Armour Dilemma: Am I Wrong Here?

[Elvinis75]

"Yes but how many places and times has it been said to play the game how it is fun for your group? "

and the three members of the group were having fun?

"I really don't see this as the same as the example of the lever in the DMG, this is characters having a in game discussion."

Tis going down the wrong direction but it is the same. Characters are differently than they normally would because of information that they don't know but the player did. The only diff is that it wasn't what the DM planned rather what was happening.

" Also if you get right down to the fact of it, 4 characters left to investigate but didn't come back, "

This is were the time comes in. They are gone for a couple of minutes. That is a stretch for them IC to know that something is necessarly wrong.

I thought that it was the PC that were going to fight the next day? I didn't think that they expected an attack. Who was expecting an attack? A lot of RT pass but not a lot of GT.
Yes they did ignore it and so did the DM. That might be a style but it isn't one that he normally uses nor did things happen as he planned. He asked for how people would do things differently to get the players involved. One was to help them with their armor with the hasted helpers or to forced them to fight without it (Super duke portals them in). The choice of letting them sit was one that he was looking to avoid. It is much better to force a player to do it your way than have them sit around because they don't want to.

"I really don't care if you like the meta discussion or not, ...etc"

I agree that I really don't care if you care. This isn't your thread. I care about what fusan thinks. That isn't an insult by the way just mentioning that some of this could have been avoided had he been playing differently. I wasn't saying that he has to change. Keep the same rules but get the players involved for goodness sake.

"This was a case of given facts and descriptions. Everything that isn't a discusion of the given facts and descriptions is irrelevent to the "who was right" part of the argument.
"

Good because I think that they were both wrong. PCs and DM alike because people were sitting around and not having fun.


"Every example I read of how he could of changed things to make it work better required him to change his game style, nobody ever came up with any sugestions that fit in with what he was saying and discribing. "

I gave two above.

"Every sugestion was to fundamentally change the way he played the game, and every time he pointed that out somebody got mad because he didn't agree with their situation, and acted like he was insulting them."

How are the two examples above either insulting or a fundimental shift in his style. The first(as it still would have taken 10-20 rounds) would have taught them that staying out of combat for that long has negative effects and could have hurt the other PCs. The second mearly forced the situation that he was pushing for in the first place. The meta comment was because of the whole "show me a rule" and thus I pointed out 2. The golden rule is that people are there to play and have fun. He should try to make that happen if possible. He didn't have to cave to do it either. Thus example 2.

"Why do people get upset when he says that wouldn't work in my game and here is why? Me I would of gotten very upset very quickly with some of this crap and condesending responses in this thread, he remained civil throughout the whole thing, even when he was accused of hating his game group and intentionally trying to force people not to play. "

Not by me!?! He took some of my advice.
I'm not attacking anyone. I'm hoping that this never happens again in his campaign and I'm wishing him the best of luck with the campaign.

 

[mmu1]

Every example I read of how he could of changed things to make it work better required him to change his game style, nobody ever came up with any sugestions that fit in with what he was saying and discribing. Every sugestion was to fundamentally change the way he played the game, and every time he pointed that out somebody got mad because he didn't agree with their situation, and acted like he was insulting them.

He asked if he was wrong, and asked for suggestions... Why do that, if he's obviously unwilling to budge on anything? (Sorry, but I don't buy the explanation that all the "30%" people here are too stupid to be able to suggest something worthwhile.)

I don't think anyone was suggesting any fundamental changes to his game, either... There's no real difference between "Make conversations and plans take longer so the rest of the players can participate in at least some of the combat." and "Make the Vampires use clever, but less than optimal tactics and set off an unnecessary explosion so that the party can become aware of the attack.". They're both just ways of handing the players the situation on a platter. (aka making the game more playable)

He's a better person than me, I had to quit the thread twice because my blood pressure spiked (it really did, I hit 170 over 120 last night). Why does everything have to get confrontational, why does everybody have to take responses personal and offer up attacks.

You know, I always wished I could off some of the people I meet on the net, but you're not really one of them... Could you try being a little more offensive, or something?

 

[jdavis]

He asked if he was wrong, and asked for suggestions... Why do that, if he's obviously unwilling to budge on anything? (Sorry, but I don't buy the explanation that all the "30%" people here are too stupid to be able to suggest something worthwhile.)

Where did he (or anybody) say that any suggestion was bad? Where did he say he was unwilling to budge? He answered every example with a statement of why it would not work in his game, then people got mad. Nobody ever said they were bad suggestions, I myself said I agreed with several of them, but they go against the way he plays the game, he used rounds to measure time, he figured out how long it would take for them to get from place to place and see what they saw in rounds, changing that changes what he was trying to do. I never saw any suggestion that he could do if he kept using rounds as measurments (well besides stretching out the Duke thing but that was well after the fact). It's not that the suggestions were not worthwhile, it's that people are obviously thinking his answers to their suggestions are not worthwhile. He states he doesn't like that idea and then somebody states that he must hate his players then. What is he not allowed to disagree with somebody telling him how his game should be? WHy are people getting mad because he didn't agree with their suggestions?

I don't think anyone was suggesting any fundamental changes to his game, either... There's no real difference between "Make conversations and plans take longer so the rest of the players can participate in at least some of the combat." and "Make the Vampires use clever, but less than optimal tactics and set off an unnecessary explosion so that the party can become aware of the attack.". They're both just ways of handing the players the situation on a platter. (aka making the game more playable)

He said he measured out everything in rounds. Everybody is picking apart all sorts of stuff not related to what was the actual question, his so called unnessessary explosion was the catalyst to get them moving, without it then the adventure doesn't exist. Maybe it happened during the fighting (he did state that some of the higher level guards were fighting back). Yes he could of gotten rid of counting things down in rounds, but he has said over and over again he didn't want to do that, he gave all of his reasons for that, why does it keep coming up? It was brought up, he disagreed with it and went on, but it's still being harped on. Why keep bringing it up?

You know, I always wished I could off some of the people I meet on the net, but you're not really one of them... Could you try being a little more offensive, or something?

I am really not trying to be offensive and I am actually not offended by the discussion ( I was offended by the statement that he hated his players) I find the discussion facinating, but why is there all this personal anamosity towards his game? He answered every suggestion with why he didn't like it, then the suggestions were reworded and he answered the same way, people get mad because he didn't like the suggestions, it goes round and round with no actual new information being added.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
from Elvinis75

and the three members of the group were having fun?

Well apparently they all agreed with him in the end and his campaign is running just fine and everything worked out just fine in the end, if his players are ok with it then why does this keep going on? Heck the only problem that happened during the game was one guy got angry (and we have covered that over and over). It seems that he is fine, his game is fine but all of us who were not there are not.

Tis going down the wrong direction but it is the same. Characters are differently than they normally would because of information that they don't know but the player did. The only diff is that it wasn't what the DM planned rather what was happening.

I agree with you 100%, I am totally with this, it is exactly my thinking too, but when he says that is the norm in his game and that is how it's always been played then we just have to go with that. The discussion was about what went on in his game not a general discussion of how things should be. They played the same way they always do, there wasn't a change in how they normally played the game, therefore this statement goes to the fact that he is playing the game wrong. I disagree because if that's how they like playing the game then that's how they like playing the game.

I thought that it was the PC that were going to fight the next day? I didn't think that they expected an attack. Who was expecting an attack? A lot of RT pass but not a lot of GT.

I got that they were expecting a attack at that tower and had even suggested that might happen before they went to bed, makes me wonder why they were not there at night, but that is another topic.

How are the two examples above either insulting or a fundimental shift in his style. The first(as it still would have taken 10-20 rounds) would have taught them that staying out of combat for that long has negative effects and could have hurt the other PCs. The second mearly forced the situation that he was pushing for in the first place. The meta comment was because of the whole "show me a rule" and thus I pointed out 2. The golden rule is that people are there to play and have fun. He should try to make that happen if possible. He didn't have to cave to do it either. Thus example 2.

They are not insulting but he said he didn't want to change counting in rounds and gave his reasons. Then people got mad at him, he never said they were bad suggestions, nobody ever said they were bad suggestions, he just said (and backed up) his reasons for not accepting them, then people got mad.

Not by me!?! He took some of my advice.

So then what's the problem and why are you getting mad at me when you are saying I'm not who you are talking about? Did I single you out? (I didn't mean to if I did). Why is there such anger that he didn't like the suggestions?

 

[jdavis]

I posted this earlier, but it was something of a side thought. However, I'd really like to see a response from the crowd that says "it's not fair to make the characters fight without all their stuff".

What if it had been the wizard/sorcerer who was complaining? "I don't have all my spell slots. I want to rest for 8 hours to get them back." Would everyone that is in favor of making the action wait for the heavy armor people also make it wait for the casters? Isn't going into combat with a bunch of vampire wizards when you aren't at your full spell resources just as unacceptable as going into the same combat without your armor?

Food for thought.

J

Nobody ever touched on this did they? It seems like a very important point to me.

 

[Elvinis75]

"from Elvinis75
Well apparently they all agreed with him in the end and his campaign is running just fine and everything worked out just fine in the end, if his players are ok with it then why does this keep going on? Heck the only problem that happened during the game was one guy got angry (and we have covered that over and over). It seems that he is fine, his game is fine but all of us who were not there are not."

They all agreed that they did the wrong thing in sitting there. Not that they had fun doing. Too interesting to let go I guess.
I haven't got into a good one for a long time.

but when he says that is the norm in his game and that is how it's always been played then we just have to go with that.

If that is the case thenI guess that is his worries and not mine.
I have to assume that the same way they always did never include a choice like this.


They are not insulting but he said he didn't want to change counting in rounds and gave his reasons. Then people got mad at him, he never said they were bad suggestions, nobody ever said they were bad suggestions, he just said (and backed up) his reasons for not accepting them, then people got mad.

Then If I'm not insulting him why is comments about "people" insulting him showing up in a reply to my post? I wasn't one of the people that was mad. I did miss read something but imagine that happening in a thread this long. I'm not mad at you at all I just don't being lumped in with this geoup that you say is insulting him.
Further neither of my suggestions, the 2 listed in the last post, had anything to do with the way that he runs time.
There was an earlier mistake in thinking that the PCs discussed when everyone was talking about planning and bullet time.

 

[Elvinis75]

Nobody ever touched on this did they? It seems like a very important point to me.

Not having any defensive spells would be a better analogy.
An the cases are not the same as it would take an hour to get them back at best if he just slept. An hour is vastly different than 4 minutes

I guess the real question is how much time is too much.
1 melee
2, 5, 10, 20 melees?
20Minutes
1 hour?

 

[Xael]

Nobody ever touched on this did they? It seems like a very important point to me.

Hell, I'll take that farther. If I remember right (long thread), the ones that actually went to fight, were composed of Rogue/Wizard, Rogue and a Bard. R/W without spells, R/W and Rogue couldn't use their sneak attacks against undead, and bard sure as hell couldn't use his bardic music abilities agains the undead (could boost others though, if he had any uses left). And the guys with all the means to take these vampires out sit back, dressing their armor.

...if I got it right, just too much text in this thread...


Edit: Oh yeah, IHMO the player didn't have any reason to whine to you.

 

[jdavis]

I guess the real question is how much time is too much.

Yes it is, four minutes doesn't seem like a lot of time but 40 rounds does. It was the fact that things were being measured in rounds that should of been the give away. The problem was that they were way too attached to their armor for clerics. I wonder if one of them would of said to heck with the armor I'm getting out there to help if the others would of followed along? They might of all stayed because they all stayed, because nobody took the lead and gave up on the armor they all stuck it out. Obviously the Paladin should of went and he was the one with the Metagame reason for not going, that bugs me as much as the guy having a fit.

(Once again I appologise if I bunched you into the overly defensive group. Your actually the one I'm having the bst conversations with here.)

 

[mmu1]

Yes it is, four minutes doesn't seem like a lot of time but 40 rounds does. It was the fact that things were being measured in rounds that should of been the give away. The problem was that they were way too attached to their armor for clerics. I wonder if one of them would of said to heck with the armor I'm getting out there to help if the others would of followed along? They might of all stayed because they all stayed, because nobody took the lead and gave up on the armor they all stuck it out. Obviously the Paladin should of went and he was the one with the Metagame reason for not going, that bugs me as much as the guy having a fit.

(Once again I appologise if I bunched you into the overly defensive group. Your actually the one I'm having the bst conversations with here.)

If I remember. one of them ended up not going because he miscalculated how long it'd take him to get there in the first place, and decided he might as well get his armor on. Something very easily solved if there was more communication between the players and the DM...

 

[jdavis]

If I remember. one of them ended up not going because he miscalculated how long it'd take him to get there in the first place, and decided he might as well get his armor on. Something very easily solved if there was more communication between the players and the DM...

That is actually a very good suggestion. I seem to remeber that one of them miscalculated something and based his choice on that. Simply double checking the numbers may of changed the whole situation. (If one had went the others might of went too).