Robyn

Re: Gritty Vigilante \ Criminal Adventure Formulas

Replenishing the character's resources. They're starving, they can't get a job, and they're morally opposed to stealing. Well. Some of them are.

Re: Heat of the Moment

No one has said that' date=' that I'm aware of.[/quote']

 

Hmm . . . in review I have to agree with you. The middle sentence here looked a bit iffy, but considering how careful incrdbil has been to mark each statement as being what he thinks, not an absolute what is, I think it's safe for me to assume it was all intended that way.

 

Sorry about the misunderstanding. After a while of being told that sort of thing you start to get an echo in there

Re: Heat of the Moment

To me' date=' there's nothign appealing about a change in conviction or action happening mechanically if I, the player, have come to the conclusion about what my character would do.[/quote']

 

Err . . . changes in action from what you have decided that your character will do take place all the time. They're called "rolling the dice, and failing at your objective"

 

The question, though, is whether it is realistic for a change in conviction to be taking place when your character has made up their mind about what they are going to do. To answer that, we need to look at real life; and, honestly, can you really say that you have never, in your entire life, decided to do one thing and then, later on, changed your mind?

 

The factors that affect us make sense at the time, whether or not they are objectively "true".

 

To me' date=' there's no freedom if a clunk of the dice tells you that your character suddenly thinks another way (again, excluding reasonabel exceptions, especially those self imposed in apsych limitations of some form).[/quote']

 

To clarify, this isn't a random, out of the blue, roll of the dice to affect your character. It's a part of the core system, and the mechanics are simply the use of dice to determine the outcome when one character tries to persuade another into/of something - regardless of whether there is a player behind any particular character or not. After all, why should NPC's be the only ones who end up on the losing side of a Persuasion attempt?

 

If you are going to have a roleplaying game' date=' the only appropriaiate decision maker for a character is the player.[/quote']

 

Since the "player" is the one "playing" the character, yes; they're the only one(s) who can give the final report on the character's intentions, thoughts, feelings, actions, and all the rest. But there are different ways of roleplaying, and some players (and GM's) believe that the role of a player does not come with just power. It also comes with responsibility. A responsibility, namely, to play that character accurately. Which may mean taking advice from other people.

 

At the crux of The Dying Earth's mechanics is the rather un-Western belief that our feelings of control over our own choices is just an illusion, and the true governing power is more chaotic than we would be comfortable with. But, on the other hand, that's one of the traits that people from The Dying Earth have that significantly differ from our world; they realize that their lives are merely leaves tossed on the stormy seas of chance, and yet still manage to keep a positive outlook on things.

 

Perhaps its just personal tatses' date=' but the above just turns me off.[/quote']

 

Then don't play it. Just don't keep telling the rest of us, whose only sin is enjoying a style of RP that you don't (but many others do - again, the popularity of the game is a testament to its success), that there's anything flawed or wrong with the way we roleplay.

Re: Heat of the Moment

The character is not "other" and is not "me." It is an abstract creation with which I can explore something important or interesting to me' date=' from moral issues to kicking in the door and spraying the room. I think it is this way for everyone... just not everyone realizes it.[/quote']

 

I do realize, but I think it's important to be able to distinguish between that which, because we don't find it important or interesting, we decline to personally play - and that which doesn't exist. I disagree with the first part though, to some degree, because of the Civil War Reenactment people who, to some extent, are roleplaying - but we don't say that they are the people who fought in the Civil War, nor do we say that, if not for them recreating the history, it would not have happened.

 

There is a fine line between the simulation of historical events and the simulation of imaginary histories; their implementation need not inherently differ.

Re: Heat of the Moment

I can't imagine that to be a terribly popular game mechanic;

Interesting. They say that, in a roleplaying game, there are no winners or losers, or that everyone is a winner, or something to that effect; I wonder if one of our victory conditions is "The power to exert a control over our lives that we lack in reality."

Have you ever been to an arcade and played - no, wait. Bad question. Let me rephrase:

Have you ever been to an arcade and seen someone playing pinball? Someone who is really good at it?

Well, in The Dying Earth, your characters are those balls. The popularity of the game, however, seems to attest to their success in observing "Hey, wow, look at how everyone can lose when the dice go against them . . . you know, I bet we could make this fun ", and making a game out of it.

There's an odd freedom to be found in knowing that fortunes can depart as suddenly as they've arrived, and that your character's convictions can be reversed in the space of a moment by an adequately eloquent appeal

Re: Heat of the Moment

Wheras' date=' I try to filter such things[b'] into[/b] the character. I think of the character as part of me, that I put my conciousness into, rather than something sepreate. I also design character to have the same biases and personality that is the base of mine - there are things I cannot concieve of doing - and so, thusly, do my characters.

:cringe:

We have vastly different styles, then. I could not take such an approach without ending up with indistinguishable characters, all the same as me.

I don't have fun playing with the people who, even if their character is a cleric, they're playing that fighter - always the same personality, just a different name - and I don't think of it as any fun to play me in the games. I get to play myself all the time, for Pete's sake. I'm boring. Let me be someone else for a change.

Re: Heat of the Moment

Robyn said "I consider it a mark of good roleplaying that I can distinguish between ideas for what my character could do that come from my knowledge of the character, and ideas that come from my own desire to see something interesting happen in the game."

 

Whereas I wish to be so immersed in character that I can't tell the difference between those two, and hopefully, if I have designed the character right, those two things are indistinguisable from each other.

Whereas I agree with you

[Wait, what?]

Being immersed, in-character, as opposed to blending (or merging) the character and the player, requires a sort of mental "shielding", or compartmentalization: you need to keep your own thoughts and feelings and desires, apart from the character's, which means "separate from the area of my mind that is handling the character". Being indistinguishable means being able to filter out the parts that are uniquely "you", not changing the character to be identical to its player. When I have successfully suppressed myself this way, and there are only two parts of my mind awake - the part emulating the character, and the part intercepting perception and action to translate what the players around me say to what my character would perceive, and vice versa so I don't act out my character's actions - I experience immersive roleplaying.

Re: Heat of the Moment

Getting way off topic' date=' but I think many would argue that what you describe above (and I agree with) is NOT immersion at all. That immersion means losing yourself and any sense of the metagame and existing within the imaginary space. That being conscious of your desires as a player is the antithesis of immersion. Not saying I disagree with you... just the the term "immersion" is difficult to define... perhaps indefinable... yet may be the crux of the RPG experience, depending on your personal sense of immersion. [/quote']

 

This would be (to me) where we interact directly with each other, in our real bodies, as if we were the characters.

Re: Heat of the Moment

That explains the difference of opinion. I'm a writer.

Do you write in the first person? If you've ever written stories from multiple POV's (for scenes where not every character is present), you can understand the "story that all players can share" from the reader's perspective; the story that you're writing for them contains more information than is available from any one character's direct perception.

Re: Heat of the Moment

Or to put it succinctly.. Accuracy be hanged' date=' I want to have fun. [/quote']

 

Well put. There are certainly games (and probably most of them are of this nature) that are for the purpose of having fun, enjoying social interaction, etcetera. But for people who want (to try) something else, there is sometimes less acceptance; it "isn't really roleplaying", or "will never work out", "can't be done", etcetera. Much as unrepentant munchkins are sometimes ostracized from play groups until, by chance, they happen to find a group that likes such things, the gamer sub-niche of "let's try serious recreation" is also regarded with wariness.

Re: Heat of the Moment

I like this one... very nice.

 

 

On to more philosophical things...

 

 

Not uncomfortable... incongruous.

Is there some setting that will let me fix how, in replies, anything inside the quote tags of the post I'm replying to are omitted?

I used to think like you describe above. Simulationist concepts of "this imaginary world and character exist outside of me" kind of thing... but if true' date=' then the idea of collaborative play shouldn't even come up. The idea of play at all is incompatible with simulationist thinking... because play recognizes that the reality is the social interaction of the play group and it's desires, not the imaginary settings and chraracters that are the abstract game pieces.[/quote']

 

I don't see why the two can't coexist. Just as you explain below, it is possible that "accurate simulation" will be "what the player wants to do". It may be a one-sided relationship (the player receiving their emotions and socializing voyeuristically, through the character), but it's not parasitic: even when the player doesn't (can't) give anything back to the character, the player doesn't leech emotions from the character.

 

I can't tell whether you are saying you approve of this' date=' or are saying you don't like this kind of play.[/quote']

 

:mutters again about missing quoted material:

 

The above is exactly what I'm a proponent for' date=' but this is, in no way, simulation. This is collaborative play in which players are giving input as to what they desire to see take place in the imaginary world.[/quote']

 

So you reject, then, that it is possible for players to all possess (and share) insights upon what desires and feelings and thoughts a "real" person had?

 

I set forth that this is not only possible, but happens all the time in our world

 

That internal consistency you speak of has nothing to do with simulation... as much as it has to do with an imaginary element (ex. There are dragons in this world!) is agreed upon as "fun" and matches the desires of the play group.

 

Or we could agree that it matches our desires for a realistic recreation, even if it isn't "fun".

 

Just because the group has to agree that an element "makes sense" for the consistency of the experience... this doesn't mean that said element truly exists and always has existed as is now being simulated.

 

You acknowledge, then, that a smaller section of that group (the individual) would also be unable to perfectly reconstruct what once was?

 

Displacement of our desires and emotions and imagination into fabricated worlds and characters and then interacting with others who are doing the same this is a fascinating and unique dynamic that makes Role Playing what it is... but it doesn't mean that those fabricated worlds and characters are real.

 

What you seem to be describing is the reverse of role-playing . . . where the characters act out the role of their players. I'm thinking of RP'ing as emulation to the point where we can extract their desires and emotions, house them in our imaginations and in our real bodies, then interact directly with each other as if we were the characters.

 

This is where I have to ask' date=' "Really?" Are you truly willing to say, "I have to do X instead of Y, even though it is going to make me, the player, hate the game. I'm going to be personally miserable and not have fun at all, but it is what the character would do!"[/quote']

 

Isn't this what we do when we accept that our characters have just died?

 

And, in any case, my response would probably be the same - to stop playing. Either my character is dead and I must, or the game is no longer fun for me and I am not inclined to participate anymore. But I think you exaggerate too far, presenting a false dilemma:

 

Even to temper the above example... are you truly saying that it is best to choose an action that you' date=' the player find uninteresting, unengaging for you as the player (not miserable, just blah) rather than pursue what you the player think is interesting and fun?[/quote']

 

First of all, I consider it a mark of control that I can, not that I (always) do. Secondly, there are many situations in which I can see actions that would lead to a better story for the campaign, but not for my character personally. Thirdly, and most relevantly to the paragraph just above, I can see many ideas with different levels of "coolness"; just because I keep myself from pursuing the best idea, does not mean I have completely abandoned all coolness.

 

Even the goth types are enjoying being miserable.

 

I would counter that the goth types are enjoying how miserable their character is; much humor, after all, comes from bad things happening to other people. Unless you meant the characters, not their players, when you said "goth types"

 

What you are likely saying is' date=' "I enjoy making decisions within the confines of the fabricated character mindset... where "the character" may make bad decisions, but that is merely a representation of my (the player's) desire to explore the Story the comes out of that decision."[/quote']

 

No. Close, but no. The character's decisions, as expressed by me when I am playing the character, are not caused by my desire to find out what happens to that character next - the character's decisions are permitted by it. And even then, only in the context of my playing that character - if I am no longer interested in finding out what will happen to the character next, and I stop playing that character, the GM (and other players) will be fully within their rights to continue figuring out what decisions the character would have made.

 

Now... there will always be times in a game where we (as players) conform our decisions to the consistency of the imaginary game world and we aren't happy about it. But in a good game' date=' those times should be rare compared to when playing within the confines of that imaginary game world and engaging and fun. If the player is truly not enjoying the play experience they won't keep playing.[/quote']

 

Agreed, on all three points.

Re: The Life And Death Of . . .

Well' date=' that was...um...[i']dark[/i].

That was why I put it in the "Dark" Champions forum

Good read' date=' though.[/quote']

 

Thanks!

 

You should just start a "Robyn's Random Writings" thread and post whenever ya have something.

 

I wouldn't call it random, I was here last night and then I started this thread, and about an hour later, viola, a realistic take on the Superman Creation Myth

Re: Heat of the Moment

The character doesn't really exist. It is simply an icon/extension of the player. All choices made are choices made by the player. If the player says "That is what the character would do" it is really the player saying' date=' "I am interested in exploring the Story of this character and the repercussions of the choices he makes, thus I chop off Dark Seraph's head because I'm thinking it will make for a cool game."[/quote']

 

That's one gaming philosophy, and a very common one. However, I play (and GM) by the one that the "characters" existed separately; that what we call a "character" is simply our attempt to simulate, through a single individual, the events that took place in a fully realistic (internally realistic, that is; consistent) world, by recreating that person as accurately as possible. Historically speaking, the first two sentences above are then impossible; except to the extent that we can metaphysically declare all other people to be extensions of ourselves, even the "real" ones. In practice it makes for a very similar game, but for some reason the theory is uncomfortable to accept, for some players.

 

The only differences, really, are in the encouraging of "collaborative play" and understanding of each other's characters; there are two Stories told in a campaign, the Surface story which is made of the events that happen publically, with external actions by the characters, just as visible to the characters as it is to their players; and the story with Depth, which is known only to the players, and becomes a much more fleshed-out story thanks to including the "off-stage" scenes. Some GM's keep the Depth hidden from their players, and this is understandable where those players are not good enough at roleplaying to keep their player knowledge separate from their character's knowledge; but I believe that the richness of these stories is valuable enough to seek out mature players, try to train/convert inexperienced players, and try to run those sorts of campaigns.

 

The understanding of each other's characters is where, just as you described here:

 

How do we encourage the player to say, "Capt. Courageous let's him fall. He knows he could save him, but can't bring himself to do it. As a player, I want Super Psycho to die, with Capt. watching... and then I want to explore what happens to Capt. Courageous as he has to come to terms with his decision and the repercussions."

 

Now everyone at the table is laughing and ooohing and aaahing about "How cool is that! Serious story implications! Sweet!"

 

The player is describing his character's internal motivations to the other players, not just the GM (as would be applicable in cases where the PC is very secretive, and does not allow other people to have even the slightest hint as to their feelings or motivations). This can also be done through "not going off to a separate room with the GM" when you're plotting, in campaigns where the PC's play at intrigue against each other.

 

The "collaborative play" is both a cooperative technique and a protective mechanism. The first comes from realizing that, as a single person, there's no way you can fully understand and simulate another person (your PC), so, in the same way as players might work together to build a base for the whole group, the other players are tapped as resources to provide insight and advice on how the character thinks and feels. The second comes after you wake up the morning after a game session and realize that you were so drunk last night, you totally screwed up your character's plots, mannerisms, everything. When correct emulation is the goal, and other players know your character almost as well as you do, it becomes appropriate to ask them to keep you in line if your own desires or state of mind affect your ability to accurately roleplay the character.

 

Think about rewarding the players for the decisions that are interesting and make the play better... rather than worrying about ways to limit decision making and force a mechanistic kind of play.

 

I consider it a mark of good roleplaying that I can distinguish between ideas for what my character could do that come from my knowledge of the character, and ideas that come from my own desire to see something interesting happen in the game. I consider it a mark of good control that I can keep myself from pursuing the latter, unless in line with the latter (interesting is still good, just make sure that you can develop the appropriate connections between the character and their actions as you report them).

 

As for a "mechanistic" kind of play, my campaign setting currently uses a melding of the modern with The Dying Earth: the philosophy of its inhabitants is that, with the sun going out any day now, little is of grand importance and they may as well live for the moment, accepting what comes. Since my campaign is set in the modern day, though, the sun is still at a healthy age, so I've come up with different reasons why everyone accepts that their fates are but twigs tossed on the wind of chance. I also use the mechanics from The Dying Earth, and their main function is to govern persuasion! The main arena of contention (or "combat") is conversation, where PC's attempt to talk each other and the NPC's into or out of their possessions, contracts, etcetera. If an NPC makes their roll, and you fail yours, you are then convinced, and must roleplay your character as if they truly believe what they were told.

Has anyone ever tried to actually stat any of the main characters? I can't see anything less than a VPP for the Maze abilities, but one of the things Simon has remarked upon in interviews is how he had seen powerful characters always done badly in that they got out of hand, or something, and he wanted to keep his own balanced by limiting what they could do, with how much energy they had.

So, it seems that they would need an "Only for VPP" END reserve, and each power would have to be paid for from that reserve based on Active Points, no reduction from this (i.e., no taking Advantages or Limitations that affect the Endurance cost of the power).

Re: Heat of the Moment

Psych Lim: Berzerk/Enraged (When your main enemy is sighted) 8-/10-?

If you mean, forcing it on all the PC's - no. I'm thinking more of something like random weather determination; does the rain cause a delay in anyone's schedule? Just a little something that would, occasionally, strike at all characters; not all at once, of course, but adding a mechanic of Global scope to reflect how, sometimes, human emotion can overwhelm all rationality.

It wouldn't be just Berzerk/Enraged, either; in the Heat of the Moment, you could become overtaken by Passion and do something with that lady (villain) which, umm, you really shouldn't have

Spring of 1934:

"Oh look, Jonathan - it's a shooting star!" Martha exclaimed, pointing out the side windowframe of their battered old truck (the glass windows having long since been lost). Jonathan quickly braked the vehicle, not bothering to park it. The few travellers to pass through their corner of nowhere never used the long road going to their farm, and in any case there was hardly room for one vehicle to fit through. Stepping out of their truck, the middle-aged couple watched in awe as the bright speck moved downward across the evening horizon. "Naw, I reckon it's a meteor." ventured Jonathan after several moments. "It looks like it's heading awfully close," fretted Martha, but "Don't worry," her husband of thirty years reassured her "we haven't done anything bad enough to make God want to hit us with a meteor."

Getting closer, the speck became a streak of light, that arrowed over their shoulders a moment before a low rumble went through the earth where they were standing. Turning around, Jonathan yelled in consternation "Dawgonit! That's our corn field on fire!", and ran for the truck, his wife right behind him. They both knew that if the fire was serious, they had to control the spread before it ruined this year's crops.

Pulling in close, they saw only a few small fires, already dying, and a large mysterious object still ablaze. "Watch out, Martha." he warned, stepping close to investigate. Carefully, she disembarked from the vehicle and began to explore around the side of the object. "It must be the meteor," Jonathan commented, looking the object up and down, "but I've never seen one so smooth." Martha called out from the other side of the meteor "Oh, be honest, Jonathan Kent - when have you ever seen a meteor in your - oh! My goodness, there's a baby in there!".

"What?!" Jonathan cried out, alarmed. He was worried for his wife; they'd both been wanting a child of their own so badly for the last few decades, but the Lord had never seen fit to grace them with one. If Martha was hallucinating that she saw a baby in the meteor, she might burn herself trying to save it! Rushing around the perimeter as fast as his tired old legs could take him, he was startled to see Martha emerging from an opening in the other side of the object, carrying what appeared to be an honest-to-God human child in her arms. "Oh, the poor baby!" Martha exclaimed, "Let me take him back to the truck."

Jonathan helped set the baby safely in the truck where it couldn't wander off, and then sternly took Martha aside. "Now, you know we have to give this boy to the orphanage . . . " he began. Martha interrupted him, pleadingly "Oh, Jonathan? Couldn't we keep him, please? We've been trying for ever so long, and I just feel that the Lord has granted him to us out of His kindness, to raise as our very own . . . even if he isn't." Jonathan glanced about, thinking about it. Suddenly a creaking noise from the truck interrupted their discussion. Glancing back, they saw the most miraculous sight: the baby had stepped out of their vehicle, and was lifting the back end overhead with one hand! He gurgled and giggled happily at his accomplishment, looking at the Kents with a delighted smile on his cherubic face.

Martha screamed and burst into tears, burying her face in her hands. "Monster!" she shrieked through her fingers, sobbing, "Oh dear Lord, God has sent us a monster!". Jonathan was pale, but he took her by the shoulders and said "Now, Martha - you know that isn't true. Why, God would never send us anything like that for all our faith. No, it's plain to me that this is something special." he finished. "Wha-what could that be?" asked his wife, glancing up, sniffling. "Why, it's obvious;" Jonathan replied confidently, "Satan himself sent the little devil!", and, striding forward, he set about to rid the world of the greatest conceivable menace.

Martha stayed back and watched him, shivering. My, but he was so brave to go into danger like that! One blow, two - Jonathan grunted in pain and stepped back, surreptitiously rubbing his toes. Then he kneeled in close and reached out to wring the young creature's neck. At first it seemed like nothing would happen, then the baby's face twisted up in pain, and he flung out one arm, sending Jonathan flying 20 feet to land on some flattened cornstalks. Shrieking in pain and grief again, Martha hurried to her husband's side. Lying on the cornstalks, his body looked broken. Weeping, Martha tried to straighten out his body for the final rest, while behind her the baby continued playing Lift the Truck. As she cleared out the rocks underneath, she gasped in amazement to find a glowing green stone. Lifting it higher to examine it, she suddenly heard a crash behind her as their truck hit the ground. Looking back, she saw the baby lying on the ground, apparently helpless. Though she realized it might be a trick to lure her closer, guard down, she was too consumed with rage and sorrow to care, so she charged at the baby with the stone still in her hands, and, raising it overhead, brought it smashing down. Again. And again. Until there was just a bloody smear on the ground, where once lay a small child.

Summer of 1934:

Jerry Siegel paced the floor restlessly. He needed to come up with an exciting character if he and his friend, Joe Schuster, were to find publication in more than their school paper. Sighing, he decided to retreat to his favorite reading, science fiction. Picking up his purchases of the day, something fell out . . . "Tabloids." Jerry thought in disgust, but his eyes were caught by the front headlines:

Alien spaceship lands on farmers' cornfield to deliver Anti-Christ!

Martha Kent (53) is being hailed as a hero by local farmers, after she heroically took it upon herself to slay the Anti-Christ, sent to their cornfield by the Devil in the form of a small baby. Her husband, Jonathan Kent (55) died battling the Anti-Christ; Martha is collecting signatures for a petition to the Vatican to have him nominated for sainthood. Of her own accomplishments, Martha is remarkably humble; "I only hope," she says, "That any God-abiding person, in my situation, would do the same."

Full story on page 3.

Excited at first, Jerry's spirits quickly fell. The story contained exactly the kind of heroism that people liked to read during the Depression, and he felt inspired by it - as if he could use it to breathe new life into his current project - but it would only be good for a single panel . . . unless . . . his hopes rose again. What if it was the baby that was the hero? It couldn't be a baby, exactly, but what if it grew up and became . . . Jerry Siegel paused, struck by a vision.

A vision that would become legendary. A vision of . . . Superman.

It's all very well and good to fantasize about how you're going to go up to the villain, force him to his knees, cuff him, and drag him off to jail amid the cheers of a joyous city; but, after a long fight that you barely live through, come face to face at least with the nemesis you've chased for so long, that has visited atrocity after barbarous atrocity on your friends and the innocent citizens . . . all you really want is to smash his face in.

The question I've come here to ask is, do you?

I want to put in a campaign mechanic that will threaten, at inconvenient times, to overwhelm a PC with emotion. How strong of a (NND, I'm assuming, since it is, after all, the character's own desires) Mental/Presence attack should this be, for various influential factors?

Re: WWYCD: Omelas

Just to be clear' date=' I'd never get in one of those ships.[/quote']

 

Just to be clear, I'm not saying that any specific story is what we really will encounter in real life. Just that they help. It's very rare, actually, to encounter in real life a situation exactly like that prophesied in a story; but if we've thought about a similar situation in the past, we can remember that and adapt.

 

These hypothetical questions won't solve any real problems, but they can help. That's all I'm saying.

 

"Take responsibility for that potential"? Again' date=' it seems like my character is being attacked for refusing to play along with the contrived premises of the story.[/quote']

 

Like the possible answers to the stories themselves, there is no "right" answer. If you choose not to take responsibility for what might happen in the future, I won't blame you - the odds are certainly against you, or any other individual for that matter, ever being in such a situation. But that's the problem with statistics; they can lie to us. Take, for example, the 6-sided die (a subject we should all be extremely familiar with). The odds are 6 to 1 against it landing on any specific side, but virtually 100% of it landing on a side. Some of us like to be prepared, just in case. For any one of us, it only could happen - but for all of us, that such situations will happen is a certainty.

 

It's easy to be a hero when the moment of action presents itself, and there is something you can do, right away. It's a bit more difficult to put in the work ahead of time, when there's no immediately forthcoming reward, and only the possibility that your hard work might someday pay off. I just hope that, should the odds not favor you, and a situation like those described in the tales (of this type, not just the ones above) confront you, you'll remember that there are people you can call to ask for advice.

 

But, to be fair, it's one thing to make such decisions rationally, and at our leisure, and quite another to be faced with the harsh reality, far away from the eventual larger consequences that might come from our actions. Even with all our preparation, would we still remember it and agree with ourselves, in the heat of the moment? Or would we allow our passion to overwhelm our reasoning?

 

Hmm, that gives me an idea for a campaign mechanic. Off to the System Discussion board with me.

Re: WWYCD: Omelas

Thing is' date=' I'd never find myself having to answer that question, because I'd never be [i']stupid[/i] enough to take that kind of mission with those kinds of parameters on that kind of ship.

That's assuming you're given the choice . . .

And really, that's what sort of crisis stories like this are really designed to make us confront: that, sure, while we would never enter into such a situation by choice, we aren't always able to avoid unpleasant situations.

Informed of such a possibility, some of us react by saying "Well, 99.9% of us will never need to, so I won't worry about this.", and going on with their lives.

And some of us react by thinking "Gee, that 0.1% has to be someone, it might turn out to be me.", and take responsibility for that potential.

Re: Longest Running Thread EVER

I am not reading this thread.

And this shall be my only post on it. Ever.

__________________

Robyn, who has just read through 2,500 posts, and does not care to repeat that times 5

Re: WWYCD: Omelas

That seems to be where much of the contention on this thread is coming from' date=' some people are viewing the story and its purpose in which its very effective and other side is looking at it as it where a real situation, where it doesn't quite fly.[/quote']

 

I still think that most of these arguments against "unbelievable elements" are equally as contrived as the elements they so casually dismiss. Even ignoring the age of the story (and, come on, how much did they know back then about how real science would develop?), it's still a stretch to assume that with Technology A "available", Technology B must also have been available. I mean, just look at Microsoft and other companies that are licensing their technology; can we really accept that, in the future, everyone shares hardware freely and doesn't try to make money off of their patents on life-saving devices?

 

You have to suspend your disbelief and people have different tolerance levels for it.

 

I think the problem may not be quite so much "different tolerance levels", as that some of us have already exhausted our "suspension of disbelief" reserves bringing about a change that serves our own convenience more than any "devotion to reality" ideal.

Re: WWYCD: Omelas

I was only pointing out that people who like the story or the question is asks are getting really defensive and belittling over other people pointing out the holes in it.

Sorry about the misunderstanding, then. From the quote you used, and the way you placed that part in the same sentence as the justification of your criticism of the story, every clue of context was pointing towards it as another part of your argument. If you'd put it in a separate paragraph or even just a different sentence (all for itself), I would have assumed you meant it as a stand-alone statement.

As for the questions' date=' I'm not interested in the questions, just in pointing out the holes in the contrived stories used to ask them.[/quote']

 

You've also objected to the lessons that they shove down our throats, and I agree that any story which exists to let our philosophy teachers - well, or anyone, for that matter - justify the "answers" we are supposed to memorize by rote, is a contrived story.

 

But there is a more important purpose to these tales, and they enjoy a small following of people who don't think they have any "deeper meaning", or exist to make a point held by the author; the usefulness is in preparing us for life by forcing us to think about such issues before we have to encounter them in real life. If we never encounter any such thing, there is little harm in rehearsal; and if we do, it is advantageous to have had the time to think about such things already, instead of being forced to rapidly make a decision, and quite possibly in error. The whole "point" of the story is not to have an answer, and especially not any single answer, but to make us think about such things. In this day and age, with so much information to absorb and integrate or discard coming in at such a rapid rate, one of the techniques for avoiding information overload is to immediately classify things and file them away, but this can sometimes prevent us from adequately cogitating on the matter.

 

The people of that city don't deserve one iota of the happiness they buy at the price of a child's suffering.

 

The scenario for Omelas is starting to form in my mind . . . no, not the city, the creation of the city. The quest for a perfectly innocent child, and, at the end, the devil laughing at the hero, asking him if he can truly give up after he's come all this way, and it will have all been for nothing . . . when all he needs to do, now, to finally achieve his Quest, is to sacrifice that child.

 

Stories like this exaggerate the scale of the "moral conflict", to try enhancing visibility, but it's also interesting to try them alongside a more commonplace tale, in case people's responses are based more off their own Ideal of themselves (and how they'd like to behave, or to think/believe they'd behave) due to the awareness of how their reputation may be affected by their choices. I think the Vorlons sent JTR to test Sheridan & Delenn this way, once.

 

Such a story, with weak and short-term consequences and benefits both ways, could be; you are stopping by the mini-mart on your way home to pick up some pills for your headache. Spend the last of your money on medicine, or give it to the homeless man sitting outside so he can go buy some food?

Re: WWYCD: Omelas

and are sick of people who thought it was something else getting insulting' date=' demeaning, or belittling whenever we point out the holes in it.[/quote']

 

You're putting Descarte before the horse, as the old saying goes - you can be sick after people react that way, but presupposing the reaction and using that to justify behavior which incites exactly that same reaction is an aggressive, illogical attitude. Additionally, your argument is circular in that you're using the conclusion as its foundation. I know better than to engage in debates where the other side insists that I accept their points as the "common ground" before discourse even begins. If you can't take a step back and try to see this from the point of view of people who are just as intelligent and rational as you, but don't yet understand why their conclusions should coincide with yours, you'll never be able to actually prove your points to anyone who doesn't already agree with you.

 

Seriously' date=' what I did the [i']The Cold Equations[/i] on this thread is the same thing I do to any other story I read. It's not that different from what I instictively do to any magic trick I see. Some stand up to the treatment, some don't.

 

If only you'd do the same thing to life itself, and not just stories about life. Or is that why you game? Escapism?

 

I notice, BTW, that you haven't answered any of the variations I posted.

Re: WWYCD: Omelas

Like most morality plays, the story rings hollow, because it falls back on the just-so explanations of that genre. Simply because it has sci-fi trappings doesn't make it a science fiction story.

 

Either that, or it's just poorly written and full of holes the reader is expected to ignore. In this thread alone it's been torn to pieces on point after point,

No argument is foolproof.

(I don't like the comparisons that this invites about fools, but my first choice would have been "invulnerable", and we've all seen that this means something different than the dictionary definition to most people on these boards. But, anyway, I digress . . . )

Given any situation, real or imagined, you can always "tear to pieces" the description of it, no matter how detailed or specific, once it is isolated from the original author; you can invent hypotheticals, and come up with reasons why the story "as is" just doesn't make sense; but, considering that real life often doesn't make sense (as they say, "Truth is stranger than fiction."), how can the made-up stories be criticized for not making sense either?

In any real crisis, do we approach the situation as something that, because it just isn't acceptable or convenient or easy, must be reshaped? Do we say "Well, maybe we can't save all those people, but by all that's holy I refuse to accept reality, and will drown myself in delusion until I'm relying on factors that only exist in my imagination to keep this manageable."? No. We grow up and fscking well deal with it.

What you and others have, for the most part, presented so far haven't been answers - they've been cop-outs. They've been the moral equivalent of saying "I don't like being in situations that force me to make such unpleasant choices, so I'm going to make little changes here and there until I can say that it's an entirely different situation, one that by that time will be of my making, one that I can handle without facing such a challenging decision."

Here's another "situation" that you'll no doubt be able to twist around again until any reader will naturally see that one answer is all right and one answer is all wrong (whether my argument above will convince you to not repeat such actions remains to be seen), you and another crewmember are rising from the depths of the ocean in a lifepod. The submarine is taking on water and long-range communications were destroyed (not just disabled - dead), but before you left, you were able to get the computer started just enough to calculate how many of you could fit onto lifepods, at your depth, and still rise safely to the surface. The answer was two people, but after you are both in the lifepod and have departed the doomed vessel, you receive a short-range communication from the submarine reporting that the computer was more damaged than it thought and may have made a slight error in the previous calculations. The damaged part can be replaced (allowing for accurate calculations), but this will take an hour, and the intact portions of its equations and sensor data indicates that the other answer would be "one person and change" - enough to still enable the lifepod to reach the surface (or, at least, depths at which a normal human can survive), if one of you jettisons within the next 15 minutes. You are now trapped in a rising lifepod with no communications, no way out, and a fellow crewmember who, keep in mind, will also be thinking about what to do. WWYCD?

Re: Duplication Squared

Technically' date=' the character could have spent 30 points on a 150 Duplicate. This leave him 120 point for himself, and gives him a Duplicate that has also spend 120 points on general stuff plus the 30 for Duplication. This produces an infinate line of Duplicates, assiming he character and his duplicates all have the time to keep duplicating.[/quote']

 

Ow . . . (no, seriously - I can feel one of my heads coming on).

 

Break the Game: VPP (AP infinite), Activation Roll (death on failure - SFX "the GM catches you cheating, and confiscates your character sheet") -44/4, RP 0