I don't believe you. I think they had perfectly good and justifiable reasons for doing what they did. You just happened not to like their style!
Good! You're finally getting with the program.
You don't know. I know, though, because I was there.
Ah... feeling
omniscient again, huh??
No, you don't "know", you suspect, etc. which is valid. Unless you upfront ASKED that DM what was going on in his mind and he said something like "I didn't expect that strategy, was not prepared for it, and I am railroading you to go where I have the adventure planned", ya don't "know".
So, you can keep writing "I was there" until your hands cramp up, but that doesn't mean you know what was going on in the DM's head or what they had intended IF you can continued to play out the game.
Yes it does: when all the players left the game, the GM was no longer defining the narrative as they see fit. Rather, there was no narrative!
You didn't stop the narrative though. You sat there, listened politely, and
disagreed with the narrative so you left in the end. The DM already shared the narrative so it had, in fact, already occured. He very much enjoyed absolute power to establish the shared narrative. You accepted that was, in fact, the narrative--disagreed with it finding it "not fun" and not how a kobold should be played--and left.
I will agree with you that there was no further or additional narrative after you all left.
Huh? My whole point is that the visions didn't match. To such a degree that it brought the game to an end. Hence, as I've said, the GM did not enjoy absolute power to establish a shared fiction.
Again, my point was you had an expectation of what
you believed a kobold captive should act like based on
your interpretation of the MM. You were wrong. The DM controls the NPC and decides how smart they are as part of that. Players do not get to decide how NPCs should act. Nor do players get to decide if a door is locked, or if their boats sinks, or any other number of other parts of your "shared narrative". Through PC actions they can try to influence the narrative, sometimes succeeding and sometimes failing, but the DM is the story-teller and the one who tells the narrative.
This is an example of what baffles me - you think you know better than me what happened in an event 35 years ago that you were not party to, and that you have any knowledge of only because I have told you about it.
No, I don't think I know "better" because I don't know. But then again, neither do you. (See above... again.)
I can tell you now, all your conjectures about why this was wonderful GMing are false. The GM did not have some magnificent original vision of Kobolds, some cunning idea about their responses under interrogation, or anything else.
The DM doesn't need "
some magnificent original vision of Kobolds", the DM was well within the parameters even according to the MM of playing the kobold with a low intelligence. I have no idea why you continue to not accede that point.
What actually happened was that the GM did not want the game to head in the direction we - the players - were taking it, of gathering intelligence and acting on that. And so he attempted to make up some fiction to ensure that wouldn't happen.
Maybe... maybe not. Since you left, you'll never know more.
I say "attempted to make up" rather than "made up" because his attempt failed. What he wanted to achieve was a shared fiction along his preferred lines. What he actually achieved was that there was no shared fiction, because the game came to an end.
Oh, no... he did in fact made it up. (Again, see above since I already addressed this once in this post.)
You know, you never addressed my hypothetic scenario? Any response to that...? Because I am just dying to see what you have to say on that point.
You say it sarcastically, but that's the reality.
You say that, mate, but your reality---not mine, never mine. The DM (myself or whoever happens to being DMing) has the final word, ultimate authority, pick your expression, when running their game. As a player, you (or me!) can question, discuss, debate, even try to convince the DM to go the player's way on something---either after the session or during it---but in the end the DM is the person running the game. IMO it is very disrespectful to think otherwise. I know once the DM has made the final call I have NEVER disputed it. Their game--their rules.
