D&D 5E Whatever "lore" is, it isn't "rules."

Maxperson · Feb 14, 2017

Imaro said:
You know I'd have a little more sympathy for you around this situation... if [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] hadn't fired off accusations that weren't true about what I've posted and then ignored the fact that he provided no proof whatsoever when called out to do so... but now wants to pretend he's on the high road when it comes to you and [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION] with his convenient outrage.

I also did not call [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] a poor DM or tell him how he should run his game. Simply having an opinion about a call is nothing to apologize for.

To be fair, though, I don't see how what [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] did should affect how you view Pemerton. They aren't the same people, even if they are on the same side.

Imaro · Feb 14, 2017

Maxperson said:
I also did not call [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] a poor DM or tell him how he should run his game. Simply having an opinion about a call is nothing to apologize for.

To be fair, though, I don't see how what [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] did should affect how you view Pemerton. They aren't the same people, even if they are on the same side.

It's not affecting how I view [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION], I enjoy my discussions with [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] though we rarely see eye to eye ... but you are right how I feel about [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION]'s hypocrisy in this thread shouldn't color my thoughts on [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION]'s posts. Personally I don't think you did anything wrong you stated your views about an example... I feel like the only reason there has been this back and forth is because it was a personal example instead of a general or hypothetical one...which is what I stated earlier.

Maxperson · Feb 14, 2017

Imaro said:
It's not affecting how I view [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION], I enjoy my discussions with [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] though we rarely see eye to eye ... but you are right how I feel about [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION]'s hypocrisy in this thread shouldn't color my thoughts on [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION]'s posts. Personally I don't think you did anything wrong you stated your views about an example... I feel like the only reason there has been this back and forth is because it was a personal example instead of a general or hypothetical one...which is what I stated earlier.

I agree. I regret posting it, but the cat is out of the bag and it's too late to put it back inside.

Sadras · Feb 14, 2017

Maxperson said:
Simply having an opinion about a call is nothing to apologize for.

Here is the thing though Max, doesn't a Onetruewayism zealot also state their opinion? It becomes increasingly messy to differentiate which unfavourable opinion of one's game is tolerable and which one is not.
This might all just be a simple matter of etiquette.

@Shasarak did the exact same thing with me in the other thread, calling me a lazy DM because I don't allow every character concept under the sun at my table when I DM. It ain't right either way. His style and my style are clearly different, but we shouldn't go around making disparaging remarks of each others preferences. Hiding behind it just an opinion doesn't give it a free pass. Sorry.

EDIT: We cross-posted. Just saw your post above.

Maxperson · Feb 14, 2017

Sadras said:
Here is the thing though Max, doesn't a Onetruewayism zealot also state their opinion?

Yes, but they then add to it that their way is the only way it should be done. It's like this. Money(an opinion) is not a crime. Taking money from a bank(one true way) is. It takes more than the opinion.

@Shasarak did the exact same thing with me in the other thread, calling me a lazy DM because I don't allow every character concept under the sun at my table when I DM. It ain't right either way. His style and my style are clearly different, but we shouldn't go around making disparaging remarks of each others preferences. Hiding behind it just an opinion doesn't give it a free pass. Sorry.

EDIT: We cross-posted. Just saw your post above.

There's a difference between calling someone a name. Bad DM, Lazy DM, Onetruewayist, etc., and saying I think that call was a bad one.

lowkey13 · Feb 14, 2017

*Deleted by user*

innerdude · Feb 14, 2017

lowkey13 said:
After all, we are all here to eat ice cream.

No, I'm here to kill things and take their stuff!

.....and then eat ice cream.

Barolo · Feb 14, 2017

Several times I feel like what is on dispute is like arguing whether or not angels are genderless....

Teemu · Feb 14, 2017

Maxperson said:
I also did not call [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] a poor DM or tell him how he should run his game. Simply having an opinion about a call is nothing to apologize for.

So let me get this straight...

You consider the addition of the wizard order to the Grayhawk campaign 'poor GMing' (or 'a poor GMing call') because the game was specifically called out to be Grayhawk? If it'd been called a homebrew campaign with Grayhawk and Dragonlance as inspirations, that would not have been a poor GMing call? What if it had been described as a homebrew Grayhawk campaign? Homebrew Dragonlance but everything but the wizard order Grayhawk? Just plain homebrew, with no mention of a campaign setting?

Where does the line go for you when the addition of the Dragonlance wizard order into a campaign that uses the general geography & cultures of Grayhawk stops being a poor GMing call?

pemerton · Feb 15, 2017

Imaro said:
I don't think you did anything wrong you stated your views about an example

My point is that if you tell someone that a GMing decision they made was very poor, and then they rebut your reasoning, you don't get to hide behind "It's just my opinion, man!"
[MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION]'s reason for saying my GMing decision was poor is that he wouldn't do it because his players might get confused/misled. When I point out that no one at my table was confused or misledj, and that in fact the decision had very good payoff in play, instead of saying "OK, maybe in your context the decision wasn't a poor one" Maxperson doubles down on the claim that it was poor.

That is a textbook case of projecting one's own play preferences onto someone else's situation without having any regard to the differences in that other situation. If that's not "onetruewayism", what would be?

( [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION] also seems to think it's a big deal that he called the decision poor GMing but didn't call me a poor GM. I personally don't think that that is a distinction that carries a lot of weight. What is a poor GM, afterall, but someone who makes poor decisions?)

Teemu said:
So let me get this straight...

You consider the addition of the wizard order to the Grayhawk campaign 'poor GMing' (or 'a poor GMing call') because the game was specifically called out to be Grayhawk?

Not quite. The actual imputation of poor GMing was calling the wizardly order WoHS. And the reason that is said to be poor GMing is because it is a bad thing to evoke Krynn (via the name WoHS) in a GH game.

The reason why this is poor GMing has not been entirely spelled out, but as best I can tell is because some players who weren't actually playing the campaign might have been confused and/or had their enjoyment of the campaign spoiled because the GH game had one element that evoked Krynn.

It is also not relevant that these same players might have LotR/JRRT evoked by a 10th level ranger's ability to use a palantir, because the world "palantir" doesn't actually appear in any AD&D rulebook.

What the theory of player psychology and imaginative response is that underpins this analysis - such that having Krynn evoked by a name is bad but having JRRT evoked by a class feature is not bad or even good - I'm not sure about. But given that, as I've posted several times, no one at my table was perturbed by whatever may or may not have been invoked, I don't really care that much!