Two
OK Adam, you insist that you weren't being sadistic. Now I have to ask. Regardless of how stupid they were being, what's the point in taking out the main character of the story right before the entire point of the story? You could have just as easily given me "safe" botches. If not to be sadistic, what was the point in that?
Doing something like that takes a level of sadism, no matter what your motivation.
A botch is a botch and the dice decided the severity. As I recall, you got a worse than expected result, but not a worst fears result. I made and listed a chart, and I followed the chart. Sorry John, I have had MJ launch me with a 100 botch for 100 damage into a door, the dice spoke. Before then, you had no concept that actions have consequences. You thought hitting that MP in the head with a TK Pulse repeatedly was funny. It's funny when it happens to someone else, it is tragedy when it happens to you. I do recall you not being so flippant with abilities after that, so it looks like you learned. See you did learn something from Pearl Harbor :P.
The botch was "Knock out driver". With a botch like that, it isn't a question of Am I going to get hurt, it's a question of How Badly. You could have just as easily put down something safe then rolled the dice. Did you roll the dice to see how bad the botch list would be? I don't think you're supposed to do that. I think you're supposed to make the list THEN roll the dice.
It was four years ago, the order of what I told you today of what how it happened was generalized. If you are going to argue semantics, about the order I said something now 4 years after the fact, let me throw you more straws to grasp. John, take responsibility for your actions, yes I probably could have handled not wanting to run you better, but your attempting to deflect all blame, well is unfortunate and transparent.
John, take responsibility for your actions, yes I probably could have handled not wanting to run you better, but your attempting to deflect all blame, well is unfortunate and transparent.
Well, if you didn't want to run me, why did you volunteer for it in the first place? Besides, you didn't know me from, well, from Adam back then. Why would you not want to run someone about whom you know nothing? Besides, there's a difference between taking responsibility for something and understanding why you should. I'm doing the latter. Have I not told you several times that "Knock out driver" was probably the single most appropriate botch that could have been used in that situation?
I didn't want to run you after you become annoying to the point of not wanting to deal with you, again I should have handled it better, but it needed to be done.
I wasn't annoying (Yet) was I?
I just think, regardless of how stupid their actions, I would have a real problem with taking out the main character of the story right before the entire point of it. I would do everything in my power (Which I now see isn't as much as I thought) to get them to the base in one piece. The botch list I put down would have been funny and not so dangerous.
Regardless of how stupid they were being, what's the point in taking out the main character of the story right before the entire point of the story? You could have just as easily given me "safe" botches.
....
The botch list I put down would have been funny and not so dangerous.
--And thereby would not really have been a botch list.
Ryan reminds me that when you put together a botch list it's good to have something on it that the player would have wanted to have happen. So I botched my sniper shot at the alien, and instead hit the fuel tank on his vehicle causing it to explode. But there shouldn't be more than one "good" botch on any list if it doesn't exceed twenty possibilities. Botches are intended to be dangerous; they are supposed to cause the player to use caution and to favor skills that are reliable. In fact, in the Pearl Harbor scenario where magic and psionics are flatlined, botches are the red flag that tells you that you should rely on tech and bod skills here, using the others only in extreme need.
Sometimes you get botches that you want to reproduce--the magic anomaly is one of those, and in the back of my mind I recall Harry having accidentally done something by magic that he wanted to figure out how to do intentionally.
Sometimes you get lucky with a botch--the bod bias botch injury table has on the good extreme (a 3 GE roll) that you manage to roll out of the problem unharmed with no time lost; at the bad end, you are so completely mangled you zygote into the next world. The middle "neutral" results are dangerous level damage, which won't kill you but can hurt pretty badly. But you can come through almost unscathed, or almost alive.
Characters get killed as much by botches as by any other thing. That's the way they work.
You don't put together a botch list in which the character isn't going to face the risk of death on at least one roll, unless the skill is so benign that death would be ridiculous (botched on talking--and even then, you might have the story of the blue people by the lake).
If you want not so dangerous, play Toon. Here, a botch is a botch, and the referee is cheating if he makes it not so.
Why would you not want to run someone about whom you know nothing?
Hmmm--well:
- I do it all the time at game conventions and demos, and so does Adam, although he doesn't often run Multiverser, and so does Eric (Tadeusz), who does run Multiverser, and I know that Ahmetia did it at the latest Ubercon--it's part of the role playing game world that being in a game with someone is how you get to know them better.
- He knew more than nothing about you, because he had seen you in play in Columbus.
- When he agreed to take you, you hadn't been nearly as obstreperous as you became. You made some noise about how versers shouldn't interfere in the worlds they visit. You had not yet argued about the money or fired the gun in the hotel room, and you hadn't started complaining about how Adam ran your game because he hadn't run it yet. I think once he'd agreed he wasn't going to change that--that's the sort of reliable person he is.
--M. J. Young
Sometimes you get botches that you want to reproduce--the magic anomaly is one of those, and in the back of my mind I recall Harry having accidentally done something by magic that he wanted to figure out how to do intentionally.
Telescopic vision?
MJ, you're pretty good at the English language. Is there a word which would mean "All of the evidence you had suggested the worst course of action you could possibly take"? That's what happened. All of the evidence suggested the single worst world you could have picked. I asked a linguist friend of mine. He speaks 15 languages and he said he knew of no such word in any language, but that doesn't mean that such a word doesn't exist. There needs to be.
Two
And you never answered me. Considering how badly everything has gone, how can you even dream of saying "Adam did the right thing"? That's like saying Captain Edward Smith did the right thing because they found out the Titanic wasn't actually unsinkable. I would have thought you'd never even consider using that opening for any player ever again.
Thanks, Brock, that might be it.
Is there a word which would mean....
Well, I don't know all the words which exist, and I don't know all the Latin words and phrases that are connected with logic and reasoning in common use, and I can't off the top of my head think of such a word; but the English language has more words than any other in the world, if I'm correctly informed, and so it's entirely possible that there is one either outside my knowledge or outside my immediate recollection. What I would do is go to Thesaurus.com and enter a plausibly similar word, like in this case "conclusion", scan down until I found a word that was closer, such as "presumption", from which I find "surmise", which seems to be as close as I can get but isn't quite what you want.
Considering how badly everything has gone, how can you even dream of saying "Adam did the right thing"?
In retrospect, we learned that the Japanese were on their last legs, and would have surrendered within about four months had we not bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Doing so saved many American lives, but cost many Japanese lives, and those of civilians. It created the perception that American was willing to destroy the lives of millions of innocent civilians in a war situation, and led to the Cold War. In retrospect, there are a lot of reasons to think that Truman should not have dropped the bomb.
He could not have known any of that. From where he was in history, he did the right thing. He ended a war which as far as he knew could have continued for several more years and taken an unpredictable toll in American lives. He announced and established that America had weapons of incredible destructive power and was not afraid to use them if necessary to save American lives.
Knowing what I know, if I were in Truman's seat, I probably would not have authorized the bombing. He did not and could not know what I know. He did the right thing.
Anything that happens after the fact is valuable if it tells us what the most likely outcome of a choice would have been, but it does not matter if what happened occurred because of facts that were not and could not have been known to the person making the decision. Adam did the right thing, because he found an opening that immediately and directly put you in the position in which we wanted you to be, that of having to make a choice as to whether to become involved by telling them about the bombing or suffer the consequences of being caught in the attack. It was calculated to do that, and it did exactly that. Any other consequences which could not have been predicted are not relevant to whether he did the right thing for what we wanted to know.
I would have thought you'd never even consider using that opening for any player ever again.
John, you are a special case. I don't like saying so, but I had misgivings about allowing you to play.
- Decades ago there was an argument against role playing games that unstable individuals could have trouble distinguishing between fantasy and reality, and might become dangerous if they confused their real lives with their game personae. My specific answer to that objection is that those who play ought to give thought to who they allow in the game, and not include people who are unstable in a way that might be trouble.
When you asked to play, I came within a hairsbreadth of saying no, because I knew enough about you to know that you were a psychiatric patient, and not enough about you to know whether this would be a problem. I decided that my interaction with you to that point had suggested you were mostly normal and could deal with the fantasy as distinct from the reality without any trouble.
When this event became a problem, I came within a hairsbreadth again of ending your involvement here, because your reaction raised all kinds of flags, set off all the alarms, and made me wonder whether I had made a mistake in allowing you to join us originally. I did not terminate your game because by that time you had become involved in play, purchased the game books, and were working on developing worlds of your own, all of which were encouraging signs in my view.
As this discussion enters I-don't-recall-how-many years, I again wonder whether it was a mistake, and whether I ought to exclude you. However, you seem to have improved in some ways; play may have been therapeutic. Besides, you are no longer my player, and it is not my decision whether to exclude you. If those who are running games for you are comfortable doing so, I am not going to worry whether they should stop.
I would use that opening for any normal player for whom I wanted to know whether he would or would not become involved in a situation in which he knew what was going to happen and might have reason to prevent it.
I might even use it for you, perhaps in a different form (if I land you on the Titanic, for how long do I keep you unaware of the pending disaster? or the area around Mount Saint Helens? or the Chicago Fire or San Francisco Earthquake or the attack on the World Trade Center?--that might have been a better choice). Or I might put you in Pearl Harbor exactly that same way to see what you do the second time it happens. Or I might put you somewhere that looks exactly like that and isn't, and see what you do with that situation.
Or I might never run you in a game again, not because I object but because I have more players than I can juggle even now and expect to have more in the future, so I'm not taking old players back.
Adam did the right thing, and I would do it that way myself given the same situation with a different player. I've done things like that to players before, and they've never complained more than to say that I blindsided them and they'll be more careful in the future.
--M. J. Young
John, you are a special case. I don't like saying so, but I had misgivings about allowing you to play.
I don't have a problem with that. In all honesty, I often wonder why you still allow me here. That's why I was shocked that you would want to block me over the avatar. "He doesn't have a problem with me being an argumentative jerk, but a picture of one of God's creations sets him off????" If it's any consolation, I don't think any other world would have done that to me. If any other opening had been used for that world, it wouldn't have done that. That was a 30 roll even for me, as screwed up as I am. That's why I say all of the evidence suggested the single worst world you could have picked. No other world would have done that. If I were asked if role playing games are safe, I would probably say yes, they were. If a victim of the problem declares them safe, that's a pretty solid endorsement. That's why I'm so eager to find another opening which would meet the requirements you seek. You will never convince me that it's the only way. There's no such thing as "only" one way to do something. There's only better ways which no one has yet considered. Give me some time. I'll find a better opening.
In retrospect, do you think you "did the right thing" in allowing me to play? Be honest. You won't hurt my feelings. I've had worse said to me than you could come up with in this situation.
Or I might put you in Pearl Harbor exactly that same way to see what you do the second time it happens. Or I might put you somewhere that looks exactly like that and isn't, and see what you do with that situation.
That should be obvious. I'd turn the @#$%^&* MP into Swiss cheese!!!!!!!!
Two
What you had no way of knowing was that, years prior to doing the analysis, I had sworn that I would never warn Pearl Harbor if given the opportunity. It's the kind of oath you expect to never be put to the test, ya know? What did I do? I warned Pearl Harbor. That scrambled the logic circuits. That's what ultimately screwed me up. Even a similar, military-themed world with the same opening and the same results wouldn't have screwed me up. You had no way of knowing that. THAT PARTICULAR EVENT is what did it. No other world would have had that effect on me. All of the evidence suggested the single worst world you could have possibly picked.
(Doing Therapy)
"He doesn't have a problem with me being an argumentative jerk, but a picture of one of God's creations sets him off????"
Be fair: I'm not objecting to a picture of one of God's creations, but to a political statement.
In retrospect, do you think you "did the right thing" in allowing me to play?
Obviously I can't know what would have happened otherwise, and I just as obviously have had some regrets, but I haven't rescinded the choice and think that the outcome has been favorable enough to justify the decision.
--M. J. Young
Obviously I can't know what would have happened otherwise, and I just as obviously have had some regrets,
Damned if you do and damned if you don't huh?
For what it's worth, I could tell you how sorry I was every day for the rest of my life, and it would never be enough. It would also force you to read me saying the same thing over and over and over, which is kind of what we want to avoid.
Two
Ya know MJ, if I may wax philosophical for a moment. Depending on how you look at it, that was either the single worst or single best way to open what was either the single worst or single best world I could have been sent to. There's no middle ground. It was one of those extremes, depending on how you look at it.
(Doing Therapy)
For what it's worth, I could tell you how sorry I was every day for the rest of my life, and it would never be enough. It would also force you to read me saying the same thing over and over and over, which is kind of what we want to avoid.
This is the definition of an empty apology. You say you're sorry but don't change a thing. It has no meaning until action backs it up. So stop the action you're sorry for or don't lie about being sorry.
I have stopped the action I'm sorry for. I'm not arguing about the opening. I'm trying to come up with a better opening. If nothing else, a whole bunch of usable game openings are sure to come out of this.
You aren't even trying to accept that I might actually be sincere. You think I'm just running it into the ground. And you say that I have personality problems? At least I admit it.
The one good thing about an obsessive personality is that when we get fixated on something, we don't stop until it's perfect. That's why the planes that Howard Hughes designed were so cutting edge. He wouldn't stop until it was perfect. This is my obsession. Game openings are coming.
Oh and Mike, if you're going to sit there and say that "Nothing's Changed" I invite you to look up and read the thread titled "Sorry Guys". If, after reading that, you still believe that "Nothing's Changed" then you are most assuredly demented.
(Doing Therapy)
I'm sure we'll have a whole bunch of usable game openings from beating a specific world with a specific player combination into the ground. It's so generic how could an opening designed with that in mind not apply to everyone.
I'm not accepting that you're sincere because your actions haven't changed. I don't care in the slightest WHY you are doing this, I only care that you are performing the action. The action is the action regardless of intent, and to be sorry that you're doing something and continue doing it but under a different name shows no sincere regret.
As to me having a personality problem, I probably do, but don't we all. I'm not sure anyone would go so far as to say any that could be associated with me are important or severe enough as to cause my interactions with others to be strained however. I am curious what personality problem you think I have though.
I have no problem reading another thread, but typing "Sorry Guys" into the search didn't yield a result, so either you link it or I doubt I'll get around to looking for it.
As to the fact that "Nothing's Changed" being marked as a quotation, I'm not sure why you did that. If anything you paraphrased what you believed me to say, whether right or wrong, but it is definitely not a quote from me.
But you are correct, I think you're running it into the ground, a sentiment that is widely shared I imagine. The only way you will convince me or anyone else you are no longer doing that is by dropping the topic that people stopped caring about years ago.
I'm not accepting that you're sincere because your actions haven't changed. I don't care in the slightest WHY you are doing this, I only care that you are performing the action. The action is the action regardless of intent, and to be sorry that you're doing something and continue doing it but under a different name shows no sincere regret.
I am curious what personality problem you think I have though.
You say you don't care WHY I'm doing something, only that I'm doing it. You may recall reading about how I poked my sister in the forehead and got slugged for it. Everyone sided with my sister. About 15 years prior to that, I broke the same sister's nose. We got into a fight, she attacked me, and started hacking at me with a knife. I headbutted her to get her to drop the knife. I even warned her before I did it. I meant to hit her in the forehead, I broke her nose. Everyone I've told about that said it was clearly self-defense and sided with me. Why you're performing an action has a great deal to do with the outcome and how it is viewed. Anyone who says otherwise has a personality problem.
As far as showing regret, I'm sorry I broke my sister's nose (which was justified) but I'm not sorry I poked her in the forehead (which was not). Action and motivation again changes the reaction.
(Doing Therapy)
bump you worthless piece of junk!!!!
You say you're sorry but don't change a thing. It has no meaning until action backs it up.
Mike, I think you're a bit too hard on the concept of regret. After all, I know that my mother-in-law was regretful that she was such a burden on others in her last year alive, and she expressed that she was sorry many times, but there was nothing she could do to change that. It is at least possible that John recognizes his problem and regrets the impact it has on us, but can no more prevent it than an epileptic can prevent the seizures that inconvenience others around him.
John, I don't think we need a thread about the hundreds of different possible openings for Pearl Harbor. Most of us can find the one we need. Now, if you want to write an article outlining not more than half a dozen of these and the advantages and disadvantages and when you would recommend using them, I'm sure you can post it to the articles section. I notice that Adam just published an article without any advice about how to do it, so I'm sure that you won't want to admit you can't figure it out.
--M. J. Young
It is at least possible that John recognizes his problem and regrets the impact it has on us, but can no more prevent it than an epileptic can prevent the seizures that inconvenience others around him.
That's just about right. I could prevent it, but I'd still be WAAAY more psychotic than I am. Some days, it's almost a difficult willpower check NOT to say something.
OK MJ, I'll give you that there is no version of you who is a molecular biologist (even though I still don't believe it) if you will give me that there is a version of you who is a counselor, psychiatrist, or someone else who gets paid a lot of money to listen to people complain about their problems and helps them to solve them. I think that should be listed under your unrecognized talents.
If God could manipulate my entire life such that I would warn Pearl Harbor, then God could manipulate yours in far more directions than you could ever imagine.
(Doing Therapy)
I may be hard on the concept of regret, but apologies should mean something. John even mentions in his above post he could prevent it, so he's obviously not sorry enough to prevent it due to the consequences. So the true statement is more along the lines of 'I'm sort of sorry for doing this to you, but it helps me so I'm going to continue wasting your time'. Yes, I'm hard on people, but I expect no less of myself. I imagine a large part of the difference in view here is shaped by religion and your expectation to accept everyone, which while noble is not a view I uphold by any means.
Actions define motives. In the example of your mother-in-law I imagine she took actions to attempt to reduce her strain on others. She was physically doing what was in her power to reduce her burden on others I imagine. That action shows she truly is sorry for being a burden. John however even says he could stop, just the price to him is too high. As such he's not sorry enough to stop shoving his problem onto other people and is that really sorry enough to count as a sincere apology?
Mike, all I gotta say is I hope you never have kids. I feel sorry for them already.
Two
Mike, yes, I could stop it, just like you could make 20 difficult willpower checks every day. That's about what it would take.
I'll give you that there is no version of you who is a molecular biologist (even though I still don't believe it) if you will give me that there is a version of you who is a counselor, psychiatrist, or someone else who gets paid a lot of money to listen to people complain about their problems and helps them to solve them. I think that should be listed under your unrecognized talents.
I did a substantial amount of counseling over the telephone when I was in ministry at the radio station. It's not unrecognized; but I'd probably be in pastoral ministry of some sort, and not all that well paid for it. Psychiatrist requires medical degree; I might have made psychologist.
I'm hard on people, but I expect no less of myself.
I've mentioned this to several pastors, all of whom agree with me: whatever it is you will not forgive in others usually winds up being what ultimately catches you. I won't give examples, just the warning.
--M. J. Young
Mike, you made me think of a piece of Star Trek TNG fan fiction.
Alexander and Worf are in their quarters, Alexander is being a snot-nosed brat.
Alexander: "I don't wanna be raised like a Klingon!!!!"
Worf: (Grabs him by the shirt) "I'm not raising you like a Klingon. If I were raising you like a Klingon, I would have slapped your insolent face 157 times by now, and if you were lucky, would be considering stopping!!"
(Doing Therapy)
Two
I think I found the hole in your theory. You said that you have to make it easier to warn the base than not to, in order to test non-involvement. If the player runs, you don't know if they're running because they don't want to warn the base or because they don't want to be taken into custody. Here's the thing. If they are determined enough to fight their way through the entire police force to reach an exit, and still want to warn the base, they're certainly determined enough to find a telephone and call. "I'm the guy that just wasted your police force. I'm the first wave of a Japanese invasion force, set to arrive on December 7th. Be prepared." If the base doesn't take THAT seriously, then they've got some serious problems. If they fight their way off and DON'T make the call, then they were avoiding warning the base. I think it's pretty obvious. If they're determined enough to get out, and still don't warn the base, then they're pretty dedicated to non-involvement. Then the story is a manhunt for the verser. I think that would work much better than the MP for testing non-involvement.
(Doing Therapy)
John, you've certainly demonstrated that if someone really, really, really, really wanted to warn the base but really did not want to be arrested, he could avoid being caught and then drop a dime to the base command to let them know the Japanese were coming.
That has absolutely no bearing on the problem we're facing. What we want to know is whether someone really, really, really, really does not want to warn the base, and will do anything to avoid doing so, including die while in traction.
You've solved the wrong problem.
--M. J. Young
What we want to know is whether someone really, really, really, really does not want to warn the base, and will do anything to avoid doing so, including die while in traction.
And I STILL fail to see why doing anything to avoid warning the base doesn't count if all they did was kill 50 MPs in an escape attempt.
You just said it. "Do anything to avoid warning the base." If I had known where I was, I would have left a trail of dead MPs as I ran. Why doesn't that tell you that I don't want to warn the base?
If I had known where I was, I would have left a trail of dead MPs as I ran. Why doesn't that tell you that I don't want to warn the base?
Because, as previously explained and you said you understood, it doesn't tell us whether you're trying to avoid warning the base or merely trying to avoid being arrested. I need an opening that takes "avoid being arrested" out of the equation entirely, and the only way I can do that and put you in a position where there is a lot of pressure on you to warn them is to begin by having you arrested before you know what's happening.
Lauren Hastings drops out of the fourth novel, and in the beginning of what I expect will be the fifth I want her to be held in a secure mental hospital. Of course, capturing her and putting her in such a situation would be nearly impossible--she's much too powerful for that. So my solution is to have her verse into the building and be grabbed and sedated while she is still disoriented.
That's exactly what had to happen to you, John: you had to be placed in custody before you knew the stakes. You had a high aversion to being arrested even before Pearl Harbor. If we put you in that situation and said by implication, "If you don't run you're going to be arrested," you would have run, and fought, and killed a lot of people, simply to avoid being arrested. In fact, you'd have done that even if you did not know you were at Pearl Harbor. You'd have done that even if you knew as a fact you were somewhere else, say, Parris Island. It would tell us nothing about whether you were trying to avoid warning them. Three possible outcomes:
- You escape. At that point, if you don't warn them it's entirely possible that you didn't warn them because it was too dangerous or difficult to do so, or that you didn't see how to do it. The fact that you don't warn them after you escape does not tell us that you're committed to not warning them; it only tells us that you're not committed to warning them, which is a long way from what we wanted to know.
- You get killed in the process. Then we only learn that you'll fight to the death to avoid being arrested.
- You get captured. At this point, we can begin trying to find out what we wanted to know, whether you are genuinely committed to not warning them. But then, we might not get to this point, and we could have gotten here much more easily simply by having you arrested before you really knew where you were or what was happening.
So the point again is that we don't learn whether you are willing to do anything to avoid warning them until we've taken the question of whether you're trying to avoid being captured out of the equation. The only way we can do that and put you in a position where you can be pressured to warn them is to start by placing you in custody.
Hey, maybe Adam was generous. He could have versed you into an empty cell in the base stockade, to be discovered there by the guards. Maybe we'll do that next time we're trying to figure out whether you're resistant to changing history or simply selfish.
--M. J. Young
Hey, maybe Adam was generous. He could have versed you into an empty cell in the base stockade, to be discovered there by the guards. Maybe we'll do that next time we're trying to figure out whether you're resistant to changing history or simply selfish.
Another good reason to have that Verser's Survival Pack. I've got 4 guns and hand grenades on me at all times. I could blow the cell door open, and have a fair chance to fight my way out. That could be cool.
Because, as previously explained and you said you understood, it doesn't tell us whether you're trying to avoid warning the base or merely trying to avoid being arrested.
Yeah, I understood it. I guess I just don't see the difference between the two. If they're not arrested, they won't warn the base. If they get out without being seen, how much more uninvolved could they be? I guess I just don't see the difference between the two.
So with the MP opening, you're banking on the idea that the player won't be able to kill the MP in cold blood, when they would have had no problem opening firing whilst running. The problem I see with that is that, next time the player won't have a problem killing in cold blood. An opening like that will be hard-pressed to work for my character ever again.
Lauren Hastings drops out of the fourth novel, and in the beginning of what I expect will be the fifth I want her to be held in a secure mental hospital. Of course, capturing her and putting her in such a situation would be nearly impossible--she's much too powerful for that. So my solution is to have her verse into the building and be grabbed and sedated while she is still disoriented.
Speaking of the novels, are they anywhere closer to being published? I'd love to read the others.
(Doing Therapy)
I guess I just don't see the difference between the two. If they're not arrested, they won't warn the base. If they get out without being seen, how much more uninvolved could they be?
You don't see the difference between:
- Player does everything he can to avoid his character being taken into custody, but we don't know whether it's because he does not want to become involved in the events on the base or because he simply does not want to be arrested by the military police,
and
- Player having been taken into custody does everything he can to avoid warning them of the imminent attack because he does not want to become involved in changing events
?
I'm starting to understand Dyson's perspective. How can you not see how very different those two are?
o with the MP opening, you're banking on the idea that the player won't be able to kill the MP in cold blood, when they would have had no problem opening firing whilst running. The problem I see with that is that, next time the player won't have a problem killing in cold blood. An opening like that will be hard-pressed to work for my character ever again.
Well, it doesn't really have to work ever again, because we learned what we wanted to know--you will become involved when you perceive it as in your own personal best interest. The price has to be high, maybe, but you won't make great sacrifices to avoid involvement.
And probably only a verser with moderately long experience would kill the MP outright. A newer verser would react as you did, surrendering without a fight. A highly experienced verser would take charge of the situation somehow so as to accomplish his goals without losing control of things.
- I'm glad you're here. I managed to get this load of top secret advanced equipment this far, but I'm afraid I've lost my bearings and don't know where I'm supposed to bring it.
You have to know these things when you're a king, or a centuries old verser.
Speaking of the novels, are they anywhere closer to being published? I'd love to read the others.
I have no idea. The second is awaiting artwork, but I don't think anyone is working on the artwork because the company has different priorities right now and insufficient resources to put everything forward at once. The first novel did not sell as well as hoped, and I haven't had time to put it in paperback format, and there are still problems with our printing contract, so don't hold your breath.
--M. J. Young
I'm starting to understand Dyson's perspective. How can you not see how very different those two are?
Who is Dyson, and what was the perspective? The only Dyson I know is Miles Dyson, and I can't think of a time when something like that was in the movie.
I don't see how different they are, because to me, they're not. You want to see me work to not change the events of the world? Well, I just snuck off a heavily guarded military base without being seen. In what way did I NOT work hard to not alter the events of the world? Regardless of my motivation for doing so, I STILL worked hard to avoid altering the events of the world.
I'm glad you're here. I managed to get this load of top secret advanced equipment this far, but I'm afraid I've lost my bearings and don't know where I'm supposed to bring it.
You have to know these things when you're a king, or a centuries old verser.
I had to reread this a few times. At first, I thought it was meant for someone's game. Somehow, I don't think the MP would buy that. Unless you used it to lure him into the van and trap him in there. I hadn't thought of that.
All I gotta say is I REALLY hope the next cop who tries to arrest my character has his life insurance paid up. His widow is about to need it. In game, I just came within a hairbreadth of a gunfight with a fire mage. They're the local law enforcement, throwing fireballs in place of a gun. My coat is fireproof, is his coat bulletproof?
(Doing Therapy)
Two
The first novel did not sell as well as hoped, and I haven't had time to put it in paperback format, and there are still problems with our printing contract, so don't hold your breath.
I seem to remember some manner of site where the novels were available online. You pay a membership to the site, and you could download the novels in a format that couldn't be copied or sent to anyone else. Have you any idea what I'm talking about, or would you consider trying that? Or even just emailing me a copy of the second book. (Hey, no harm in asking, right?)
I also think you should do an audio book presentation of the novels. Read them yourself. You've got radio experience and professional-grade recording equipment, record them on MP3 and make them available online. Require a paid membership to download the books. You could probably do that yourself more or less for free.
(Doing Therapy)
Freeman Dyson, part of the Manhattan Project team, physicist who in an Omni interview was asked whether he ever wondered why he was so smart, and answered no, he wondered why everyone else was so stupid.
In what way did I NOT work hard to not alter the events of the world? Regardless of my motivation for doing so, I STILL worked hard to avoid altering the events of the world.
It's that aspect of motivation that matters. Did you work hard to escape the base undetected because you did not want to change the events of the world? I have no basis for drawing that conclusion. I know that you worked hard to escape the base because you wanted to escape the base; I don't know why. It might be that you don't like prison food, or that you have heard enough verser stories that you figure the Pearl Harbor brig might be as bad as Guantanamo Bay or even as bad as the Tower of London. It might be because you said, "Wouldn't it be fun to get off this military base without being caught? Let me see if I can do it." It might be that your motivation for getting off the base uncaught has something to do with a desire not to change events, but that is only one of not less than a dozen obvious possible motivations you would have for attempting to do that, and it would be quite foolish of me to assume that your desire not to be caught meant that you had a desire not to interfere. For all I know, if they caught you, you might laugh, say, "Hey, congratulations, I didn't think you could catch me. Listen, I'm with the NSA--that stands for No Such Agency, a division of the government so secret you probably don't know it exists--and I'm really hear to warn you that the Japanese are going to bomb this base tomorrow morning." I have no way of knowing simply from your effort to avoid capture that you are avoiding changing history; only that you are avoiding capture.
Do you get it yet?
Or even just emailing me a copy of the second book.
I offered that to you a few years back and you declined. I'm fine with that, provided 1) you buy the book if it becomes available and 2) you treat it as an early release review copy and write a review sometime.
I also think you should do an audio book presentation of the novels.
I did audio versions of What Does God Expect? and About the Fruit. They took several days of recording, and were two CDs long. Of course, they're in WAV/CDA format, not MP3.
I'm sure there's a way to secure files on the internet so that only a hacker could steal them, but I don't have those skills. If I were to upload audio files, I expect that anyone who got the URL could listen.
I have thought about doing the novels as audiobooks, but the amount of time it would take to read them (including retakes for mistakes) is daunting.
--M. J. Young
John, I'm sending the PDF of the second novel right now, as an e-mail attachment. Let me know what you think of it.
--M. J. Young
Yeah, now you've done it--I've so much to do, and I'm engrossed in reading my own novel.
--M. J. Young