Armour Dilemma: Am I Wrong Here?

[Numion]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: ?

You get what you give. So far I have seen two responses from you:

Numion: My position/argument is X.
Me: I think X is wrong because Y.
Numion: No no and no. Thankyou for missing the point.

How about using actual quotes instead of putting words into my mouth? Thats the boards way of doing things, even though that might make it more difficult to back your wrong statements. You forgot from the above quote that I actually gave reasons why your statement about X and Y is wrong.

Rather than trying to argue anything you're just trying to be right. Fusangite has taken all kinds of flak just for saying that the majority of people agree with him, which is a comment you prompted by implying that the length of the thread was somehow indicative of the degree to which he had failed as a DM.

fusangite prompted that, obviously, by putting that in the threads title (it reads Am I Wrong Here). I've even said several times that being right or wrong in this issue is of no importance - to that end I've provided several optional ways of running the encounter.

A majority can elect someone to office, but it can't make something objectively right

fusangite first started "counting votes" for his absolution here, not me. So I don't know why you would say this to me, or why it would annoy me.

It's not a position I would ever find myself in (thanks to my players, not my forethought), but if it magically happened my solution would be to bring the fight to the heroes sitting it out. Any rules for how much it would suck for a bunch of vampires to come attack you while you were in the middle of putting your armor on?

See.. we can agree on something after all:

I'm not sure. In my group the PCs have learned not to split the group, since that gets PCs killed easily. Thats probably what would've happened - 4 PCs charge to take on the encounter planned for 7, and get their asses handed to them. At the same time a part of the vamps attack the PCs who are donning their armors. Penalties for fighting in a plate half-dressed.

 

[Wayside]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: ?

How about using actual quotes instead of putting words into my mouth? Thats the boards way of doing things, even though that might make it more difficult to back your wrong statements. You forgot from the above quote that I actually gave reasons why your statement about X and Y is wrong.

Frankly, your actual quotes can be confusing. But what's more important, the way to point out bad reasoning is to break it down into propositions and get rid of the rhetoric. However, the question was 'what's with the attitude?' so in this case my response was 'I dunno, you tell me,' hence I left the pertinent rhetoric in, because that's where the bad attitude originated. The fact that you only mention the top of my two examples speaks volumes.

But since you didn't actually give any reasons in your post in any case, I have no idea why I bothered to say all of that. That's right, no reasons. You just restated your position. You know, the one you thought I missed. It's a fine, valid position though. Players should have fun. Word.

(Another minor point: just now, you didn't actually give reasons why my statements are 'wrong' either. That's more of that bad attitude thing. An argument can be made from your statement, but obviously I don't want to attribute something to you you didn't actually say. You do imply that I don't quote you directly because my comments are disingenuous, which is funny. If you request I can go do that when I have a moment, and arrange what I posted before using your actual words in what will I'm sure be a humorously absurd display of contradiction. Well, there were only the two examples, so it might be a little thin, but I could always comb the thread for more.)

fusangite prompted that, obviously, by putting that in the threads title (it reads Am I Wrong Here). I've even said several times that being right or wrong in this issue is of no importance - to that end I've provided several optional ways of running the encounter.

fusangite first started "counting votes" for his absolution here, not me. So I don't know why you would say this to me, or why it would annoy me.

Yes, it does say that. However you indicated that the length of the thread was proof of that wrong. The reasonable reply to this assertion is to get the facts of the thread straight, whatever they may be. So don't hold his being reasonable against him.

I say it to you because, unless my memory has lapsed, you were the one that made the initial comment. I say it seems to annoy you because it has been brought up repeatedly, most often as somehow being indicative of Fusangite's arrogance. Like I said before, there has been a tendency to criticize him for successfully defending himself against a number of attacks. His rebuffs are reinterpreted by his critics as his being haughty, which just isn't fair.

I don't see a right or a wrong here either. I don't think Fusangite did anything wrong, but I don't think any of the suggestions are bad. We have that potential solution in common, but really, my solution to his dilemma would be to find new players, because that reaction is just jank. It wouldn't work with my group at all. And that's really the question: what works with his group? As it turns out, exactly what he did. He gives reasons why some other suggestions would not work for him. They may seem off-key, but that's his group.

 

[Numion]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: ?

Frankly, your actual quotes can be confusing. But what's more important, the way to point out bad reasoning is to break it down into propositions and get rid of the rhetoric. However, the question was 'what's with the attitude?' so in this case my response was 'I dunno, you tell me,' hence I left the pertinent rhetoric in, because that's where the bad attitude originated. The fact that you only mention the top of my two examples speaks volumes.

IMHO the bad attitude had to originare from you, since you first quoted me in the way you did, even though I hadn't directed any comment to you at all. Like this:

I suppose you expect to win every game you play? Do you whine at the banker in Monopoly for not giving you free cash? At your best friend who just bluffed you out of a winning hand?

If that wasn't missing the point, I don't know what is. You assumed that I somehow always wanted my way, even though this isn't about having one's way at all.

Yes, it does say that. However you indicated that the length of the thread was proof of that wrong. The reasonable reply to this assertion is to get the facts of the thread straight, whatever they may be. So don't hold his being reasonable against him.

Actually what I said was:

Seeing that this thread has gone on for five pages, his player became very angry and the playing session suffered because of the encounter, I wouldn't say that it was a very good encounter either.

As you can see I in no way refuted him being right, as that isn't of importance to me. I'll even admit that he was right in running the encounter the way he did, because he didn't break any rules. But as you can see, I just used the length of the thread to indicate that maybe there was room for improvement in the encounter, not to indicate fusangite being wrong as you wrongly claimed. I could've been more polite, though.

I say it to you because, unless my memory has lapsed, you were the one that made the initial comment.

But as the above quote shows, I did not.

 

[Steverooo]

Lessons Learned:

Well, like it or not, part of the REASON for this adventure was to attack the party when they would have to be without armor. Fusangite did that. Three players chose to sit out, because of that. One because he thought it was fun to leave the others hanging in battle, as they'd often left him. One later said he'd made the wrong choice. One said "Come get me when my PCs' armored up."

In the end, however, the two PCs with heavy armor agreed to buy some "Paladin's PJs", and the Paladin already had some (even if he didn't use them, for some odd (?) reason). Hence; lesson learned.

Fusangite, meanwhile, learned that 3/7 of his PCs are very attached to their heavy armor, and were even willing to split the party rather than abandon it... Lesson learned.

Overall, while three players decided to sit out one night's gaming (one of them having fun, anyway, one other being angry), the harm to the campaign seems negative... It actually HELPED. "Problem" solved, excelsior!

 

[Caliban]

Nah, I never said I was a better DM. So your statement here has no basis, and just serves to overlook my valid points by generalisation.

Now thats not constructive.

That's exactly what you are saying.

He didn't rearrange the encounter at the last minute so that the armor wearing PC's could still put on their armor and join the fight.

You keep saying that was a bad way to handle it, and he should have handled it your way, because your way is obviously better for everyone.

It's two different ways of handling the situation, two different styles. You keep saying that yours is the better method.

I never said it was. I was just looking for a better way of handling this 1 encounter. The one comment that you ripped into here was made to point out that fusangite saying "I was in the right" doesn't mean that there wasn't room to improve.

You keep saying that he handles the situation was wrong, and the way you would have handled it is better. You seem frustrated that he wont accept your DM'ing style over his.

That's been your overriding theme, and it's simply not true.

It's just a different way of handling it, and either method is valid.

Actually I think that you need to get over yourself, If you let this thread to get to you that much.

Rowr. Claws in kitty.

 

[Dispater]

you guys could have written a book by now.

 

[mmu1]

So because he planned everything to a tee and had every detail worked out in advance then he should of had no problem changing it all (including the whole point of the encounter) just for the sake of simplicity? Your arguing that he carefully wrote the adventure to get the players to one place (even though he did say that he planned for two totally different scenerioes) so he should of had no problem fudging the rules and ignoring his carefully laid out scenerio? He stuck to what he had planned and tried to keep his adventure in tact and keep the point of it all relivant, why would he decide to manipulate things in game to go against that.

I'm arguing that, since he already went to great lengths to give the PCs a break, let them participate in the encounter, and make it winnable (Which it wouldn't have been, if he actually ran the game the way he claims - he makes things happen, then doesn't fudge anything for the sake of the players - because the players' inattention and lack of preparation would have meant they'd have missed the whole thing if the vampires behaved intelligently throughout), it's inconsistent of him to dig in his heels over another issue affecting player involvement.

Let's face it, this wasn't a "strictly by the rules, make no allowances for player mistakes" scenario which it's being repeatedly billed as, it was as arbitrary as most D&D encounters. He fudged just as much as "my" (gee, I've got a posse... ) crowd does, but it was (mostly) pre-planned rather than reactive fudging...

 

[Numion]

That's exactly what you are saying.

I never said I was the better DM. I just said that maybe the encounter would've gone better if ran a little differently.

He didn't rearrange the encounter at the last minute so that the armor wearing PC's could still put on their armor and join the fight.

You keep saying that was a bad way to handle it, and he should have handled it your way, because your way is obviously better for everyone.

It's two different ways of handling the situation, two different styles. You keep saying that yours is the better method.

Hobviously there was improvement in the handling of the encounter, or this thread would've never happened. I've tried to provide advice on that improvement, but it seems that any advice here seems to lead to bruised egos instead of real help.

I should've known better, I'll give you that.

You keep saying that he handles the situation was wrong, and the way you would have handled it is better. You seem frustrated that he wont accept your DM'ing style over his.

That's been your overriding theme, and it's simply not true.

I already admitted that he was "right" in this matter. And I don't keep saying that he's somehow wrong in this:

As you can see I in no way refuted him being right, as that isn't of importance to me. I'll even admit that he was right in running the encounter the way he did, because he didn't break any rules.

You've the one that keeps claiming I said something that I didn't.

Rowr. Claws in kitty.

If all else fails personal attacks are the way to go

Did I bruise your ego too? Please tell how, so I can keep your feelings from being hurt in the future.

 

[Scarbonac]

. He fudged just as much as "my" (gee, I've got a posse... ) crowd does, but it was (mostly) pre-planned rather than reactive fudging...

30%-er pride, represent, y'all! Testify, my brothers!

 

[Caliban]

I never said I was the better DM. I just said that maybe the encounter would've gone better if ran a little differently.

Except for the "maybe" part. And you won't accept a difference of opinon on the subject.

Hobviously there was improvement in the handling of the encounter, or this thread would've never happened. I've tried to provide advice on that improvement, but it seems that any advice here seems to lead to bruised egos instead of real help.

I should've known better, I'll give you that.

If you had offered it as advice, it might have worked. You didn't.

I already admitted that he was "right" in this matter. And I don't keep saying that he's somehow wrong in this:

Ah, ah, ah. Not so fast.

You keep saying that he did the wrong thing by adhering to the rules. He was "right" by the rules, but was wrong to follow them.

And your entire tone has been that of condescending superiority when he didn't immediately "see the error of his ways" and agree with you.

You've the one that keeps claiming I said something that I didn't.

Except that you did do exactly what I'm claiming.

If all else fails personal attacks are the way to go

You think that was a personal attack? LOL.

Did I bruise your ego too? Please tell how, so I can keep your feelings from being hurt in the future.

You seem to be the one who is lashing out here.

Maybe you should take a step back and calm down a bit.