Community

Matyr has already stated many of the points I wanted to make in a very eloquent manner.  *high fives Matyr*

I want to add for my part that you missed, what I believe, is a key factor of your entire problem.  The DM tossed a wrench in YOUR plans, not the other way around.

To elaborate on this, it's very clear to me that during the entire campaign, you were the person making elaborate plans.  The DM merely presented you with a problem, which comprised of several smaller problems, but could be explained by the root:  There's an evil martial arts school which has taken control of a town, terrorizing the civilians and doing whatever they wish.  This is not a plan.  It's a or the initial situation of the campaign.

From there the DM let you loose to do basically whatever you wanted.  He went along with YOUR plans as you acted upon them.  But you placed yourself in a position that was clearly avoidable and had obvious possible results.  As has been said numerous times now, you challenged the BBEG (at level 1) to a physical contest after ridiculing his school, him and his students. 

He's a murdering psychopath who has mastered the art of killing.

I mean, what the heck did you expect ?  Tea time discussing philosophy ?


Anyway, that asside it's your reaction that I find the most silly.  You tantrum and end the campaign when you didn't have to.  Then you come on these boards looking for someone to tell you that you're right for having a tantrum and ruining the campaign for the DM ?  That he's wrong and you're right ?  Good grief.

You couldn't have written a better place for a Code of Conduct violation warning.  I do wish we knew who wrote the deleted post though.

Dec 13, 2012 -- 1:20PM, Noctaem wrote:

Matyr has already stated many of the points I wanted to make in a very eloquent manner.  *high fives Matyr*

I want to add for my part that you missed, what I believe, is a key factor of your entire problem.  The DM tossed a wrench in YOUR plans, not the other way around.

To elaborate on this, it's very clear to me that during the entire campaign, you were the person making elaborate plans.  The DM merely presented you with a problem, which comprised of several smaller problems, but could be explained by the root:  There's an evil martial arts school which has taken control of a town, terrorizing the civilians and doing whatever they wish.  This is not a plan.  It's a or the initial situation of the campaign.

From there the DM let you loose to do basically whatever you wanted.  He went along with YOUR plans as you acted upon them.  But you placed yourself in a position that was clearly avoidable and had obvious possible results.  As has been said numerous times now, you challenged the BBEG (at level 1) to a physical contest after ridiculing his school, him and his students. 

He's a murdering psychopath who has mastered the art of killing.

I mean, what the heck did you expect ?  Tea time discussing philosophy ?


Anyway, that asside it's your reaction that I find the most silly.  You tantrum and end the campaign when you didn't have to.  Then you come on these boards looking for someone to tell you that you're right for having a tantrum and ruining the campaign for the DM ?  That he's wrong and you're right ?  Good grief.

Good grief, indeed. I've already acknowledged that I could have handled my frustration with the situation better. You're badgering the witness on that point.

You've missed the point entire. You seem to imply that it would have been better if the DM had led the character along by the nose with an adamantite chain attached to his big red train and that I had waited for him to drop the scooby snacks and followed his obvious trail. The DM has pretty much told me he doesn't want to go that route. I can't blame him.

And for the umpteenth time... the murderous psychopath killing a low-level character is not what I have a problem with (except for the fact that he was supposed to be a high-level monk, which implies a certain amount of discipline that he did not have). Off the top of my head, I'm thinking of dozens of ways he could have killed the character but in a manner that provided a more interesting story.

I leave you with this story...

Arresting the Stone Buddha

A merchant bearing fifty rolls of cotton goods on his shoulders stopped to rest from the heat of the day beneath a shelter where a large stone Buddha was standing. There he fell asleep, and when he awoke his goods had disappeared. He immediately reported the matter to the police.

A judge named O-oka opened court to investigate. "That stone Buddha must have stolen the goods," concluded the judge. "He is supposed to care for the welfare of the people, but he has failed to perform his holy duty. Arrest him."

The police arrested the stone Buddha and carried it into the court. A noisy crowd followed the statue, curious to learn what kind of sentence the judge was about to impose.

When O-oka appeared on the bench he rebuked the boisterous audience. "What right have you people to appear before the court laughing and joking in this manner? You are in contempt of court and subject to a fine and imprisonment."

The people hastened to apologize. "I shall have to impose a fine on you," said the judge, "but I will remit it provided each one of you brings one roll of cotton goods to the court within three days. Anyone failing to do this will be arrested."

One of the rolls of cloth which the people brought was quickly recognized by the merchant as his own, and thus the thief was easily discovered. The merchant recovered his goods, and the cotton rolls were returned to the people.

-----

Dec 20, 2012 -- 1:48PM, Sir_Joseph_the_Crowe wrote:

Dec 20, 2012 -- 1:04PM, Centauri wrote:

Dec 20, 2012 -- 1:00PM, Sir_Joseph_the_Crowe wrote:

Centauri, the DM in this situation was actually asking me for advice on how to make this happen.

How to make what happen?

How to encourage people to roleplay their characters in ways that are more 'esoteric, philosophical' rather than 'hack and slash or meta-gaming for survivability'.

I think the concept is too foreign to fathom.

Given your two earlier examples I think a better explanation is that what you consider a good story and what others at the table (and possibly here on the forums) consider an incomprehensible mess are the same thing.  If you think either of those two stories directly relate to your freak-out then I don't really know what to tell you.  Well, other than "grats on finding a group that puts up with you."