While some agree with you, others and myself do not. Where you see a whining player, I see a player wanting to play but hitting DM imposed walls. Walls that were not pre-built. Its clear to me and other, the DM was the overreactionary and defensive one. Not once did this DM ever, EVER state in what was posted, 'talk to me in private', 'lets see what we can do', 'its with the setting and it will all make sense, dont worry'. Instead we see great quips like 'only interested in dealing damage' and 'if you dont like it leave'.
Again, victim shaming at its worst.
Oh barf... That's twice you've used "victim blaming" for this. Look man, there are certain things here that are objective and not up for debate. THey are:
* OP posts thread on several forums complaining about how horrible this DM is and what a horrible person he is. You yourself jumped in with personal insults to him by calling him lazy, ignorant, and even questioned that he might be a liar
* OP engages in heavy use of hyperbole in his complaints that aren't literally true.
*
AFTER being called out publicly and thrown under the bus, the DM in question used phrases like "I'm sorry you feel that way, maybe this isn't for you."
*
BEFORE being called out publicly, we have no idea how the conversation went.
So based on the above, which is objectively true, you're conclusion is that it's the OP who was rational and the DM was irrational? Come on now. Heck,I'd even go so far as to say the DM, regardless of any mistake he might have made about not clearly calling out house rules before the game started, deserves
extra credit, as if I were in his shoes and someone just did to me on all these forums what the OP did to him, I would have been a hella lot LESS polite than the DM was in the chat log above. My response would have been closer to, "Look dude, you didn't get your way and you decided the best way to handle this was to take it public and throw a fit? Good riddance, because you're not the player I want anywhere near my table." But this DM didn't do that. EVen after being called out and thrown under the bus (with inaccuracies to boot), he was
still polite and reasonable. There is nothing in the DM's chat logs that was blatant hyperbole like the OP has used frequently.
I never said ALL DMs should do this. I never said NEW DMS should do this. I said that DMs who choose to ignore the rules, not read said rules, and have ignorance to the rules, should probably stick with easier material.
I started playing in 2000. I played something in 2E in the 90's at some point but its all but lost to memory. I've known many players and heard many great tales of early published adventures. So no, its not hyperbole. Many early players played through adventures as well as homebrew. The sheer fact that you would insult the great adventures of old is astounding. Are you really insinuating that the game would not have taken off if more people played the adventures? I find your lack of faith....disturbing.
You said all new DMs should stick with pre-published material. When pointed out how ridiculous that is because the hobby never would have taken off like it did if all new DMs had to follow your rules, you called that hyperbole. Look man, you've had more than one person who was there tell you it's not hyperbole, and thus your assumptions are flat out ridiculous. By your own admission, you weren't there. You have no idea. And I have no idea what you're doing here, trying to imply I am talking bad about those old adventures. Yet another shifting of the goal posts I suppose. My point was, and is, that if new DMs were required to only use prepublished material, you wouldn't have seen the growth in the hobby because the vast majority of us in the late 70s/early 80s
were new DMs, and many of us immediately ran our own adventures. You don't go from 5,000 D&D players to 100,000 in a few years by saying only experienced DMs should run their own stuff. If I had to only run officially published adventures? F that. That also flies directly into the face of what D&D is, by discouraging new DMs to create their own stuff. I suggest you read the AD&D DMG. Heck, check that. I suggest you read the BASIC set, because it's got a significant section on creating your own stuff.
Actually I did not. I could quote myself, and then quote you asking a totally front loaded, asinine question to further your own argument that proves exactly the opposite, that you inferred the DM should know everything. But I wont, because you can go back and re-read my earlier post and read it correctly this time.
And yes. Where you choose to give the DM in this case the 'benefit of the doubt', I choose to give said advantage to the player. Because everything I see clearly points to a BAD DM. He may be a great guy, that i dont know. I speak of nothing to his character, just his ability to run a game of Dungeons and Dragons. So dont even go there.
So lets ignore all that.
How would you have handled the situation differently? Given the same circumstances from what we know how would your approach have differed from the DM in question?
Person A engages in hyperbole and takes discussion public trying to throw person B under the bus. Person B responds with reasoned responses devoid of insults or hyperbole, and you're saying "everything I see clearly points to (person B being) a BAD DM"?
Wow. Like I said, you're using your own biases to completely ignore the objective stuff we have to push your own agenda. Your usage of phrases like "victim blaming" only confirm those suspicions.
If there's a victim here, it's the DM, as he's the one who didn't take this public, and he's the one who has been called incompetent and lazy (by yourself nonetheless).
