Ultimate Dungeon Mastering Style (UDMS)

13 posts / 0 new
Last post

EDIT:  For any new DMs reading this, do not take it at face value, it's just a satirical post that takes some extreme views of DMing and broken logic, and attempts to make a joke out of it.  Please read the posts after it for clarification of the subject, or at the very least my last post in the thread.  Regardless I hope you enjoy the read.

  Fellow dungeon masters, it was not that long ago I was coming to these boards seeking advice on how to be a better DM and a better player.  Over that time I have turned from a larva into a beautiful Mosquito like most other DMs and then I realized something very important.  Yes I had become the perfect DM with the perfect play style that can turn any group of players into putty.  Given this discovery I immediately knew that I must share it with all of you for the help you gave me when I was a crappy DM such as yourselves.


 


Yes I am about to impart on each of you the Ultimate Dungeon Mastering Style, henceforth known as UDMS, so that you may become Ultimate Dungeon Masters.  While you will never truly be as good an UDM as I am, if you can even harness a fraction of this amazing information you will be a dungeon master beyond words DMBW for short. Listed below are the tenants of the UDMS.


 


1,) You are God


To some of you this may have already come second nature to you.  You have to do the work of organizing and getting a game together so you deserve to control everything.  Forget the fact that you have other people that came to role play and may have brought drinks/food/money and are willing to tolerate your presence, you can be an UDM without them.  This is the most important tenant of UDMS, and supercede all others and is allowed to overwrite them at whim (it has that kind of power). 


 


2.) You are the controller of the story.


If for some reason the town of reasonable agreeable people starts to get a thirst for blood for the players that have helped them fight off the baby seal clubbers then it is your power to do so.  Create long convoluted plots and force the players down paths, and “claim” to be flexible by changing paths ever so slightly.  If you want the players in the swamp of no good choices and they decide they are teleporting to the town we’ve visited tons of times then say the swamp has emerged in the town and they still have to go through it.


 


3.) Force your players to write you a story.


After some time you’ll find that you’re getting bored of the job of trying to create a story.  Then you’ll dawn on the realization that you have 0-20 people also at the table that you can force make the story.  Put these unfortunate saps into the Islands of terrible doom that you had planned out, and make stuff up based on their input.  All their ideas will of course be inferior to your own, but just go along with it because it makes them feel a little special.


 


4.) Kill the players


Yes you should repeatedly kill the players.  Don’t do it too overtly always claim that you were just portraying it realistically, or that it was their own fault.  Never under any circumstances take the blame for this, you are never wrong. 


5.)  Let the players revive themselves.


Given that you’re killing your players often it would be unwise to have them stay dead for too long, then they might be able to wander off to some other activity/game that would be infinitely less fun than yours.  Instead let them revive their characters when they die if they want to.  If they don’t want the choice of life or death for their characters just roll a die and force them to choose anyway.


 


6.) You are always faultless, and are never wrong.


In and out of game in all matters concerning D&D you can never be wrong, and there are no faults with your play style. 


 


7.) Share the knowledge.


As a practitioner of the UDMS you too must share these teachings with others that were unprivileged by these divine realizations.  If other people suggest changes for your style that they foolishly think might improve your game, either a.) call them an idiot or b.) claim that it’s not your style and that your style is better/you prefer it better (same thing really) c.) talk about how long you’ve been a UDM and your experiences as one and how successful they were.  Under no circumstances must you be reasonable or understanding with your opposition and if they seem that way, claim they are not.  You do not have time to be cordial, nice, or form valid arguments for buffoons that side against the UDMS.


 


If you can remember all of these things, there is one more you should remember:


 


8.) Read a joke post and reflect about how much more improving you need. 


Because you will never be as perfect as me. 


 

Love it.

Brilliant.  
You forgot one.

Rule 9.) Run the games of other DMs because they will inevitably do it wrong and you can not abide the game of D&D to be played under any other way than those deemed correct by the UDMS.
My username should actually read: Lunar Savage (damn you WotC!) *Tips top hat, adjusts monocle, and walks away with cane* and yes, that IS Mr. Peanut laying unconscious on the curb. http://asylumjournals.tumblr.com/
Awesome. The best part about it is when someone reads it and inevitably thinks it only applies to "The Other Guy."

Fellow dungeon masters, it was not that long ago I was coming to these boards seeking advice on how to be a better DM and a better player.  Over that time I have turned from a larva into a beautiful Mosquito like most other DMs and then I realized something very important.  Yes I had become the perfect DM with the perfect play style that can turn any group of players into putty.  Given this discovery I immediately knew that I must share it with all of you for the help you gave me when I was a crappy DM such as yourselves.


 


Yes I am about to impart on each of you the Ultimate Dungeon Mastering Style, henceforth known as UDMS, so that you may become Ultimate Dungeon Masters.  While you will never truly be as good an UDM as I am, if you can even harness a fraction of this amazing information you will be a dungeon master beyond words DMBW for short. Listed below are the tenants of the UDMS.


 


1,) You are God


To some of you this may have already come second nature to you.  You have to do the work of organizing and getting a game together so you deserve to control everything.  Forget the fact that you have other people that came to role play and may have brought drinks/food/money and are willing to tolerate your presence, you can be an UDM without them.  This is the most important tenant of UDMS, and supercede all others and is allowed to overwrite them at whim (it has that kind of power). 


 


2.) You are the controller of the story.


If for some reason the town of reasonable agreeable people starts to get a thirst for blood for the players that have helped them fight off the baby seal clubbers then it is your power to do so.  Create long convoluted plots and force the players down paths, and “claim” to be flexible by changing paths ever so slightly.  If you want the players in the swamp of no good choices and they decide they are teleporting to the town we’ve visited tons of times then say the swamp has emerged in the town and they still have to go through it.


 


3.) Force your players to write you a story.


After some time you’ll find that you’re getting bored of the job of trying to create a story.  Then you’ll dawn on the realization that you have 0-20 people also at the table that you can force make the story.  Put these unfortunate saps into the Islands of terrible doom that you had planned out, and make stuff up based on their input.  All their ideas will of course be inferior to your own, but just go along with it because it makes them feel a little special.


 


4.) Kill the players


Yes you should repeatedly kill the players.  Don’t do it too overtly always claim that you were just portraying it realistically, or that it was their own fault.  Never under any circumstances take the blame for this, you are never wrong. 


5.)  Let the players revive themselves.


Given that you’re killing your players often it would be unwise to have them stay dead for too long, then they might be able to wander off to some other activity/game that would be infinitely less fun than yours.  Instead let them revive their characters when they die if they want to.  If they don’t want the choice of life or death for their characters just roll a die and force them to choose anyway.


 


6.) You are always faultless, and are never wrong.


In and out of game in all matters concerning D&D you can never be wrong, and there are no faults with your play style. 


 


7.) Share the knowledge.


As a practitioner of the UDMS you too must share these teachings with others that were unprivileged by these divine realizations.  If other people suggest changes for your style that they foolishly think might improve your game, either a.) call them an idiot or b.) claim that it’s not your style and that your style is better/you prefer it better (same thing really) c.) talk about how long you’ve been a UDM and your experiences as one and how successful they were.  Under no circumstances must you be reasonable or understanding with your opposition and if they seem that way, claim they are not.  You do not have time to be cordial, nice, or form valid arguments for buffoons that side against the UDMS.


 


If you can remember all of these things, there is one more you should remember:


 


8.) Read a joke post and reflect about how much more improving you need. 


Because you will never be as perfect as me. 


Funny thing is, this almost reads like sarcasm.

Especially since there are no faults with my play style. If a player were to make that complaint, I'd of course be forced to call them an idiot, then kill their character. Then revive them, calling it "a dream episode" because it didn't fit my storyline. Tongue Out

In all seriousness (snort) I would never force a player to participate in the creation of their own character's stories. If the DM doesn't feel like pre-generating their characters, it is much easier if the players default to the dark mysterious orphan stranger with no background to speak of. I think that makes the game much more fun for everyone.

UDMS is really this...
1) Ask the player "What do you do?"
2) If they answer, ask the player "What happens when you do that?"
3) If they answer, go to step 1.
A rogue with a bowl of slop can be a controller. WIZARD PC: Can I substitute Celestial Roc Guano for my fireball spells? DM: Awesome. Yes. When in doubt, take action.... that's generally the best course. Even Sun Tsu knew that, and he didn't have internets.
Awesome. The best part about it is when someone reads it and inevitably thinks it only applies to "The Other Guy."

Or writes it?
A rogue with a bowl of slop can be a controller. WIZARD PC: Can I substitute Celestial Roc Guano for my fireball spells? DM: Awesome. Yes. When in doubt, take action.... that's generally the best course. Even Sun Tsu knew that, and he didn't have internets.
Or writes it?



Well played.

Though Shaddylogic wins this round in my book. 
Sorry Shaddylogic... they have found your thread.


Remember that bard on Game of Thrones who had the choice of losing his tongue or his fingers?     
Or writes it?



Well played.

Though Shaddylogic wins this round in my book. 

I see where the poster is trying to go with his post, but there are certain biases in each statement that are apparent.

1. A bias toward believing that having or not having control of the game is a power struggle between players. A bias toward believing that the DM must needs use that control to prevent the players from role-playing. A bias in believing that a playing style where players relinquish control of the environment in which their characters reside and focus on how they react to said environment (controlled by the DM) is inferior.

2. A bias toward believing that short simplistic plots are superior to 'convoluted' plots; that plot twists are inferior to straight-forward. A bias toward believing a claim of flexibility is a false claim. A bias toward the belief that a players choices are only limited to what they do and not how they do it.

3. A bias, in the wording of this tenet, that the player is being forced into anything. It seems to indicate that the players are not playing of their own free will (Hawkins' absurd conclusions to otherwise brilliant mathematics aside). A bias toward believing that player input is a bad thing. Particularly strange considering that the point the poster attempted to make in tenet 2 was for that DM input is a bad thing. This makes it appear that the poster is arguing that neither player nor DM have input. I haven't seen this play style in action, but I have seen others argue the same point. I am not certain what the merits or drawbacks of such play style might be. I will keep an open mind.

4. I am trying to avoid a player death vs. no player death argument, but the bias in the post seems to be that a play style in which the DM rules that a player dies when (for instance) the character's head is cut off is an inferior style of play.  A bias toward the belief that a player can not make decisions that increase or decrease chances for character survival and the superiority of a system where player choice should not have consequences. A bias that having character's actions produce reactions is an inferior play style. A bias toward a belief that there must needs be someone to blame if a character dies. A bias that the player and DM must needs be at odds. A bias that the player and DM must needs disagree or have a power struggle. And again: a bias that a claim of fairness is a false one. A bias that the player must needs disagree with the DM's decisions. A bias that the player is always right and the DM is always wrong.  The strawman argument that the DM must never take blame again indicates a bias that there must always be a blame to be placed and that a character's demise must be seen as a punishment of some sort.  - - -  If the point of tenet 4 is to bring admonish DMs who make decisions based on erroneous information or miscommunication and then, when the misunderstanding or misinformation is brought to his attention, abuses the trust and power that players have given him/her by refusing to attempt to rectify the situation, it is a valid point. A refusal to make an admission of a mistake and to attempt to make things better is not a good quality in a DM, or any person for that matter.

5. A bias toward believing that if a DM allows death in the campaign he/she must needs be a psychopathic abuser of power, within the confines the game and possibly outside the game as well. A bias that in a campaign where characters die, that it must also happen frequently.
A bias (this one I share) that it is bad to allow a character to die only to have them un-die a few seconds later. A bias toward believing that character revival is the only way a player can continue to participate.

The last sentence of this tenet seems unclear. Ignore the following part of this conversation if you've heard it before, but I'll try to be brief: In games where the player is given the choice and would rather not have that choice, the relinquishment of that choice to the dice or DM (or DM's interpretation of the results of a dice roll given a set of circumstances) does not seem to force anything except that giving all the choice and power to the player changes the role of the player into something that at once eliminates some of the meaningful aspects of the player's choice and the mystery of what-happens-next? Same if the player rolls the dice and then has the option of choosing what the results of the dice are. The self-determination and knowledge that even the dice can be overruled eliminates the mystery and tension and makes the dice rolling itself a moot activity.

6. I covered this in the last sentence of part 4.

7. a) I agree that name-calling is an ineffective means of proving a point. b) However, I must disagree that an objective preference toward a playing style and a subjective preference are one in the same. One might have a subjective preference toward a simulationist style, but can objectively point out merits and flaws in such a style and also the merits and flaws of rules and methods used to achieve a style of play that encourages simulationism. One can also objectively list aspects of that style without subjectively defining those aspects as merits or flaws. c) I find it difficult to see how qualifying a statement should invalidate the argument. The last two sentences are obviously strawman arguments meant to be a caveat against behavior that all can agree are suboptimal, but being human we all sometimes fall into suboptimal behavior. Some of us are more human than others. I agree with point the poster is making in strawman fashion.

8. There's always room for improvement. As perfect as we all are, remember... we can always be perfect-er. The poster straws it out clearly in the final statement.

I think the post was thought-provoking, though.
- - -
 Ise... Winning? But this is not a competitive game. Tongue Out
A rogue with a bowl of slop can be a controller. WIZARD PC: Can I substitute Celestial Roc Guano for my fireball spells? DM: Awesome. Yes. When in doubt, take action.... that's generally the best course. Even Sun Tsu knew that, and he didn't have internets.
Or writes it?



Well played.

Though Shaddylogic wins this round in my book. 

I see where the poster is trying to go with his post, but there are certain biases in each statement that are apparent.

1. A bias toward believing that having or not having control of the game is a power struggle between players. A bias toward believing that the DM must needs use that control to prevent the players from role-playing. A bias in believing that a playing style where players relinquish control of the environment in which their characters reside and focus on how they react to said environment (controlled by the DM) is inferior.

2. A bias toward believing that short simplistic plots are superior to 'convoluted' plots; that plot twists are inferior to straight-forward. A bias toward believing a claim of flexibility is a false claim. A bias toward the belief that a players choices are only limited to what they do and not how they do it.

3. A bias, in the wording of this tenet, that the player is being forced into anything. It seems to indicate that the players are not playing of their own free will (Hawkins' absurd conclusions to otherwise brilliant mathematics aside). A bias toward believing that player input is a bad thing. Particularly strange considering that the point the poster attempted to make in tenet 2 was for that DM input is a bad thing. This makes it appear that the poster is arguing that neither player nor DM have input. I haven't seen this play style in action, but I have seen others argue the same point. I am not certain what the merits or drawbacks of such play style might be. I will keep an open mind.

4. I am trying to avoid a player death vs. no player death argument, but the bias in the post seems to be that a play style in which the DM rules that a player dies when (for instance) the character's head is cut off is an inferior style of play.  A bias toward the belief that a player can not make decisions that increase or decrease chances for character survival and the superiority of a system where player choice should not have consequences. A bias that having character's actions produce reactions is an inferior play style. A bias toward a belief that there must needs be someone to blame if a character dies. A bias that the player and DM must needs be at odds. A bias that the player and DM must needs disagree or have a power struggle. And again: a bias that a claim of fairness is a false one. A bias that the player must needs disagree with the DM's decisions. A bias that the player is always right and the DM is always wrong.  The strawman argument that the DM must never take blame again indicates a bias that there must always be a blame to be placed and that a character's demise must be seen as a punishment of some sort.  - - -  If the point of tenet 4 is to bring admonish DMs who make decisions based on erroneous information or miscommunication and then, when the misunderstanding or misinformation is brought to his attention, abuses the trust and power that players have given him/her by refusing to attempt to rectify the situation, it is a valid point. A refusal to make an admission of a mistake and to attempt to make things better is not a good quality in a DM, or any person for that matter.

5. A bias toward believing that if a DM allows death in the campaign he/she must needs be a psychopathic abuser of power, within the confines the game and possibly outside the game as well. A bias that in a campaign where characters die, that it must also happen frequently.
A bias (this one I share) that it is bad to allow a character to die only to have them un-die a few seconds later. A bias toward believing that character revival is the only way a player can continue to participate.

The last sentence of this tenet seems unclear. Ignore the following part of this conversation if you've heard it before, but I'll try to be brief: In games where the player is given the choice and would rather not have that choice, the relinquishment of that choice to the dice or DM (or DM's interpretation of the results of a dice roll given a set of circumstances) does not seem to force anything except that giving all the choice and power to the player changes the role of the player into something that at once eliminates some of the meaningful aspects of the player's choice and the mystery of what-happens-next? Same if the player rolls the dice and then has the option of choosing what the results of the dice are. The self-determination and knowledge that even the dice can be overruled eliminates the mystery and tension and makes the dice rolling itself a moot activity.

6. I covered this in the last sentence of part 4.

7. a) I agree that name-calling is an ineffective means of proving a point. b) However, I must disagree that an objective preference toward a playing style and a subjective preference are one in the same. One might have a subjective preference toward a simulationist style, but can objectively point out merits and flaws in such a style and also the merits and flaws of rules and methods used to achieve a style of play that encourages simulationism. One can also objectively list aspects of that style without subjectively defining those aspects as merits or flaws. c) I find it difficult to see how qualifying a statement should invalidate the argument. The last two sentences are obviously strawman arguments meant to be a caveat against behavior that all can agree are suboptimal, but being human we all sometimes fall into suboptimal behavior. Some of us are more human than others. I agree with point the poster is making in strawman fashion.

8. There's always room for improvement. As perfect as we all are, remember... we can always be perfect-er. The poster straws it out clearly in the final statement.

I think the post was thought-provoking, though.
- - -
 Ise... Winning? But this is not a competitive game. Tongue Out



Hey Sir Joseph,

This was a great response to the original post.  I found the OP to be clever in the way that he parodied some of the ideas he has seen on these forums of late, and I found this response to be well-reasoned and well-presented also.  Thank you for the diplomatic tone!

And I certainly agree with a couple of your closing points.  There is room for improvement in all of our games... all of us... and that we shouldn't be on here to try to "win" in a battle of words over a role-playing-game  (or are we all playing our own version of an online forum rpg and are unaware of it?  Hmmm... can we get combat advantage?  Should we tell when we are bloodied?  Can we roll crits?  But I digress...) 


I have never been a prolific poster... maybe once or twice a week usually.  I love this game, play and DM 4th edition, and defend it in our area tooth and nail.  I have just been frustrated lately by new DMs and players coming on to the boards for some creative input into their games and getting so much vitriol instead.  And I'm not pointing fingers at anyone.  It always starts off small and by degree creeps up until it's hard to say where the line was eventually crossed.

And over what?  DMing style.  That's it.

Can I just say that there is not a right way and a wrong way to DM your game?  If there is a way to DM your game and it is fun for both you and your players and you want to play again as soon as you possibly can because of it... guess what... that's the right way to DM Dungeons and Dragons.        

    
Let me start out by saying I apologize if my little parody offended anyone.  Alot of tension has been building up on the forums for a various reasons regarding different methods of playing the game.  I was shooting for a Jonathan Swift "Modest Proposal" style of post that combined elements from the arguements I saw errupting and create something that was contradictory and absurd.


I'm also far from a perfect DM, and if anyone thought I was trying to be elitist by posting this or to say one style was better than another than you've missed the point of my post.  It was nothing better than an attempt at humor that some may or may not have found funny.


I will say there is a right and wrong way to play D&D, but it's not a science.  As long as everyone is having fun then you are playing D&D correctly.  If everyone is not having fun, then you are playing the game wrong.  Of course there are varying shades of this, and since fun is subjective by nature and there is no formula that automatically creates fun, then there are many ways to arrive at the right way to play D&D.


   
Or writes it?



Well played.

Though Shaddylogic wins this round in my book. 

I see where the poster is trying to go with his post, but there are certain biases in each statement that are apparent.

1. A bias toward believing that having or not having control of the game is a power struggle between players. A bias toward believing that the DM must needs use that control to prevent the players from role-playing. A bias in believing that a playing style where players relinquish control of the environment in which their characters reside and focus on how they react to said environment (controlled by the DM) is inferior.

2. A bias toward believing that short simplistic plots are superior to 'convoluted' plots; that plot twists are inferior to straight-forward. A bias toward believing a claim of flexibility is a false claim. A bias toward the belief that a players choices are only limited to what they do and not how they do it.

3. A bias, in the wording of this tenet, that the player is being forced into anything. It seems to indicate that the players are not playing of their own free will (Hawkins' absurd conclusions to otherwise brilliant mathematics aside). A bias toward believing that player input is a bad thing. Particularly strange considering that the point the poster attempted to make in tenet 2 was for that DM input is a bad thing. This makes it appear that the poster is arguing that neither player nor DM have input. I haven't seen this play style in action, but I have seen others argue the same point. I am not certain what the merits or drawbacks of such play style might be. I will keep an open mind.

4. I am trying to avoid a player death vs. no player death argument, but the bias in the post seems to be that a play style in which the DM rules that a player dies when (for instance) the character's head is cut off is an inferior style of play.  A bias toward the belief that a player can not make decisions that increase or decrease chances for character survival and the superiority of a system where player choice should not have consequences. A bias that having character's actions produce reactions is an inferior play style. A bias toward a belief that there must needs be someone to blame if a character dies. A bias that the player and DM must needs be at odds. A bias that the player and DM must needs disagree or have a power struggle. And again: a bias that a claim of fairness is a false one. A bias that the player must needs disagree with the DM's decisions. A bias that the player is always right and the DM is always wrong.  The strawman argument that the DM must never take blame again indicates a bias that there must always be a blame to be placed and that a character's demise must be seen as a punishment of some sort.  - - -  If the point of tenet 4 is to bring admonish DMs who make decisions based on erroneous information or miscommunication and then, when the misunderstanding or misinformation is brought to his attention, abuses the trust and power that players have given him/her by refusing to attempt to rectify the situation, it is a valid point. A refusal to make an admission of a mistake and to attempt to make things better is not a good quality in a DM, or any person for that matter.

5. A bias toward believing that if a DM allows death in the campaign he/she must needs be a psychopathic abuser of power, within the confines the game and possibly outside the game as well. A bias that in a campaign where characters die, that it must also happen frequently.
A bias (this one I share) that it is bad to allow a character to die only to have them un-die a few seconds later. A bias toward believing that character revival is the only way a player can continue to participate.

The last sentence of this tenet seems unclear. Ignore the following part of this conversation if you've heard it before, but I'll try to be brief: In games where the player is given the choice and would rather not have that choice, the relinquishment of that choice to the dice or DM (or DM's interpretation of the results of a dice roll given a set of circumstances) does not seem to force anything except that giving all the choice and power to the player changes the role of the player into something that at once eliminates some of the meaningful aspects of the player's choice and the mystery of what-happens-next? Same if the player rolls the dice and then has the option of choosing what the results of the dice are. The self-determination and knowledge that even the dice can be overruled eliminates the mystery and tension and makes the dice rolling itself a moot activity.

6. I covered this in the last sentence of part 4.

7. a) I agree that name-calling is an ineffective means of proving a point. b) However, I must disagree that an objective preference toward a playing style and a subjective preference are one in the same. One might have a subjective preference toward a simulationist style, but can objectively point out merits and flaws in such a style and also the merits and flaws of rules and methods used to achieve a style of play that encourages simulationism. One can also objectively list aspects of that style without subjectively defining those aspects as merits or flaws. c) I find it difficult to see how qualifying a statement should invalidate the argument. The last two sentences are obviously strawman arguments meant to be a caveat against behavior that all can agree are suboptimal, but being human we all sometimes fall into suboptimal behavior. Some of us are more human than others. I agree with point the poster is making in strawman fashion.

8. There's always room for improvement. As perfect as we all are, remember... we can always be perfect-er. The poster straws it out clearly in the final statement.

I think the post was thought-provoking, though.
- - -
 Ise... Winning? But this is not a competitive game. Tongue Out




Joseph I want to stress this up front that I do not want to offend you.  I'm assuming you're just trying to anaylze what I'm poking fun at, and not actually do a critique of the post.  In case of the former it's very well thought out, but could perhaps avoid using the "A bias" so much since it's repeated so much throughout the text.  If you were performing the later just consider the fact it intentionally has biases throughout. 


   
 

No worries, man. I don't take things too personal. I didn't mean this to be taken as a personal attack on you. Ever see those games where two people dress up in inflated Sumo wrestling suits and go at it? My post wasn't as funny as two grown people hopping around in sumo suits, I grant you, but it wasn't meant to be a personal attack, only debate and discussion.

I meant it to be an analysis of the statements, as written. I meant it to be discussion that hopefully made some points more clear for another poster. I may have rambled a bit, as happens on these forums. You can check out my numerous typos and incomplete sentences to know that is true.

I was also trying to make a point that subjective things can be defended more objectively.

I do apologize for one thing... after re-reading my post, it appears that I was attempting to intellectually bully and that wasn't my intent. Yours was a thought-provoking post. My rebuttals were directed entirely at another poster, but reading back at what I wrote I should have been more considerate of 'the poster'.
A rogue with a bowl of slop can be a controller. WIZARD PC: Can I substitute Celestial Roc Guano for my fireball spells? DM: Awesome. Yes. When in doubt, take action.... that's generally the best course. Even Sun Tsu knew that, and he didn't have internets.
No worries, I didn't think it was the personal attack option, but I can't say that I was 100% sure. That being said I'm glad we're on the same page.  On note of humor I'm not sure my original post was as funny as I hoped it would be, but that's the funny thing about comedy you never know when you hit gold or not until you try it out.

I agree that I could have put more objectivity into the arguements that were presented in the post, but I decided that keeping things subjective would better preserve the joke.