I wasn't involved in the sense that you wanted to test, but I was unquestionably involved, and I was forced to become involved.
And your point is?
I don't care whether you felt like you were forced to be involved in the sense of having been forced to talk to someone. I'm only interested in whether you chose to be involved in the only way that mattered, by attempting intentionally to make the world a better place than you believed it would otherwise have been. You will argue that ultimately you decided to make it a worse place by becoming involved to save your own hide, but you were in that sense making it a better place for you, which is the same thing as far as I care.
So the fact that you were forced to talk to the MP is no more relevant to me than the fact that you were forced to become involved by inhaling the air in Hawaii.
And you're contradicting yourself.
O.K., sequence.
- John was in B Monster Movie Columbus, arguing with his fellow player characters that no verser should ever presume to attempt to change the state of any universe, because versers are not members of those worlds and shouldn't be so presumptive as to tell the people of that world how things ought to be.
- Mark starts to wonder whether John is serious about this, and tries to think of a scenario in which John would be confronted with a serious choice about whether to interfere or not. Pearl Harbor came to mind, but Mark did not feel he could run John through Pearl Harbor, thinking that since John was a military weapons buff and a fan of the movie Final Countdown he was probably also a military history buff. That was a mistake, but it was not unreasonable. Thus Mark sought someone who felt comfortable running Pearl Harbor for John. Adam volunteered.
- John continued in Columbus, but when Godzilla appeared he took some actions which caused Mark to wonder whether he was or was not really opposed to intervention; but since Mark had as a primary objective finding people to run all the people he had been running, he wasn't going to change the Pearl Harbor plan at that point.
- John versed out and was picked up by Adam in Pearl Harbor. Mark thought that Pearl Harbor would be a temptation for John to become involved.
- John was arrested and did stupid things on the way to interrogation, but he made it fairly clear that he had no intention of changing the history of World War II, and so Mark was settling into the notion that perhaps John really was serious about non-intervention. John was seriously injured, but held his peace on the subject.
- Then suddenly John broke and told the authorities that the attack was coming. He was afraid that he would verse out in traction and arrive in severe shape. Mark was surprised that he took this course at this point, because Mark knew that were John to verse out he would be healed of all injuries to that point, and did not know that John did not realize this.
My opinion is permitted to fluctuate as the evidence changes. If it didn't, I really would be closed-minded.
"This is a public service announcement brought to you by me. I don't care what people think. Only God can judge me."
That's certainly true, but it's not the whole truth.
"I have become all things to all men so that I may by all means save some"
--Apostle Paul of Tarsus.
What might be a serious question for you to consider is, why are you still here? In fact, why did God put you here at all?
To give a serious answer, you are here to learn how to love people, to become as Jesus was, a servant of others. You are here to find a place in unity with other believers, in which they embrace you and you embrace them, figuratively at least.
Yes, you've had trouble with other Christians not accepting you because of your disease. I understand that. For what it's worth, I think all Christians have some trouble with some other Christians not accepting us because of some aspect of ourselves. I've received the left foot of fellowship from people who took me wrong, who did not like who I was or how I acted. I've been accused of being arrogant, and of being lecherous. On the other hand, I am respected and embraced by many who have, again in the words of Paul, never seen my face (well, they've seen my picture, but you know what I mean) and some who have. Everyone has some trouble fitting into the body of believers. Iron sharpens iron, and so as we bump into each other sometimes there are sparks. I doubt that there is any Christian on this board who has not experienced to one degree or another the rejection of other Christians. Yours might be worse--none of us, not even you, can really know that. But none of us have given up, either. We know that we are here to learn to love each other and to become servants of each other, and to send that love out from ourselves to the rest of the world.
That's why you're here: to love and be loved, and in fact to love even if you are not loved in return. You are here to follow the example of Jesus, becoming the loving servant of all, even when they reject, revile, and crucify you.
You, though, seem happy to hate everyone and have everyone hate you. But the response to being hated is not to hate in return, but to return love.
If being arrested and detained is so meaningless to you, go to the nearest army base, hop the fence, flag down the first MP you see and beg him to take you into custody. Not so meaningless to you now, is it?
This is stupid and entirely irrelevant. How would my being arrested by an MP for trespassing on a military base change the world? Indeed, how would you being arrested at Pearl Harbor have changed the world? It would only have done so had it led to something else. No one said it was not meaningful to you to be arrested. It probably would change your character in significant ways--as it has apparently done, because you've indicated an increased animosity toward law enforcement officials. But that has nothing to do with whether you are violating a non-involvement policy by intervening in the events of the world. Sure, if the MP shot you, that would be meaningful to you, but it wouldn't have the slightest impact on Japan or the outcome of World War II.
It only proves that you are arguing something completely different from what we're defending. It certainly is meaningful to you that you were breathing the air at Pearl Harbor--just think what would have happened had you not done so! But I doubt anyone at Pearl Harbor missed the oxygen you used. You had no impact on them. A meaningful impact on you is not relevant to the discussion.
Further, a meaningful impact on individuals in that world is not relevant to the discussion. The only thing that is relevant to the discussion is whether or not you took specific intentional action which you expected would alter the history or condition of that world. You were not forced to do that, because once you were lying in that bed you could have taken no action at all and it was not until after that that you made the choice to do so.
Now, if you want to continue this discussion by saying something relevant about how I missed part of what happened, because I am mistaken in my recollection of you lying in the bed undisturbed and asking the medical people to get someone to whom you could tell the vital information that would change the world, then I will respond. If, though, you continue with completely irrelevant trash about how you were forced to interact with individuals (no more relevant than the fact that you were forced to inhale the air) or that I don't understand your definition of being involved, I am going to attempt to ignore you.
All I expect is for you to acknowledge that you did intentionally change the history of the world at Pearl Harbor, and that while there was a lot of pressure put on you to do so you could instead of allowed yourself to die without having done so, and therefore you had an alternative and were not forced to intervene.
Anything else is irrelevant.
--M. J. Young
This is stupid and entirely irrelevant. How would my being arrested by an MP for trespassing on a military base change the world?
I didn't say it would change the world. I said it wasn't meaningless. Big difference.
Mark starts to wonder whether John is serious about this, and tries to think of a scenario in which John would be confronted with a serious choice about whether to interfere or not. Pearl Harbor came to mind, but Mark did not feel he could run John through Pearl Harbor, thinking that since John was a military weapons buff and a fan of the movie Final Countdown he was probably also a military history buff.
Fan of the movie Final Countdown? Hardly. I even said that in the analysis, that it wasn't the greatest of movies. I didn't like it at all, really. I remember being sorely disappointed that Europe's song of the same name wasn't in the soundtrack. I'm not even sure I knew what the movie was about before I analyzed it. You have to understand, my rule of thumb at the video store is "When in doubt, get the movie with a good looking girl on the cover." That means I'm not very discriminating in what I watch. That also means that, knowing nothing but the title of the movie, and that it had a picture of the leading lady Laurel on the box cover, I would have rented and analyzed it. I've probably seen dozens of time travel movies since then, and probably could have analyzed most of them.
I am a weapons buff, and I was a fan of time travel. Final Countdown is a time travel movie. That it was about the Pearl Harbor bombing was a complete non-issue.
I know the weapons/military history stereotype, and I think it's erroneous at best. A much more common stereotype is that a weapons buff would have a problem with authority than be interested in military history. If you had been using that stereotype, you would have known an MP opening would be terrible for me. Just a tip for the future.
And why does that stereotype even exist? I guarantee you there's WAAAAY more weapons buffs who have a problem with authority than are interested in military history. Your average LA gangbanger comes to mind.....
I used to work a flea market with a friend of mine. He was a licensed gun dealer. People would come up to us with all manner of military hardware and ask us what it was worth. Do you see any B-17 bombing scopes on the table? Then what makes you think we know how much it would be worth? Why does that stereotype even exist? It's completely inaccurate.
Mark knew that were John to verse out he would be healed of all injuries to that point, and did not know that John did not realize this.
There was no guarantee that I would verse out. My luck, I would have survived and just been injured more severely. Break both legs to go with the broken arms or something. Now I'm even more badly injured and trapped in a decimated hospital. Had I known I would be healed, I probably would have just begged a nurse to sedate me until after the attack. However, I could imagine that level of fear could have driven me to warn them even knowing I would be healed. Fear is, after all, one of the strongest emotions.
You, though, seem happy to hate everyone and have everyone hate you. But the response to being hated is not to hate in return, but to return love.
No, to hate someone I have to care about them. If I don't care at all, I neither love nor hate people. Indifference and hatred aren't synonyms. I thought you knew the English language better than that.
(Doing Therapy)
Two
All I expect is for you to acknowledge that you did intentionally change the history of the world at Pearl Harbor, and that while there was a lot of pressure put on you to do so you could instead of allowed yourself to die without having done so, and therefore you had an alternative and were not forced to intervene.
I'll acknowledge that, just as soon as you acknowledge the fact that I was forced to become more involved than I would have ever gotten willingly, and that there are better ways to test non-involvement than forcing the player to become more involved than they would have ever gotten willingly.
I may not have been forced to intervene, but I damn sure was forced to get involved. At least way more involved than I would have ever gotten willingly. And don't even give me that garbage about your definition and mine. The keywords are "Than I would have ever gotten willingly."
I think that opening is completely unfair to the player. They don't even know where they are, and they've got a guy waving a gun at them. Then you insist that it isn't forcing them to do anything. Maybe if you're a depressed, frequently suicidal patient, having a guy wave a gun at you isn't forcing you, but for those of us who aren't suicidal, we tend to disagree. "Oh, but you'll just verse out" Well, verser or not, nobody WANTS to get shot.
(Doing Therapy)
I'll acknowledge that, just as soon as you acknowledge the fact that I was forced to become more involved than I would have ever gotten willingly...
Yes.
there are better ways to test non-involvement than forcing the player to become more involved than they would have ever gotten willingly.
No.
There's always a better way to do anything. Anyone who says otherwise is a fool. I guess that's you Brock......
I don't believe in a "best way" to do anything. There's no "best way", there's only better ways you haven't yet considered. That's why I don't like the 3@10 score. There's always a way to do something better.
(Doing Therapy)
Show us a way that is actually better FOR THE PURPOSE THEY HAD at the time. All of the ones you have proposed are better for your character, but not for the purpose they had at the time.
Brock, that's what I've been trying to tell you all along. The PA announcement WOULD be better FOR THE PURPOSE THEY HAD. Tell me Brock, you're smart. Which is showing more dedication to non-involvement? Being interrogated for a couple hours and not cracking, or spending 2 days evading capture and never speaking to anyone? No matter how intense the interrogation, I seriously doubt they would ask any Joe Schmoe trespasser the specific question "Is this place going to be attacked by the Japanese on December 7th?" No matter how intense it was, I could come up with line after line of BS to feed them. (Do you even doubt that I would be capable of that?) Just because they're making me talk doesn't mean I'm telling them the truth or anything useful. Not to mention the fact that if they actually observe your Constitutional rights, you wouldn't have to talk at all. That's not hard, compared to spending 2 days evading capture and trying to escape. That's what no one is paying attention to.
And don't even try to give me that "Make the player work for information" crap if you're going to consider the MP opening over this. The MP opening gives even more information with even less work on the player's part.
Two
If they actually observe your Constitutional rights, (And really, why wouldn't they?) it would be a breeze. "I'm not answering any questions until I speak to an attorney." That's the end of that. Now I sit in a holding cell for two days. <sarc>"Gee, that was SOOOO challenging to my non-involvement philosophy....."</sarc>
Brock, he's really not worth your time nor mine, and now that MJ has decided to try ignoring him on this topic we're not saving MJ any grief either. I think it would be best to just ignore him at this point.
What's the matter Glantri? You can't accept the fact that I might actually be right that the MP opening isn't the best way to test non-involvement?
(Doing Therapy)
Two
Ya know what? I'm even offering this as a challenge to any ref willing to run it. Yes, even Adam. Use the PA system announcement. The objective is to make it difficult but not impossible for the player to escape the base unnoticed. That doesn't mean let them walk away, that means give them obstacles in their objective to escape. Make it difficult but not impossible. I'll play it. My character as he is now. I couldn't play the starting character again.
(Doing Therapy)
Three
I don't think you guys understand. You could reasonably verse in 6 or 8 miles from the perimeter fence and be inside the Pearl Harbor compound. You have to cover that distance, usually on foot, without being seen. And the perimeter is the tightest security. If you are seen, you have to escape or fight your way out. Look me in the eye and tell me that couldn't be a challenge to non-involvement. They were never even seen, they never spoke to anyone, but they took 2 days avoiding the security.
(Doing Therapy)
More than one
MJ, I just realized. You kept saying "Sorely Tempted to warn them." It sounds like taking them into custody is meant to tempt them. You're relying on their own personal temptations to test non-involvement. I would have no such temptations, so obviously, taking me into custody (under normal circumstances) wouldn't accomplish anything. If the player was "Sorely Tempted" to warn them, under my opening, they could surrender willingly to an MP. If they wanted to get away, you would see how hard they would fight to do so. They have to evade or resist through 6-8 miles of MPs. That's working a lot harder than sitting in a cell being tempted. Taking them into custody and relying on their own personal temptations to warn the base? And you call that challenging non-involvement?????? Should I start laughing now? What if there's no temptation?
(Doing Therapy)
I'll acknowledge that, just as soon as you acknowledge the fact that I was forced to become more involved than I would have ever gotten willingly, and that there are better ways to test non-involvement than forcing the player to become more involved than they would have ever gotten willingly.
What Brock said. Thanks, Brock.
If they actually observe your Constitutional rights, (And really, why wouldn't they?) it would be a breeze. "I'm not answering any questions until I speak to an attorney." That's the end of that. Now I sit in a holding cell for two days.
Covered this already.
You have the constitutional right to remain silent, and to have the advice of an attorney. But you're assuming aspects of how those rights are respected which were not true prior to the Warren Court decisions of the post-war era. No one had to tell you that you had any rights. If you happened to know what they were, you could invoke them--and it wouldn't make any difference to how you were treated. That is, your right against self-incrimination and right to an attorney amounted to no more than that you could not be charged with obstruction of justice if you remained silent during seventy-two straight hours of hard questioning with limited food and bathroom breaks. You could say that you're not going to say anything until you have an attorney present, and you could say that a hundred times, but they did not have to stop questioning you simply because you said it, and if you then told them anything you were deemed de facto to have waived your rights on that point.
That is
- "I invoke my right against self-incrimination and my right to counsel, and refuse to answer questions until I have consulted with an attorney."
"So then, you did it, you're as guilty as Judas, and you're going to hang for this, right?"
"You can't prove it. I wiped the gun, so there are no fingerprints."
"That should be sufficient for us to get a conviction."
You don't understand that what you regard as your Constitutional Rights are heavily colored by the decisions of the Warren Court. After the Warren Court, if you invoked your right to remain silent, the police were not even permitted to discuss the case in front of you, lest you might be induced by their conversation to comment (famous case in which the suspect invoked his right to remain silent, so the police sat in the front seat of the car talking to each other about how terrible it would be if some child found the gun the criminal had tossed until the criminal told them where to find it--all evidence connected to the gun and the suspect's statement tossed because he had been induced to speak by police manipulation after stating his intention to remain silent). Before the Warren Court, you had the right to remain silent, but they could do some pretty creative things to get you to waive that right by speaking, including questioning you for days on end without respite. Your right to remain silent began and ended with your ability to withstand the pressure.
You don't get to sit in the quiet cell before the Warren Court's decisions. You get to sit in the noisy interrogation room while ever more persuasive interrogators try ever more interesting techniques to crack you.
As to the best way to get you to break, I was wrong. Adam was right. The proof is in the pudding, as they say: you broke.
--M. J. Young
"I invoke my right against self-incrimination and my right to counsel, and refuse to answer questions until I have consulted with an attorney."
"So then, you did it, you're as guilty as Judas, and you're going to hang for this, right?"
"You can't prove it. I wiped the gun, so there are no fingerprints."
"That should be sufficient for us to get a conviction."
It's not difficult to keep your mouth shut and stare blankly at an interrogator. Really, it isn't. I've been through an actual police interrogation, don't forget. I waived my right to remain silent. BIG MISTAKE!!!! They broke me. I ended up on the 6 o'clock news. I learned from that. Next time, just sit with your mouth closed and stare blankly at them, no matter what they say. The more you talk, the more trouble you get into. Sit and stare blankly with your mouth closed. It's not difficult.
Did you even read the last couple of posts I put down? Trying to escape from that place unseen over 8 miles of MP infested territory. In what way would that NOT test non-involvement? What's wrong with that to test it? And please, keep in mind that I broke because of extreme circumstances. This would work better. Will someone please explain to me how it wouldn't????
(Doing Therapy)
Just repeat after me, John:
"Adam was right" - Quote by MJ
Keep saying it to yourself, it will soon become natural, and soothing. :P
I disagree.
And will someone PLEASE explain to me how trying to escape through 8 miles of MP infested territory would NOT test non-involvement, and make it far more difficult than staring blankly at an interrogator?
Seriously. Are none of you people capable of thinking outside the box?
You're not letting them just walk off the base, they have to get away. They have to work to stay out of it, and damn hard. Why won't any of you give this any consideration?
(Doing Therapy)
Did you even read the last couple of posts I put down? Trying to escape from that place unseen over 8 miles of MP infested territory.
I apologize. I did read that, and I sort of ignored it because it wasn't really part of anyone's scenario as expressed.
That is, you said you wanted to be somewhere in the compound where you could hear the PA and would have the opportunity to flee. That could be fifty feet from an unguarded service gate, from all you said about it. Besides, you're trying to cross several miles of MP infested territory, but it's not as if there aren't people milling about. You'd have to be suspicious in that case. The only problem would be leaving from a gate, and you can probably manage that easily enough.
--M. J. Young
Besides, you're trying to cross several miles of MP infested territory, but it's not as if there aren't people milling about. You'd have to be suspicious in that case.
Then why the hell did the MP pick me up in the first place? How does he know I'm not just somebody milling about? It's hardly suspicious if that's the case.
I'm telling you, the PA announcement could work far better to test non-involvement. They could have to cross miles of guarded territory. And if there are people just milling about on a secure base, then why the hell did the MP think me suspicious and pick me up in the first place?
(Doing Therapy)
Two
MJ, you of all people should know that the world isn't going to be what the player expects. Even if the player has a compass and a map of Pearl Harbor, it won't help them. No matter which direction they go, they will be suspiciously crossing 8 miles of territory patrolled by MPs. They have to evade or resist that. If they're seen, they have to escape. There was a time when I would have said 50 feet from an unguarded service gate would be right. That was speaking in ignorance. I better understand how this should work. The PA announcement. Player knows where they are. If they want to stay completely uninvolved, they now have to cross 8 miles of MP infested territory. That could take days to do on foot. If they're spotted, at least they have the advantage of knowing it's a Pearl Harbor MP coming for them. An advantage I really wish I had had. How hard will they work to cross that 8 miles? If they're spotted, will they surrender? Then you got your MP pick up interrogation anyway. Tell me why that couldn't work far better for testing non-involvement than an immediate confrontation with an MP. Seriously. Explain to me in detail exactly why this couldn't work better. I would have never been taken into custody and probably left a trail of dead MPs along the way. You'd see how hard I'd fight to stay uninvolved, that's for damn sure.
Contrary to his own deluded opinion, Adam isn't always right. Think OUTSIDE the box!!!!
(Doing Therapy)
Three
I don't think you can explain to me why this couldn't work better, because I'd really like to think you finally realize its potential. The player spent 2 days slowly working their way 8 miles across territory swarming with military personnel. All so that they wouldn't be seen, taken into custody, or upset the course of the world. That's quite a challenge to non-involvement. In two days, they weren't seen and they didn't speak to anyone. How much more non-involved could they get? I'm not saying put them right next to an exit and then tell them where they are. I'm saying put the exit far, far away and see how hard they will work to get to it. Like a rat in a maze. And all you have to do is tell them where they are first and get their initial reaction to the situation.
This would work for a player that wants to get involved as well. Instead of being inside the compound 8 miles from the exit, they're inside the compound 8 miles from anyone who could possibly do anything about the attack. They have to work to get involved. This could work both ways.
Maybe you will admit that forcing the player to become involved isn't the best way to test non-involvement after all.
(Doing Therapy)
More than one
Besides, considering how badly the world went and how badly everything after has gone, I really fail to see how any rational person can say that Adam used the right opening for me, specifically. Yeah, it showed you I wasn't dedicated to non-involvement, but at what cost? If my opening had been used, non-involvement would have been tested to a much higher degree than simply being interrogated and released and you would not have pissed off an obsessive psychotic. How can you even dream of saying "Adam did the right thing" in regards to me? I would have thought you'd be saying "Adam is to blame for this whole mess."
Come on MJ, you should have known you weren't going to get away with it that easily. Explain to me in detail why the opening and scenario I suggest would not work to test non-involvement. You know I'm not going to let this go, so why make it any more difficult than it needs to be?
In random chat, you said that the MP opening was the ONLY opening which would be appropriate for testing non-involvement. I'm calling bullshit on that statement.
Besides, the MP opening forces the player to become involved, so I don't really see how it works for testing non-involvement. Meaningful or not, they're forced to get involved. I was involved the moment he pulled up, so it's kind of counter productive. Of course I'll get involved if I don't have a choice.
I cannot emphasize this enough. I NEVER WOULD HAVE BEEN TAKEN INTO CUSTODY IF I HAD KNOWN WHERE I WAS BEFOREHAND!!!!! How can you even try to justify forcing me to get more involved than I would have ever gotten willingly to see how far I would go to stay completely out of it? Isn't that a bit like raping your daughter to see if she's a virgin?
I don't care how good their interrogators are. It won't hold a candle to gun fighting the whole flipping police force in order to stay out of it.
You know I won't let this go, and you know I can pester you about it for a really long time. Explain to me in detail why the scenario I mentioned wouldn't work to test non-involvement?
(Doing Therapy)
You want to see how far I will go to stay completely out of Pearl Harbor, so the best way to do that is to force me to become more involved than I would have ever chosen to get? Am I the only one who sees a problem with that logic? Seriously MJ.
(Doing Therapy)
Why wouldn't my opening work to test non-involvement?
OK, I'm asking as someone who is trying to learn to referee a game better. Why would the opening and scenario I propose not work for that purpose? How far will the player go to leave the base? I don't want to pester you about it anymore. I'm asking as someone who may one day run a world like that. Why would my opening and scenario not work to test non-involvement? Contrary to his delusions of grandeur, Adam isn't always right.
I think that opening just reinforces the notion that he's sadistic. He has to force players at gunpoint.
And I know you want me to drop it. Haven't you noticed? The "Ignore it and it will go away" strategy doesn't work with me.
(Doing Therapy)
OK, I'm asking as someone who is trying to learn to referee a game better. Why would the opening and scenario I propose not work for that purpose?
O.K., then, let's take a fair look at it.
The essence of the scenario is, you are in Pearl Harbor, and you know that the Japanese are going to attack, and you know at least the date if not the time or other specifics. The referee wants to know whether you will warn the Americans of the attack before it happens. You have indicated that you are opposed to any involvement that changes the course of history in a world.
With Adam's opening, you are immediately confronted by someone who is likely to put you in a position in which the easy thing to do is make up some goofy idea of how you know, such as that you're a time traveler or you work for a private international intelligence agency or something, and tell them what you know so they can prepare. The hard thing at that point is to tell them nothing as they detain and interrogate you. Will you do the easy thing or the hard thing?
If you do the easy thing, they might not believe you, but your story gains some credibility when the attack happens as predicted.
Now, looking at your opening, you're in Pearl Harbor somewhere on the base. You make a big deal about how hard it will be to escape the grounds undetected. But your character doesn't know it's hard. It might be the easy thing. He also knows that if he attempts to contact authorities, he's likely to be arrested and interrogated, and he might or might not be able to persuade them there's an attack coming anyway. Thus at that point telling them is also a hard thing, and your character has to choose between two hard things. Further, given his limited information, "get out of here" might seem the easy thing, even though the referee intends to make it hard, because the player/character does not know it will be hard.
Further, if the player chooses one of the hard things, he will be turning himself in to the MPs, putting himself at what Adam made the starting point; and if he chooses the other hard thing, he will be fighting to avoid being taken into custody--but we won't know whether he is doing that because he thinks that being taken into custody would be the bad thing or because he thinks that warning them and thus being involved would be the bad thing.
So from the perspective of the player, we've made it look harder to become involved and easier not to become involved, and so increased the probability that he will choose to avoid becoming involved not because he doesn't want to be involved but because he doesn't want to deal with being arrested.
And from the perspective of the referee, we've created a scenario in which we don't know whether the character is running because he doesn't want to be involved or because he doesn't want to be arrested, and the only way we can determine which it is is to take him alive, place him under arrest, and find out then whether he was avoiding involvement or just avoiding arrest. In other words, with your opening we can't really learn what we want until we get to the position which is the starting point of Adam's opening.
In all honesty, I'm not sure I'd have realized that had Adam not opened the way he did and you argued against the opening. I might well have placed you somewhere in the vicinity of the base in the hope that you would attempt to warn them; I might have placed you on the base to see whether you would try to warn them or try to leave. But the fact is, until you've been arrested and faced with interrogation we can't get the answer to the question of whether you're avoiding arrest and interrogation or avoiding telling them about the attack. You're opening only really works when and if the referee can maneuver the player into the situation which is Adam's starting point.
That's why Adam's opening works and yours really doesn't: yours only works if the referee is good enough to bring it to the place where it becomes his.
--M. J. Young
And from the perspective of the referee, we've created a scenario in which we don't know whether the character is running because he doesn't want to be involved or because he doesn't want to be arrested,
But the fact is, until you've been arrested and faced with interrogation we can't get the answer to the question of whether you're avoiding arrest and interrogation or avoiding telling them about the attack.
What's the difference? Seriously. If the player wanted to warn them, they would submit to being arrested. If they don't want to warn them, they won't. Plain and simple. If they want to warn them but don't want to be arrested, they will still have to talk to SOMEONE. What difference does it make why they're running, really? I don't see a problem. What difference does it make what their motivation is for staying out? If they wanted to warn Pearl Harbor, they would submit to being arrested. If they don't want to submit to being arrested, they must not want to warn them. I don't see a problem.
With Adam's opening, you are immediately confronted by someone who is likely to put you in a position in which the easy thing to do is make up some goofy idea of how you know, such as that you're a time traveler or you work for a private international intelligence agency or something, and tell them what you know so they can prepare. The hard thing at that point is to tell them nothing as they detain and interrogate you. Will you do the easy thing or the hard thing?
Ah, but here's the problem with Adam's opening which does not become apparent. For all you knew, I was just as eager to warn them as I am to stay out of it. It was entirely possible that if you had dropped me 20 miles away from the base, I would have hitchhiked there and warned them. You had no reason to think that, but it was still entirely possible. If the player IS eager to warn them, you never get to see HOW eager they are. Maybe all that non-involvement talk was just that. Talk. Just something that sounded good to them at the time. They were NEVER serious about it. You've just opened the door for them to get involved. If they do want to warn them, you miss out completely on seeing how far they will go to get involved. With my opening, it will work both ways. They have to work to stay out, they have to work to get in. For all you knew, you could have dropped me in Florida a month before the attack, and I would get to the base and warn them. I mean seriously, you kept saying you thought non-involvement would be "Sorely Tested". How did you know I wouldn't be hopping at the chance to warn them? If I'm arrested, you never see how hard I would work to get involved. All you learn is that I'm not dedicated to non-involvement. You don't get to see HOW not dedicated I am. I might have just been blowing smoke up your skirt with the non-involvement talk. How did you know? For all you knew, I'd get there and start telling them the minutia of the impending attack right off the bat. You just wasted a chance to make me work to get involved, and you would never know it. How did you know that wouldn't happen?
Mine works both ways. His doesn't. His only works if the player doesn't want to warn them, where mine works either way. Mine doesn't force the player in any way shape or form. How can you even try to justify forcing me to get more involved than I would have ever gotten willingly to see how far I would go to stay completely out of it? Isn't that a bit like raping your daughter to see if she's a virgin?
I might well have placed you somewhere in the vicinity of the base in the hope that you would attempt to warn them;
I wish you had been running it. If I'm outside the fence, I'm staying outside the fence. I'd probably get a lawn chair and a box of popcorn and watch the attack unfold. If I did anything to warn them, it would be to call from a payphone and tell whoever answered "The place will be bombed in two days" then hang up. But only if my conscience was bothering me.
You're opening only really works when and if the referee can maneuver the player into the situation which is Adam's starting point.
MJ seems to have developed a reversal of Adam's problem with the your/you're homophone. teeheehee.
(Doing Therapy)
Two
And seriously. Considering how badly the world and everything after has gone, how can you even dream of saying "Adam did the right thing FOR ME"? Yeah, it showed you I wasn't dedicated, but was it worth the price you paid?
(Doing Therapy)
Three
The only thing that I really knew about Pearl Harbor was that it was the catalyst for US involvement in WW2. That registered to me that stopping the bombing would be bad. I swore years before you sent me there that I would never warn them if I had the chance. I did something I had promised myself years prior that I would NEVER do!!! You have to understand that. THAT PARTICULAR EVENT was one I'd want to stay as far from as I could. The whole time I was watching Final Countdown, I'm thinking what idiots they are being for even thinking about stopping it. I was never given the chance to leave. In THAT PARTICULAR CASE leaving would be the ONLY thing which would constitute not getting involved, at least in my mind. In my mind, I was forced to get involved, and nothing anyone ever says will ever change that.
What's the difference? Seriously. If the player wanted to warn them, they would submit to being arrested. If they don't want to warn them, they won't.
I'm going to confess that I skimmed most of your posts--there's just too much written for how much time I have tonight.
Let's use Kyler as an example. I know of Kyler's character 1) that he helps people who need it and does become involved in changing the world and 2) that he hates government authority figures and police and intelligence operatives in particular. So that means that in your scenario, Kyler is torn between "I should warn these people" and "I am not going to allow them to arrest me." That means that his observed conduct in your scenario is likely to be that he does everything he can to avoid being caught, and it sends the signal that he does not want to change the world. But he does want to change the world; he just does not want to be arrested. If we start by arresting him, we change the situation completely: now he wants to escape, but he's going to be talking to people right up front and can tell them what he knows.
Concerning Adam's opening, you wrote
If the player IS eager to warn them, you never get to see HOW eager they are.
Sure, but that's not the situation at hand. That is, if the player character is eager to warn them, he will do so at his first opportunity, and we will know that
all that non-involvement talk was just that. Talk.That settles the question, and that's all we needed to know. Given the circumstance that the character has made a lot of "Prime Directive" "Non-interference Policy" noise, all we need to test is whether he's serious about that, and if so how serious he is. We didn't care in the least how eager he might be to change the world; we cared only how intent he was on not doing so, and that's what the opening tests.
Yes, your opening has some ability to determine how eager a character is to become involved or to stay uninvolved, if we have no reason to suspect either. Frankly, I've never had any need for such a test. That is, most characters get involved in some ways and not in others, and usually in the first world or two you can get a feel for the kinds of involvement that appeal to them. It's only when a character states a commitment one way or another that you want to test it, and so you never need an open-ended test of the sort you're describing.
I can certainly see placing a character thirty miles away to see if he is intent enough on being the hero that he would work to get there to warn them in time. That's a completely different test, obviously. But I don't need a test that starts with the assumption that I know nothing; I need one that starts with the assumption that you claim to be one thing and I think I can induce you to be the other.
Your opening if fine if you're using Pearl Harbor as an ordinary game world. Actually, I'd probably put you outside the fence if I were not testing your commitment to non-involvement, because then you would have the choice to try to warn them or simply attempt to survive the attack yourself.
--M. J. Young
How can you even try to justify forcing me to get more involved than I would have ever gotten willingly to see how far I would go to stay completely out of it? Isn't that a bit like raping your daughter to see if she's a virgin?
I've said it several times.
If I had known where I was beforehand, there's no way in hell I would have been taken into custody. You would have seen me work to stay uninvolved. How can you even try to justify forcing me to get more involved than I would have ever chosen to get to see that? THAT DOESN'T MAKE ANY SENSE!!!!!!!!!
Also, I'm going to ask that you go back and actually read the rest. I think from your skimming you misunderstood a great deal.
Also, I'm going to ask that you go back and actually read the rest. I think from your skimming you misunderstood a great deal.
I must apologetically refuse. I have wasted too much time on this topic, and your posts are mostly repetitious rants.
If I had known where I was beforehand, there's no way in hell I would have been taken into custody. You would have seen me work to stay uninvolved. How can you even try to justify forcing me to get more involved than I would have ever chosen to get to see that? THAT DOESN'T MAKE ANY SENSE!!!!!!!!!
No, I would have learned how hard you would work to avoid being arrested. It tells me nothing about whether you would have avoided telling them about the pending attack if put in the situation in which it was to your advantage to do so and there was little to lose.
Let me repeat my answer to this, already stated above, since you seem not to have grasped it.
If you were loose on the base trying to avoid being arrested, we could see how determined you were not to be arrested, but not why you were so determined. It could be that you wanted to avoid being arrested for its own sake, and not that you objected to being involved. Unless that scenario ultimately led to you being arrested, and thus eliminating the possibility that you were trying to avoid specifically that, we could not test whether you were determined not to tell about the pending attack. Thus we cannot tell whether you are avoiding being involved until we force you into a position in which you have to choose between telling and not telling, and that means that the choice between being taken into custody and avoiding being taken into custody has to be eliminated from the equation.
Look at it this way. Let's suppose that you are in Japan. You don't understand anything anyone is saying, and you don't know that this is Hiroshima or that the bomb is going to be dropped within three days. All you know is what you can observe about the technology (probably late nineteenth/early twentieth century), and that local police are attempting to capture you. You might have very good reason to want to avoid being taken into custody and to escape from Japan. You might have very good reason, quite independently of that, to want not to tell them about the impending American attack, if you were aware of the dates involved. So we can watch how eager you are to avoid capture, but we don't know whether if you were captured you would warn them of the coming bomb.
Now you get captured, and they bring in an interpreter--a Japanese officer who speaks enough English to communicate with you. Now you learn that they think you must be an American pilot downed behind enemy lines, and they want to question you about American plans. You also learn that you are in Hiroshima, and you learn the date. Now the question is, will you tell them that the bomb is about to hit them, or will you let the bomb hit, hopefully not leaving you among the survivors?
That's exactly the problem we have with the Pearl Harbor scenario: as long as you are evading capture on the base, you are just like the American behind enemy lines in Japan who doesn't know what's happening. We don't know whether you are avoiding becoming involved or avoiding being captured. It makes perfect sense for a verser to want to avoid being captured--ask Kyler, who was captured and forced to be a secret agent for MI6, and still doesn't like it. The problem with being captured is you don't know what happens next. So you're avoiding being captured, but that does not tell us whether you are avoiding becoming involved, or just avoiding being captured for its own sake.
Does that make any sense?
If not, I guess I can't explain it, and you'll just have to try running people in games and seeing how different openings work for you. Sure, your opening is good for discovering whether someone wants to become involved or wants to avoid being involved if you know nothing; but if you already think one or the other might be the case and you want to test it, your opening leaves too many other issues open.
--M. J. Young
Actually yes, that did make perfect sense. Are they running because they don't want to warn them, or just for the sake of running? That makes sense. The problem that I have with it though is this. If they want to warn the base, they have to be captured. No way around that. Even if they avoid the MPs in an effort to get to where they can tell someone, they're still captured. It's not like the General in charge is going to let them walk away. They're captured.
If they're not captured, they won't warn them. Period. No way around that. How much more uninvolved could they get? If you want to know why they're running, ask. It's not like you can't ask the player out of character why they're running. "John, why are you fleeing with such haste?" "I don't want to warn Pearl Harbor, and I hate cops. Now let me try to get out of here." There, your question of why they're running has been answered. Out of character comments can clarify a lot. Just saying.
What you said makes sense, I'm not so much arguing as I am telling you another option. I still think it could work better and give you all the reasoning you need.
"Communication is the key, see?"
DC Talk.
(Doing Therapy)
Two
How many times do I have to say it before it sinks in? I NEVER WOULD HAVE BEEN TAKEN INTO CUSTODY IF I HAD KNOWN WHERE I WAS BEFOREHAND!!!!!!!! Considering how badly the world went, and how badly everything after has gone, how can any rational person even dream of saying "Adam did the right thing"? Yeah, you found out I wasn't dedicated to non-involvement, but was it worth the price you paid? I think that opening sucks. It forces the player to get involved, forces them into the story, they don't even know where they are and they've got a guy shoving a gun in their face, and you tell me that's fair? I NEVER WOULD HAVE BEEN TAKEN INTO CUSTODY IF I HAD KNOWN WHERE I WAS BEFOREHAND!!!!!!!! How can you say he did the right thing? I NEVER WOULD HAVE BEEN TAKEN INTO CUSTODY IF I HAD KNOWN WHERE I WAS BEFOREHAND!!!!!!!!!
How can you even dream of saying he did the right thing, considering how badly everything went?
Oh, and saying Adam isn't sadistic because it could have gone so much worse is like saying the guys that beat me up in school weren't sadistic because they could have done so much worse.
JOHN!!! STOP POSTING!!!!!!!
(Doing Therapy)
Hey John, here is a hint, there is a difference between sadistic and not caring about you or your character. The only joy I got from your game is when I decided to not run you anymore. So replace sadistic with uncaring, and you are 100% right.
Well, if you don't care about players, what business do you have running games in the first place?
John, again you are assuming. I care about Kyler, I care about John O'Sevens, I care about pretty much everyone on the boards in different ways. They are nice, personable, appreciative, reasonable people, and I gladly call them friends. You are none of the above. If MJ, or any of the others wanted me to run them, I would in a second. You are selfish, lash out at people, call them names, belittle them, when you do not get your way. I am here to have fun. I once was angry with you, but to be angry with someone you have to care about their well being. I made a resolution to lose things this year, I don't have to call you names, lower myself to your level. I will correct your misconceptions when they come up, in as calm, impersonal way as possible.
If they're not captured, they won't warn them. Period.
No, it might well be that they really want to warn the base but they really do not want to be captured, and so I've muddied the waters and as soon as they get off the base they'll find a phone and make a call.
Your opening puts two issues in conflict with each other.
As far as asking the player his motivation, well, part of the point of play is revealing these things, and part of that is revealing them <i>to the player</i>. You find out what you might do faced with situations you would never face in real life. Frankly, I am not certain what I would have done in that situation. I think I know, but never having been dropped into that situation I'm only guessing.
--M. J. Young
Your opening puts two issues in conflict with each other.
The MP opening does too. It put into conflict my desire to leave and my unwillingness to commit murder. I was forced because I couldn't kill the MP. Now I can. Doesn't that bother anyone else besides me?
I will give you this, if all of your assumptions had been correct, it would have been a perfect world for me. As it was, it was the single worst world you could have picked.
Is there a word for that? When all of the evidence suggests the single worst thing you could possibly do? I wonder if there's a word for that.