4 months ago ::
Jan 22, 2013 - 6:12AM
Considering that this part of your story contradicts your original post, I no longer believe it happened at all.
One group I played 2E with had the rule that anything said was assumed to be "in character" unless otherwise specified. One player once got up saying "I'm going to go take a leak." Unfortunately, that turned out to be a mistake, as we were in a temple dedicated to a good deity, and had both a cleric and a paladin the party. We changed the rule right after that, but it was good for a laugh when he came back to find out what had happened to his character while he was gone.
He'd been speaking, IN CHARACTER, and finished up with "...and I go to the bathroom." He found it humorous, too.
I'm not seeing a contradiction here. Could you point it out for me?
If it did, you're changing your story to move the goalposts so you feel justified in making unfounded insults.
I would think 'in an appropriate location' would be an assumed part of that statement, and temple would either have facilities, or he could step outside. That again constitutes part of the 'my character is not an idiot' defense.
Even if the 'everything said is in character' rule were remotely sensical.
I mean... even if your character is, in fact, an idiot. Who the hell just whips it out and tinkles on the floor of a temple, in front of people? I've known my fair share of dumb people, but nobody _that_ stupid would be able to function independently at all. So even if you assume it's in character, you've got to also assume that, much like the player didn't just stand up and pee on the gaming table, the character also managed to find an appropriate facility.
Sorry, the sheer unbridled stupidity of the player getting up to go to the bathroom meaning the character dropped his pants and went then and there, in-game, in the middle of a room, warrants criticizing. It warrants derision. This is beyond stupid. It's beyond asinine. It's positively asiten.
The only possible excuses for the rest of the group deciding that happened, particularly since the player apparently had no input on the actions of his own character, is blatant idiocy or intentional malice.
Now, I could be wrong, but that grouping of posts seem to me to say, respectively, "Urdoinitrong", "Urdoinitrong", and "Not only are u doinitrong, but you're also a pack of either drooling idiots who should never be allowed near sharp objects or a pack of malicious a-holes... who should never be allowed near sharp objects". And I note that two of those three posts are yours.
Now, the guy's post may have been rude, rather insulting, and quite over the top... But was it really unfounded?
Two... Ah ah ah!
Three.. Ah ah ah!
Four... Ah ah ah!
Six... Ah ah ah!!
Punctuation exists for a reason, and your neglect of the shift key is to the point where Social Services should be involved.
4 months ago ::
Jan 22, 2013 - 1:50PM
Oct 31, 2005
Count_Von_CoC, I think the reason LolaBonne said that the two parts of the story are contradictory is that in the original post, draco1119 says the player got up from the table and said "I'm going to go take a leak." This implies that--even if they presumed he was still talking in-character, his character would likewise be leaving the general area to go do his business, not do so right there in the still-sacred ruins of the temple. The second post, on the other hand, makes it seem more like he just sat there, did nothing physical to denote his leaving the table and therefore likely making it very deliberate and obvious that he was no longer talking in-character, and said "...and I go to the bathroom," trailing right off of what he said. It presents a wholly different set of events, which implies far more strongly that his character did just do it right there and then.
This is why LolaBonne stated he was moving the goalposts--he went from a series of events that made it sound like the DM and other players were presented with a statement that was clearly OOC and made it an IC series of actions that didn't even make sense with the player's words, to an event wherein it sounds like the player committed this statement as a conclusion to a string of IC roleplay and very clearly made it sound like his PC was doing his business right there on the temple floor, thus making whatever the Cleric and Paladin did to his PC totally IC and expected. He's changing the story to make the player sound that much more like he'd done something totally stupid, rather than it being a case of the other group members taking IC advantage of a statement meant clearly OOC to their own amusement, whether the player involved laughed at the end result or not.
As to the posts you label as "urdoinitwrong", I think that LolaBonne and Wishful are somewhat justified in their statements--based on the first of draco1119's posts, the group basically used the player's actions to turn their PC's actions into something immature and most likely not something the PC would necessarily do, unless the person was playing some thoroughly uncivilized barbarian who thought nothing of such things. Unfortunately, the post doesn't really lead us to believe that, nor does his subsequent post lead us any further toward that conclusion. It's totally in someone's rights to read that and say that it was a foul call, as it's presuming a greater level of stupidity on the part of the PC (and really, on the entire group, if they couldn't interpret the player's actions as clearly independant of his PC) than should be warranted. It might be a simple prank to their group, but to an outside audience only getting draco1119's description of it, the events feel mean-spirited and insulting to the player and his PC. It's a case of "Why the heck would you do this to your friend, man?", as most people tend to presume that a group of D&D players wouldn't go setting their friend's PC up in such a way based on a set of actions and a statement that were very clearly OOC, as the implications are that the Cleric and Paladin PCs did something to that PC in retaliation, possibly physical violence.
It's also not a case of "you 4e jerks, getting up in everybody's business about how we play our game!" as draco1119 then seems to postulate. It's genuinely a case of people looking at that sort of behavior and wondering how someone could do that to a friend's PC, why they would think it funny to prank like that, particularly when the player is out of the room and has no input, whether or not it was funny to all concerned in draco1119's group. Even if the player laughed at it in the case of their group, there's probably a lot of groups where the DM would've had the sense to nip it in the bud, or where the player would have come back to the table and been furious at the others' reactions. It's not a universal response, by any means.