, not non-involvement. By killing the soldiers, there are that many less soldiers to defend against the attack, meaning it may have been even more successful, and the Japs may very well have occupied the harbor, then used it as a staging ground for a major offensive deep into USA territory.
No, it's self-defense, not sadism. I couldn't shoot an MP standing right in front of me. That's sadism, it's cold-blooded murder. If I was in the process of making an escape, I tried to leave peacefully. Now it's self-defense. I see what you mean about gunfighting half of the army would be involved. But that's how far it would have gone if I had known where I was beforehand. Better to off a few guys who are probably going to die anyway than warn them of the attack.
You didn't answer me though. What's difficult about sitting in a holding cell for 2 days?