Gambitting

[Qara-Xuan Zenith]

I stood by my actions at the time with "there's no other way to get Gulliver refic'ed" but...
If that had been better handled, would the fallout from Gulliver's subsequent disappearance have been significantly changed?
If he hadn't felt so betrayed by us (well, okay, me), would Silver have not-joined the Cabal?

[Connor Fallon]

Honestly?
Yes.
Long John only joined the Cabal because of that. That was not planned ahead of time, and we decided to do it in response to that refictionalization.

[Tom]

What Connor says is true. The game is based on choice and consequence.

However, I think the choice you made makes sense, and had I been a player, I might well have supported it. What follows are my own personal opinions on the matter.

We did not go into this game knowing all the "intended" delivery mechanisms for refics. As with the Echoes in remote places and the hard-to-use tropes, we expected to be surprised with your inventiveness. This was a case where I'm not sure there was a clear, easy, "right" answer.

Also remember that, though LJS joined the Cabal, he did not suddenly become violent nor a villain. It was a change in status that meant essentially one thing: he started taking orders. Which in its own way, helped you get a delivery mechanism for him, too...

Early in the game's development, we anticipated that some folks wouldn't want to go back, and might have to be refic'ed using force. The moral grayness of this was not supposed to always have an easy answer. Do you refic them against their will, because it seems like it might destroy the world if you don't?

We would have been cheapening the stakes of the game to make it easier on you. But since I'm not sure you had an easy answer, I wouldn't be too hard on yourself about the answer you found. Besides, the question of whether Gulliver can read his letters remains ambiguous, not ruled out.

Val, Mark, feel free to correct me on this.

[Connor Fallon]

Tom is right, it wasn't an easy situation, but I personally believe it was possible to find a more honest way to do it. Or not force the issue. So what you did was valid, but we immediately recognized it as something that would have consequences. If a different course was taken, I think Long John likely would have not run off to join the Cabal.

I think what triggered the fallout was assuming Long John was selfish, and didn't really care about Gulliver, only Profit. I think we had plenty to establish that characters could evolve and change -- but i'm always in favor of giving people the benefit of the doubt, that applies to real life too. Anyway, while Long John may be misguided at times in how he expressed it, as far as I understood it his relationship with Gulliver had grown to be quite genuine (as his comic demonstrates).

Anyway, when you did what you did, and it turned out he DID care, then it made sense for Long John to look for people he believed he could trust. Unfortunately he picked Moriarty. If only he had been talking to one of the others instead...

That said, joining the Cabal really isn't a Face Heel turn, as we've said before. It's just means you put your trust in someone else. But again, Mark is a good person to refer to for this.

[Rick Healey]

We had discussed multiple characters joining the Cabal at various points, including what would cause them to put allegiances (I think switch isn't the right word, since it's not like LJS was pro-Administrator before) there. For the most part, though, it was mostly idle chatter, as LJS is the only one who got really close to even being in that situation.

[Val Reznitskaya]

As Tom said, it was a valid solution, and it was one you guys more or less seemed to support. Gulliver did want to go home, and Long John was standing in his way, so from that perspective, I understand why it was a logical course of action. It was also pretty clever.

The more interesting question, though, is how you guys justified it. Reading that thread, I recall several of you applying similar logic to Long John as you applied to the Cabal - in his original story, he was a villain, and as such, he must have ulterior motives for everything. While I understand that line of reasoning, from this side of the curtain I knew that Mark's interpretation of the character was very liberal. Perhaps if you found his echo earlier, it would have been easier to believe that his friendship with Gulliver was genuine.

In any case, at times it felt like you were so interested in the gambit pileups that you weren't paying enough attention to the actual characters, their motivations, their emotional growth. This was supposed to be a compelling story where you got to know the characters, and getting to know them was supposed to make the moral decisions harder. If I remember correctly, Long John joining the Cabal wasn't supposed to be a punishment, so much as a wake up call in that regard.

[narrativedilettante]

I didn't like the manipulation we did with Silver, but I didn't want to object, and since the other players were getting results by behaving that way, I wanted to object even less. I wasn't participating in the manipulation, but I did feel complicit and by not saying anything I was tacitly approving the actions.

When Qara got him to refic Gulliver for us, I felt bad about it, but I believed it would be for the best--we would reunite them in a crossover story and they'd be together, with everything Silver wanted! Then Mr. Administrator told us that crossovers weren't viable.

I BSOD'd over that. It would've been shocking and upsetting even if Silver had read the story to Gulliver knowingly and willingly, but we tricked him, and it turned out that we tricked him with false pretenses. I never bought that Silver was purely a manipulative bastard. I hadn't read the book, so I had to rely on the others' assessment somewhat, but he seemed to have genuine affection for Gulliver and I hated myself for tearing them apart. (Even though I hadn't spoken to Silver much, I still wrote the refic story, so I definitely shared in the responsibility.

When Mr. Administrator revealed that we couldn't do refic crossovers, everyone in the chat was freaking out, but nobody really seemed concerned with the moral implications, just with the "How do we convince Silver to let us refic him?" question. I was really upset, and desperately needed some emotional support, and it didn't look like I'd get it from the other metaguards.

So I poured my heart out in an email to Morgan. She was the only one I could think of who might understand. My whole relationship with that character took shape out of my moral discord that night.

[Tom]

When Qara got him to refic Gulliver for us, I felt bad about it, but I believed it would be for the best--we would reunite them in a crossover story and they'd be together, with everything Silver wanted! Then Mr. Administrator told us that crossovers weren't viable.

The design decision about crossovers was made because allowing them left the moral choice too simple to be interesting; obviously it would be okay to send them back! But I personally prefer bittersweet, open endings to downer ones, and I think the resolution we got for LJS and Gulliver is pretty much as good as could be hoped for.

[Connor Fallon]

I love downer endings. All the hearts should be broken.

[Qara-Xuan Zenith]

In my defense, at the time I didn't think I was actually hurting Silver, because my assessment of his character, however incorrect it turned out to be, led me to believe that he was much more likely to connect with the amoral Glory Seeker persona I presented to him than he ever would with Gulliver.

That was a mistake. But I *was* trying to focus as much on the characters as on the gambitting... the gambits were just a way of working with the characters. The characters were the most interesting part. As I've said many a time on the chat, the gambits are just how I think.

Also, I tried to fulfill my debt to him by writing him a refic in which he got everything he asked for, in the most non-Sue-ish way I could come up with, even though I knew it was pretty much guaranteed to not be chosen.

[Tom]

You're right, Connor, I should qualify that. I like downer endings in stories and films. But in interactive stories, where people invest so much of their personal emotion in them, I prefer to give people happier themes.

I believe a typical first playthrough of a game should be able to yield a "You Win!" condition. A good game is like bowling: most people can play well, and a few people can ace it.

In choice-based games I've worked on, like Leviathan or The Wall Will Fall, it is not too hard to get a pretty good ending. It is extremely difficult to get a great ending. And it is literally impossible to make every character you care about happy.

[Connor Fallon]

You're right, Connor, I should qualify that. I like downer endings in stories and films. But in interactive stories, where people invest so much of their personal emotion in them, I prefer to give people happier themes.

I believe a typical first playthrough of a game should be able to yield a "You Win!" condition. A good game is like bowling: most people can play well, and a few people can ace it.

In choice-based games I've worked on, like Leviathan or The Wall Will Fall, it is not too hard to get a pretty good ending. It is extremely difficult to get a great ending. And it is literally impossible to make every character you care about happy.

See, I believed this, but I played two games recently that pulled of Downer or Bittersweet endings and were all the better for them. As long as it feels justified, and is an appropriate ending, a player can actually feel that a downer is appropriate, and can be super memorable.

Look at Shadow of the Colossus. That game is a classic in many ways because it was one of the first games for many people that made them feel bad about what they did.

[narrativedilettante]

I don't blame you for gambiting or treating Silver the way you did, Qara. After all, I had no way to connect with Silver, and you were getting results.

And I wrote the bittersweet Silver refic believing it was the best possible way to repay him for what we'd done, so though it is somewhat sad, I'm glad it worked out. In most fiction downer endings are welcome, but in a game like this, where we were all so invested in our personal relationships with the characters, I'm glad we were able to go for something a little lighter.

EDIT: And clearly I need to finish playing Shadow of the Colossus.

[Connor Fallon]

EDIT: And clearly I need to finish playing Shadow of the Colossus.

Crap. Hopefully what I said doesn't spoil it =P I had it thoroughly spoiled for me. The other two examples I thought of both came out this year, and both got lots of acclaim.

[BlackWolfe]

EDIT: And clearly I need to finish playing Shadow of the Colossus.

Crap. Hopefully what I said doesn't spoil it =P I had it thoroughly spoiled for me. The other two examples I thought of both came out this year, and both got lots of acclaim.

I managed to luck out and avoid spoilers before playing it.
Holy crap there were a lot of gut punches in that game.

[narrativedilettante]

EDIT: And clearly I need to finish playing Shadow of the Colossus.

Crap. Hopefully what I said doesn't spoil it =P I had it thoroughly spoiled for me. The other two examples I thought of both came out this year, and both got lots of acclaim.

Honestly, after playing for a while I thought "I don't get why everyone loves this game so much" and looked up a plot outline because I knew there had to be something more, and I was on the verge of quitting. So don't worry about it.

[Val Reznitskaya]

I believe in whatever ending has the biggest, most satisfying emotional payoff. But honestly, I don't think the character arcs in this ARG even have "endings" because we kept building upon the game using the payoff from their resolutions.

The really interesting thing about the fourth wall is that the parties on either side can have vastly different interpretations of what even constitutes a happy ending. Was Moriarty ultimately happy? Can we ever know for sure, and if we momentarily forgot that he was an evil bastard, could we be happy for him? Just another factor in the morally grey debate, and probably not something we can ever completely comprehend from this side of the wall.

[Rick Healey]

The philosophy that I hew to most closely in stories is "not everyone is lucky enough to have a happy ending." I remember, completely unrelated to this ARG, that someone brought up the topic of the appeal of Downer Endings in the Trope Talk subforum on TV Tropes. What I said then applies equally to this story as well.

I have to admit, actually, that I was tempted to have Long John do his own variation of Shylock's great soliloquy from "Merchant of Venice" ("If you prick us, do we not bleed?"). But that seemed a bit overly dramatic and not "real" enough, so I kept that to myself.

Perhaps this is because much of my wiki-side work is in currently in trying to clean up Complete Monster, but the thing to consider is that very few characters would truly qualify for the personality part of the trope. That includes much of our cast here (Moriarty was the only one who even had the potential, but I think his care for Morgan was genuine and would thus not qualify).

Also, something to keep in mind - remember how Morgan hinted that they all experienced the different iterations of their tales? In Long John's case, much of his portrayal can actually be seen in how Tim Curry portrayed him in Muppet Treasure Island. Particularly, remember the confrontation he had at the end with Jim Hawkins, where he admitted he cared too much about Jim to ever truly hurt him? Even if it meant risking getting caught and being sent back to England to hang? That Long John Silver has many strong parallels to ours.

Also, dude, Tim Curry. How can you *not* imagine Tim Curry acting out in our ARG if you have the chance?

[WackyMeetsPractical]

The philosophy that I hew to most closely in stories is "not everyone is lucky enough to have a happy ending." I remember, completely unrelated to this ARG, that someone brought up the topic of the appeal of Downer Endings in the Trope Talk subforum on TV Tropes. What I said then applies equally to this story as well.

I have to admit, actually, that I was tempted to have Long John do his own variation of Shylock's great soliloquy from "Merchant of Venice" ("If you prick us, do we not bleed?"). But that seemed a bit overly dramatic and not "real" enough, so I kept that to myself.

Perhaps this is because much of my wiki-side work is in currently in trying to clean up Complete Monster, but the thing to consider is that very few characters would truly qualify for the personality part of the trope. That includes much of our cast here (Moriarty was the only one who even had the potential, but I think his care for Morgan was genuine and would thus not qualify).

Also, something to keep in mind - remember how Morgan hinted that they all experienced the different iterations of their tales? In Long John's case, much of his portrayal can actually be seen in how Tim Curry portrayed him in Muppet Treasure Island. Particularly, remember the confrontation he had at the end with Jim Hawkins, where he admitted he cared too much about Jim to ever truly hurt him? Even if it meant risking getting caught and being sent back to England to hang? That Long John Silver has many strong parallels to ours.

Also, dude, Tim Curry. How can you *not* imagine Tim Curry acting out in our ARG if you have the chance?

At one point, we pondered on whether we should ask Silver about which iteration of his story he came from, thinking exactly along those lines. In fact, I believe someone did ask him if he knew of any talking frogs, and he said no, so we kind of figured that he wasn't from the Muppet version.

[Rick Healey]

Wait.... there were frogs in that movie? I only saw people.

[Qara-Xuan Zenith]

"I don't see species. I just see people. I want to get to the point where if someone asks me, 'Andy, is Byron a frog?' I would say 'I have NO IDEA.'"

[Connor Fallon]

Our Long John is from Muppet Treasure Island.

Canon.

[Genndy Oda C.O.G.]

This has made my day.

[Dana]

Our Long John is from Muppet Treasure Island.

Canon.

Sigh. You do not get to retroactively write canon, Connor.

[Rick Healey]

Our Long John is from Muppet Treasure Island.

Canon.

Sigh. You do not get to retroactively write canon, Connor.

No matter how awesome it is.