D&D General Character Individuality

[Filthy Lucre]

your not giving up here are you? You really want to argue over word choice do it with someone else.

it's not physical it's metaphysical I would difine metaphysical as an idea, doctrine, or posited reality outside of human sense perception

the card doesn't exist, no one is throwing it, it is a reality outside of human sense... no one is throwing a card

TIL that metaphors, similes, and allegories are metaphysics. You don't know what you're talking about and you don't have the maturity to admit it. You're just digging in your heels and fighting over a topic you don't know anything about because you feel slighted that I called you out for using a word incorrectly.

"the card doesn't exist, no one is throwing it, it is a reality outside of human sense... no one is throwing a card"

So does it not exist? Or is it real? I'm not actually interested in your answer because I have all faith you don't have any formal education on this topic. Just thought you might want to realize how silly what you just said is.

 

[HammerMan]

TIL that metaphores, similies, and allegories are metaphysics. You don't know what you're talking about and you don't have the maturity to admit it.


So does it not exist? Or is it real? I'm not actually interested in your answer because I have all faith you don't have any formal education on this topic. Just thought you might want to realize how silly what you just said is.

oh know...on a board talking about a game of make believe someone thinks I don't have formal education in concepts that don't matter in normal usage of words...

I don't study physics
I don't study philosophy
I don't study literature.

I talk to people. I use google and I play make believe.

i even googled for you but here you go...an idea, doctrine, or posited reality outside of human sense perception

edit: I have found most people who call people who play kids games like D&D 'immature' don't understand what the diffrence is between mature adult and specialized jargon.

 

[Filthy Lucre]

I don't study physics
I don't study philosophy
I don't study literature.

No kidding.

i even googled for you but here you go...an idea, doctrine, or posited reality outside of human sense perception

And I gave you a link to the Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy - a peer reviewed academic source of the history and definition of philosophical terms.

 

[HammerMan]

No kidding.

and I see no reason to pretend I do in order to play a game of make believe.

 

[Filthy Lucre]

and I see no reason to pretend I do in order to play a game of make believe.

You'd just prefer to use words incorrectly and then throw a petulant temper tantrum when someone corrects you.

 

[HammerMan]

You'd just prefer to use words incorrectly and then throw a petulant temper tantrum when someone corrects you.

I;m not throwing a tantrum, you just want the word to fit into some little box you learned in some school at some point... instead of understanding that common usage changes things. the way literally now can mean not literally, and that "That's cool" and "That's hot" can mean the same thing that has nothing to do with Tempitures.

instead of argueing take a moment and ask yourself "Did I understand what he meant" if the answer is yes there is no need to correct anyone.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Oh, for--let it drop, FL. So he misused a word. Now you've filled up a page making an issue out of it.

 

[Lanefan]

yes, maybe both.

That's kinda sad to hear.

this is where session 0 (We call it character gen night) comes up and why people who show up with characters already detailed is a yellow (if not red) flag.
Now if two buddies come to the table and make this concept together thats cool they have a built in rivalry, but as the DM I then have to rejig my campagin to make sure that it balances both... I can't make the Baron an enemy or a major ally... he has to fade into the background more.

When players just hand you story material on a silver platter like this, why on earth would you turn it down?! Were it me I'd find some way to make use of this - maybe they find out at some point that the mentor who sends them on their adventures is on the Baron's staff...or is plotting his overthrow...or maybe both.

But I wouldn't let it go to waste!

nope... not unless the entire table agrees that powderkeg going off sounds like fun. SOme of us (I play in 1 game almost every week and run a game almost every week and play in 1 a month) don't play as often as others and don't want whole campagins blown up like this,

should other players be forced into this situation... you name the 2 players. Lets say the DM made a world and 5 players will sit around the table to play. that is 6 people, should the 2 get to dictate that the other 4 have to put up with this powderkeg?

If 2 players come up with story ideas and the other 3 don't then why not run with what the 2 have going? The DM doesn't really figure in here; she just runs with what the players give her to work with and, ideally, puts her own story ideas to the side if-when player-driven story can take over. And it's not like the other 3 players, via their characters, can't get involved; even if it's just to laugh at these two fighting over a silly little local Baron when there's an evil King needs dealing with in the big city out west.

If I'm the DM and I've made a world with - among other things - a town and a Baron who rules that town, how can I possibly complain if two players produce characters who come with built-in means of and reasons for interacting with one of those elements, and with each other? I build the setting, but I don't dictate how the players, via their characters, interact with it. Further, I-as-DM have no place dictating how PCs interact with each other.

 

[Lanefan]

To the extent that everyone can have a good time. A few years back I was playing in a campaign with some people I didn't know very well. We ran into a situation where the residents had all abandoned a town, and I'm talking the hearths are still warm abandoned not that they left forever, and one of the PCs found a suit of chain they wanted to keep for themselves. My character spoke up saying something about the chain belonging to someone else with him claiming it was fair game because it was abandoned and then saying he was just keeping it safe. I was faced with a choice. I could either push the issue, possibly creating hard feelings and derailing the game,

Push it. If nothing else, it's a test under fairly harmless conditions (an abandoned village) over fairly minor stakes (a suit of chain mail); with the "test" part being that if doing this creates hard feelings at the table, that's probably a player the table doesn't want anyway and hopefully the DM will recognize this.

If it creates hard feelings in character through players being true to their characters, however, that's just fine: now you've both got something to role-play around.

 

[Lanefan]

Oh, and one thing about the initial question - it implies that anything that gets in the way of party success may be questionable. For me that's not a universal metric. There have been great sessions measured by how much fun everyone at the table has where following plans and getting along were either secondary or outright subverted.

Absolutely this!