Best Game Ever | Dudley Quest [HP/The Gamer]

[Qeqre]

That overconfidence could get us caught on camera.

Click to shrink...

Aye, better accept the quest, train our stealth a bit and then complete it.

Time limit is a week after all...

Besides, we probably won't be starting with a telly anyway. Some candy or juice seems more likely(carbonated drinks might be a bad idea).

Dennis probably knows how to work around the cameras if he's taking us shoplifting. Otherwise he'd probably have gotten in trouble by now...

 

[Vincent]

Nah, I don't really have a problem with the quest but the idea that we can never be caught because magic.

 

[Ivar]

[X] Yes. "You've got it. I'll decide when later."
[X] Yes. "Sure, why not."

[X] [Recess] Gorden Advice- Gordon agreed to get you some advice from his brother. Badger him for it.
[X] [Recess] A Dennis of Thieves- Tell Dennis that you'll meet him after school. [Requires quest acceptance. Required for Quest: Five Finger Discount]
[X] [Recess] Dungeons and Malcolms- Stuff the D&D book into your backpack, and go over it with Malcolm during Recess. [Unlocks Quest: (Meta)Gaming pt 2. Not required if Quest: (Meta)Gaming is selected for After School]

[X] [After school] Quest: Five Finger Discount- Meet up with Dennis and learn how to nick stuff. [Requires quest acceptance and spending an action on 'A Dennis of Thieves']
[X] [After school] Boxing Practice- Daddy signed you up for classes, but you don't have to go if you don't want to.
[X] [After school] Do... Ugh... Homework.

 

[Sirrocco]

That overconfidence could get us caught on camera.

Click to shrink...

While this is true, and worth being aware of, it's also worth noting that cameras were not so ubiquitous back then as they are now. Additionally, Little Whinging is probably not the surveillance state capitol of the world.

Mind you, getting caught on camera putting shoplifted goods into thin air might be... problematic.

 

[Bob's Beard]

That overconfidence could get us caught on camera.

Click to shrink...

And what are they going to do with it?

I mean, who in law enforcement is going to go with the interpretation 'oh sure, he somehow really did take the TV like the low quality security footage suggests, probably by like folding it into his pocket or something - and he hid it really well, which is why we can't find it no matter what we do', rather than 'naw, there's gotta be something wrong with this tape'.

Even the few that might suspect him would brush it off - magicals in law enforcement would see he's clearly a muggle by all their evaluation metrics, and thusly conclude some magical type wanted to use him as a patsy or something, and they are the real theif.

Provided that Gamer-ness doesn't ping as magic to the predominate magic people of the world, it lets us hide in a wonderful in between place and abuse the rules of both worlds.

While this is true, and worth being aware of, it's also worth noting that cameras were not so ubiquitous back then as they are now. Additionally, Little Whinging is probably not the surveillance state capitol of the world.

Click to shrink...

Doubly good point, but let me add an extra detail; storage time for security footage.

Even if Dudley does indeed go rob a place that has cameras, and the cameras are on and see him, not that many places kept long records of their tapes. So long as people don't notice too quick, there might not even be that flimsy bit of evidence to point at him.
Mind you, getting caught on camera putting shoplifted goods into thin air might be... problematic.[/QUOTE]
Not really - this is early enough that while photoshop like things exist, there isn't really conclusive photoshop detection software. So you have the much more credible sounding 'but someone might have altered the tapes' theory to go with, over all the questions inherant to thinking the tape is somehow accurate.

 

[Sirrocco]

@Bob's Beard - I understand the argument from audacity - it's impossible to believe it, so they won't... but there are people who *will* believe it. If they start asking questions, and any of those questions get back to our parents, then not only do our parents know that we've been stealing, they'll know that we've been stealing using *weirdness*. If it gets back to the wizards, they will also come to the conclusion most obvious to them. These are things that would complicate our lives in bad ways.

Not saying we shouldn't go for it. We should totally still go for it. Just saying that there's real risk here if we're not at least reasonably careful.

 

[Pechum]

[X] Yes. "You've got it. I'll decide when later."
[X] Yes. "Sure, why not."

[X] [Recess] Gorden Advice- Gordon agreed to get you some advice from his brother. Badger him for it.
[X] [Recess] A Dennis of Thieves- Tell Dennis that you'll meet him after school. [Requires quest acceptance. Required for Quest: Five Finger Discount]
[X] [Recess] Dungeons and Malcolms- Stuff the D&D book into your backpack, and go over it with Malcolm during Recess. [Unlocks Quest: (Meta)Gaming pt 2. Not required if Quest: (Meta)Gaming is selected for After School]

[X] [After school] Quest: Five Finger Discount- Meet up with Dennis and learn how to nick stuff. [Requires quest acceptance and spending an action on 'A Dennis of Thieves']
[X] [After school] Boxing Practice- Daddy signed you up for classes, but you don't have to go if you don't want to.
[X] [After school] Do... Ugh... Homework.

 

[Bob's Beard]

@Bob's Beard - I understand the argument from audacity - it's impossible to believe it, so they won't... but there are people who *will* believe it.

Click to shrink...

Well of course there are - there's never really a situation where it's 100% safe to do a sketchy thing - that's why they're called sketchy.

If they start asking questions, and any of those questions get back to our parents, then not only do our parents know that we've been stealing, they'll know that we've been stealing using *weirdness*.

Click to shrink...

See, I don't agree with that.

Remember how nosy/dismissive of their neighbors the Dursleys are - they view them as 'people to watch/gossip about and harp on if they fall below standards' - not a one of them was introduced as a real, meaningful trusted family friend. Now, if one of those people came and said Harry was doing questionable shit but no one could prove it and it sounded really outlandish? Sure, the Dursleys would listen because that conforms to their world beliefs. But the idea those smotheringly doting parents who can see no wrong in their boy without the world gathering together to tell them (how long was it before they grasped that Dudley's weight was an issue?) would believe a neighbor that they aren't particularly good friends with when that person tells them the opposite of their world view about their darling boy is absurd.

Heck, they flat out rejected Smeltings administration and medical consultation telling them to get Dudley to lose weight for years - if they won't accept that, when you have loads of evidence and lots of people they give a shit about agreeing with you, then why on earth would they accept something like this?

If it gets back to the wizards, they will also come to the conclusion most obvious to them.

Click to shrink...

That is, of course, right up until they use one of the clearly existing methods to assess if someone's magical or not... and if the Gamer doesn't classify as magical, I really can't say I see the average wizard still persisting in the belief.

These are things that would complicate our lives in bad ways.

Click to shrink...

I mean, yeah in hypotheticals where enough things go wrong they could, sure, but... in the same way that catching your foot on a curb can complicate your life. Sure, it can... but if you're paying even a modicum of attention those potential complications (eating shit on the curb) then you can keep problems from growing to that point (who cares if you half-stumbled but kept going?). Same thing here - as long as we aren't completely retarded about Gamer-derived sleight of hand, it's quite a stretch to presume that problems'd crop up in a setting that doesn't have Gamer as a thing.

People will justify and explain away most anything that doesn't fit their world view - 'some kid that obviously doesn't have stolen goods keeps getting acussed of theft' and 'some kid that seems like he's using magic but obviously doesn't have magic' are both very iconic of that human convention.

Not saying we shouldn't go for it. We should totally still go for it. Just saying that there's real risk here if we're not at least reasonably careful.

Click to shrink...

It sounds like you're mostly doing the 'every option ever has potential risk inherent to it, and you should never go fully careless as a result of this rule' rather than 'I think this specific choice has meaningful risk relative to other options'.

 

[Sirrocco]

Well of course there are - there's never really a situation where it's 100% safe to do a sketchy thing - that's why they're called sketchy.

See, I don't agree with that.

Remember how nosy/dismissive of their neighbors the Dursleys are - they view them as 'people to watch/gossip about and harp on if they fall below standards' - not a one of them was introduced as a real, meaningful trusted family friend. Now, if one of those people came and said Harry was doing questionable shit but no one could prove it and it sounded really outlandish? Sure, the Dursleys would listen because that conforms to their world beliefs. But the idea those smotheringly doting parents who can see no wrong in their boy without the world gathering together to tell them (how long was it before they grasped that Dudley's weight was an issue?) would believe a neighbor that they aren't particularly good friends with when that person tells them the opposite of their world view about their darling boy is absurd.

Heck, they flat out rejected Smeltings administration and medical consultation telling them to get Dudley to lose weight for years - if they won't accept that, when you have loads of evidence and lots of people they give a shit about agreeing with you, then why on earth would they accept something like this?

Click to shrink...

...because Petunia knows that she's from a magical family, and she's terrified that her kid might grow up like that? Because she knows something that they don't - which means that if they come to her saying "Hey, we see this thing, and there's some real uncertainty here" she's going to think "Oh, I know what that is." They may not do anything about it. They may not say anything... but they will wonder, and they will watch, and we're going to keep doing weird things.

Why on earth are you so opposed to the idea that if we try to steal, and we get caught, bad thigns might happen? How is this so utterly implausible to you?

That is, of course, right up until they use one of the clearly existing methods to assess if someone's magical or not... and if the Gamer doesn't classify as magical, I really can't say I see the average wizard still persisting in the belief.

Click to shrink...

What means? Throwing us off a balcony to see if we bounce? Checking to see if our wand has been used? Wizardign techniques for detecting wizards aren't really an exact science.

I mean, yeah in hypotheticals where enough things go wrong they could, sure, but... in the same way that catching your foot on a curb can complicate your life. Sure, it can... but if you're paying even a modicum of attention those potential complications (eating shit on the curb) then you can keep problems from growing to that point (who cares if you half-stumbled but kept going?). Same thing here - as long as we aren't completely retarded about Gamer-derived sleight of hand, it's quite a stretch to presume that problems'd crop up in a setting that doesn't have Gamer as a thing.

People will justify and explain away most anything that doesn't fit their world view - 'some kid that obviously doesn't have stolen goods keeps getting accussed of theft' and 'some kid that seems like he's using magic but obviously doesn't have magic' are both very iconic of that human convention.

It sounds like you're mostly doing the 'every option ever has potential risk inherent to it, and you should never go fully careless as a result of this rule' rather than 'I think this specific choice has meaningful risk relative to other options'.

Click to shrink...

I think this option has somewhat more risk than most options. Most options that we have in this game are essentially risk-free. This one is not. It's using our power in an obviously strange way, in a place where we could be seen, in a manner that is fundamentally hostile to at least some of the people who could see us (and also one that's illegal). I think it's a reasonably amount of risk, and, with some care, can be managed. I think it's probably worth it. At the same time, it's still higher-risk than, say, practicing boxing a few more times, or getting involved in D&D, or doing our homework. I think we should do it, but I think we should be aware of the risks going in,

 

[Vincent]

We almost certainly do have magic so relying on the idea that magical people can't detect it doesn't seem sensible in the least. Also if the police see us stealing something on tape even if they don't have evidence they'll likely question us. Is Dudley good enough to play the role of innocent kid to trained professionals?

 

[Bob's Beard]

Why on earth are you so opposed to the idea that if we try to steal, and we get caught, bad things might happen? How is this so utterly implausible to you?

Click to shrink...

I'm not, and haven't been - nor do I treat it so in any regard.

I am wholly aware that we could get called out, that our attempts to cover up could fail, that we could be outed and all that.

Instead, I'm simply highlighting that relative to all the other possible risks of discover about the Gamer status, it's one of the easiest to do a patch job coverup, one of the easiest to explain away due to it's nature, and as such, isn't worth all that much attention compared to all those other potential risks.

Like say, I don't know... picking up DnD associated Gamer skills involving magic, or levelling Fire resistance and pain resistance to the point he can tank things like a proper game character, or any of a myriad of other things.

What means? Throwing us off a balcony to see if we bounce? Checking to see if our wand has been used? Wizardign techniques for detecting wizards aren't really an exact science.

Click to shrink...

So how do the school letters find people, particularly muggleborn, so reliably - because if that's not built on an 'are you a witch/wizard' detection system, then I don't know what to say.

And if they have some sort of Wizard/Witch detection system they can tie to a school enrollment system, then I doubt they can't independently apply that detection system.

And if that detection system, as seems rather likely, notes Dudley as 'not a Wizard', well... that sure could be useful at obfuscating things, even if it might not necessarily be some sort of perfect secret protecting thing.

I think this option has somewhat more risk than most options. Most options that we have in this game are essentially risk-free.

Click to shrink...

Dudley learning most anything from the 'go steal, pillage and kill and you'll be rewarded' mentality and skillset of DnD is far, far worse than anything theft related.

He's at an influencable age, he doesn't have much common sense, and seeing what the book says 'proven' by how he can actually do it is a very worrying recipe, for his ideological and moral development. He did invent Harry chasing well before now, so we know he's not exactly a fundamentally 'good' kid at his current age. Heck, he has no problem learning about stealing, what with how the vote options were presented.

'I got in trouble for stealing something' is way, way less of an issue than 'I got caught setting people on fire', even if it's less likely - just like the low chance of murder is generally treated as a bigger issue than a medium to high chance of getting violently (but nonfatally) mugged.

This one is not. It's using our power in an obviously strange way, in a place where we could be seen, in a manner that is fundamentally hostile to at least some of the people who could see us (and also one that's illegal). I think it's a reasonably amount of risk, and, with some care, can be managed. I think it's probably worth it. At the same time, it's still higher-risk than, say, practicing boxing a few more times, or getting involved in D&D, or doing our homework. I think we should do it, but I think we should be aware of the risks going in,

Click to shrink...

I'd be entirely on board with this claim if you hadn't cited DnD - all those other things are, indeed, far safer.

Buuuuut the way you lumped in what sure looks like the most dangerous option makes me unable to agree.

 

[Qeqre]

This one is not. It's using our power in an obviously strange way,

Click to shrink...

Grab candy bar. Open inventory screen right in front of the aisle. "put candy bar back" in inventory.

Alternatively, don't use our power. Just buy two cokes to hide the fact we're walking out with 5 rolls of mint in our pockets. If we don't trust our poker face? Pay for 1 coke and 1 roll of scotch mints and walk out with the extra 5 rolls of mint.

What means? Throwing us off a balcony to see if we bounce? Checking to see if our wand has been used? Wizardign techniques for detecting wizards aren't really an exact science.

Click to shrink...

When Dobby used magic, when Harry blew up marge, they could detect magic use.

That's the thing though, they have shown the capacity to detect use, not so much for inherent wizard-ness.

Which is probably why magical parents try to force accidental magic-to ensure enrollment.

 

[Bob's Beard]

When Dobby used magic, when Harry blew up marge, they could detect magic use.

That's the thing though, they have shown the capacity to detect use, not so much for inherent wizard-ness.

Which is probably why magical parents try to force accidental magic-to ensure enrollment.

Click to shrink...

Which frankly really makes one wonder if actual Wizard/Witch kids who through having an exceptionally mild and nonstressful upbringing did not have stress induced accidental still get their Hogwarts letters.

 

[Dark Ness]

Which frankly really makes one wonder if actual Wizard/Witch kids who through having an exceptionally mild and nonstressful upbringing did not have stress induced accidental still get their Hogwarts letters.

Click to shrink...

They get a letter automatically. Remember how in the first book Dumbledore said that Harry has been on the list since he was first born? The detect magic is only for muggleborns.

 

[Fredo]

They get a letter automatically. Remember how in the first book Dumbledore said that Harry has been on the list since he was first born? The detect magic is only for muggleborns.

Click to shrink...

Eh. That ignores the existence of squibs. Harry Potter could have been on the list since he was first born, but if he turned out to be a squib, I seriously doubt he would be receiving a letter.

 

[NewDay]

[X] Yes. "You've got it. I'll decide when later."
[X] Yes. "Sure, why not."

[X] [Recess] Gorden Advice- Gordon agreed to get you some advice from his brother. Badger him for it.
[X] [Recess] A Dennis of Thieves- Tell Dennis that you'll meet him after school. [Requires quest acceptance. Required for Quest: Five Finger Discount]
[X] [Recess] Dungeons and Malcolms- Stuff the D&D book into your backpack, and go over it with Malcolm during Recess. [Unlocks Quest: (Meta)Gaming pt 2. Not required if Quest: (Meta)Gaming is selected for After School]

[X] [After school] Quest: Five Finger Discount- Meet up with Dennis and learn how to nick stuff. [Requires quest acceptance and spending an action on 'A Dennis of Thieves']
[X] [After school] Boxing Practice- Daddy signed you up for classes, but you don't have to go if you don't want to.
[X] [After school] Do... Ugh... Homework.

 

[Dark Ness]

Eh. That ignores the existence of squibs. Harry Potter could have been on the list since he was first born, but if he turned out to be a squib, I seriously doubt he would be receiving a letter.

Click to shrink...

They probably just retract it. If they don't have magic, they show up as muggles or something, and don't get a letter.

 

[Sirrocco]

I'd be entirely on board with this claim if you hadn't cited DnD - all those other things are, indeed, far safer.

Buuuuut the way you lumped in what sure looks like the most dangerous option makes me unable to agree.

Click to shrink...

Playing DnD is not in and of itself a reveal danger, as it wont involve using our powers at all. It's also not inherently corrosive to the morality... especially since this is a character who's run by vote, and he won't go down the "let's see if I can kill passers-by with fireballs for that sweet, sweet exp" road unless we push him there... which, given that the primary argument seems to be "We must redeem the Dudley!" vs "Honestly, I like him as kind of an ass." doesn't seem like a huge threat.

People don't generally go from DnD to actual violence unless they're either seriously psychologically maladjusted to begin with or living in a Chick Tract.

 

[Bob's Beard]

Playing DnD is not in and of itself a reveal danger, as it wont involve using our powers at all. It's also not inherently corrosive to the morality... especially since this is a character who's run by vote, and he won't go down the "let's see if I can kill passers-by with fireballs for that sweet, sweet exp" road unless we push him there... which, given that the primary argument seems to be "We must redeem the Dudley!" vs "Honestly, I like him as kind of an ass." doesn't seem like a huge threat.

People don't generally go from DnD to actual violence unless they're either seriously psychologically maladjusted to begin with or living in a Chick Tract.

Click to shrink...

Again - that's a fine and dandy and mostly accurate assessment of 'the average person', with the average being assumed to be an adult.

Dudley the pampered, doted on, bullying-minded child does not match that average metric.

Or did you miss the multiple times potential vote options were precluded to keep us more Dudley-like?

It's like - yes, sure the average person's not going to see any real and clear danger in alcohol because they don't abuse it - but there are types of people you fundamentally worry about, because something about their personality/methods is suggestive that they're inevitably going to have a problem. In terms of 'thinking about others/not being childishly malicious to have fun/get his way', Dudley is canonically, patently as bad as an alcoholic; even if the things he does are often 'dumb' by the standards of the average person, it doesn't stop him.

Have you seen any indication this Dudley has made a radical shift away from those problematic traits?

Because I haven't - and I worry about him and DnD the same way I would about the aggressive jock type going into law enforcement; their established behavioral trends are fundamentally capable of being poisonous in conjunction with what would otherwise be a mostly safe thing.

...Which isn't to say I don't see this problem down the Sleight of Hand path, I just see the potential fallout of that as far more easily managed/the hypothetical 'incident' being less extreme.

 

[Gunman]

A lot of you guys are making one big mistake:

We don't know what kind of crossover this is. For all we know, Hogwarts could be the school of Ability Users.

 

[Bob's Beard]

A lot of you guys are making one big mistake:

We don't know what kind of crossover this is. For all we know, Hogwarts could be the school of Ability Users.

Click to shrink...

Yeah, but at that level of caution you can't plan for anything, since there could be setting rules that make any given bit of canon data questionable.

 

[Gunman]

Yeah, but at that level of caution you can't plan for anything, since there could be setting rules that make any given bit of canon data questionable.

Click to shrink...

We aren't at the point where we can plan for the wizarding world. It's something we know nothing about OOC and IC. It's better to just wait until the time comes.

 

[Sirrocco]

Again - that's a fine and dandy and mostly accurate assessment of 'the average person', with the average being assumed to be an adult.

Dudley the pampered, doted on, bullying-minded child does not match that average metric.

Or did you miss the multiple times potential vote options were precluded to keep us more Dudley-like?

It's like - yes, sure the average person's not going to see any real and clear danger in alcohol because they don't abuse it - but there are types of people you fundamentally worry about, because something about their personality/methods is suggestive that they're inevitably going to have a problem. In terms of 'thinking about others/not being childishly malicious to have fun/get his way', Dudley is canonically, patently as bad as an alcoholic; even if the things he does are often 'dumb' by the standards of the average person, it doesn't stop him.

Have you seen any indication this Dudley has made a radical shift away from those problematic traits?

Because I haven't - and I worry about him and DnD the same way I would about the aggressive jock type going into law enforcement; their established behavioral trends are fundamentally capable of being poisonous in conjunction with what would otherwise be a mostly safe thing.

...Which isn't to say I don't see this problem down the Sleight of Hand path, I just see the potential fallout of that as far more easily managed/the hypothetical 'incident' being less extreme.

Click to shrink...

First of all, Dudley's a jerk. He is. He's a jerk and a bully, and he picks on the weird obnoxious kid. This is nowhere near the levels of psychological malaise necessary to go from "Ho hum - D&D? What's this about?" to homicide. If it was, we'd be seeing a *lot* more D&D-related homicides in the news. Bullying jerks are a dime a dozen.

Second, even if this game is set in bizzarro world where playing D&D has been a major contributing factor in the psychological development of multiple serial killers, there's still a really trivial way for us to manage the fallout. All we have to do is not vote to go on a killing spree. That one's pretty easy, I think.

 

[Bob's Beard]

First of all, Dudley's a jerk. He is. He's a jerk and a bully, and he picks on the weird obnoxious kid. This is nowhere near the levels of psychological malaise necessary to go from "Ho hum - D&D? What's this about?" to homicide. If it was, we'd be seeing a *lot* more D&D-related homicides in the news. Bullying jerks are a dime a dozen.

Click to shrink...

Doesn't need to be the jump to homicide to be a massive problem - deciding to set someone's feet/hair on fire (just using fire because it's an easy example, common magic staple and all that, not because , there are any of a million and one ways to nonfatally, but still hugely problematically childishly use overt magic. Heck, that's a big part of the MoM's concern - it's not like they're only worried about magical kids accidentally murdering people with magic.

And that level of ne'erdowellness, the amount sufficient to just do arbitrary selfishness and cruelty as assisted by magic?

That, canon dudley absolutely has - and regardless of how you feel about the quest setting letting us deviate from that canon baseline, the fact remains we haven't had much in story time to effect that change.

Second, even if this game is set in bizzarro world where playing D&D has been a major contributing factor in the psychological development of multiple serial killers, there's still a really trivial way for us to manage the fallout. All we have to do is not vote to go on a killing spree. That one's pretty easy, I think.

Click to shrink...

You know, you're usually pretty good at identifying dissenting stances and carrying through with debating them rather than pointlessly fixating on one possible extreme; is there a reason you stuck so hard on murder, and made no mention of.... any other outcome from magic?

It's not like 'set a guy on fire' is exclusively a homicidal act, if'n you want to say you got on that track from how I phrased things...



Also seperate point - at any point has there been a reason presented for Harry's generally less... meek's part of it, but just the way's he's a bit different in a way that could be considered irritating from a Dudley worldview? The extra smiles that sometimes sure do seem easily taken as mocking/taunting/competitive, the extra assertive dialogue, that sort of stuff. Is that just Dudley PoV repainting, or is there a conscious choice to have Harry act a bit differently - do we know?

 

[Gunman]

The extra smiles that sometimes sure do seem easily taken as mocking/taunting/competitive, the extra assertive dialogue, that sort of stuff. Is that just Dudley PoV repainting, or is there a conscious choice to have Harry act a bit differently - do we know?

Click to shrink...

I don't think he's acting differently. He was doing those mocking smiles silently, figuring we were too stupid to figure out why. The competitive thing? They're both boys so it's not that unusual for them to compete. His confrontation with us was him being suspicious/concerned since we were acting very OOC for ordinary Dudley.