Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="BluejayJunior" data-source="post: 8120235" data-attributes="member: 6918769">And Merlin, Morgana nor Mordred were knights of the&nbsp; round table.&nbsp; So, in my Knights of the Round table campaign, why are you playing a character that specifically WASN'T a knight of the round table and then blaming me for not being flexible enough?But, if I don't want to deal with ronin or whatnot in my game, why are you forcing me to and then insisting that I'm not being flexible enough?&nbsp; The game is NOT ABOUT subverting expectations, this time around, it's about THESE EXPECTATIONS.&nbsp; So, in the Samurai game, PLAY A SAMURAI.&nbsp; No, don't play a Ronin.&nbsp; No, don't play a commoner.&nbsp; No, you can't play a Yakuza.&nbsp; This is a game about a group of Samurai.&nbsp; Now, if you don't want to play in that?&nbsp; No problems.&nbsp; That's fine.&nbsp; This is not the game for you.&nbsp; But, don't agree to play and then try to sabotage the game by pretending to be compromising and then go all passive aggressive on the DM and expect him to be happy about it.</blockquote>I think you have demonstrated how clearly expectations need to laid out. You say &quot;Knights of the Round Table&quot; and mean everyone must play a knight, but don't explicitly say that. And then you are getting mad when people suggested characters that are central figures in the Round Table (Arthurian) legends. It clearly shows that your expectations of what Knights of the Round Table means does not match everyone else's. There is nothing wrong with people inferring different things from a vague concept like that, but you can't blame other people for not understanding what you meant when you made a vague suggestion. Especially when it comes to Merlin. Merlin set up the Round Table and was an advisor to the Knights of the Round Table. Why wouldn't people think &quot;wizard/cleric/etc. advisor to the Knights&quot; is an acceptable character idea for a Knights of the Round Table game?[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE="BluejayJunior, post: 8120235, member: 6918769"] And Merlin, Morgana nor Mordred were knights of the round table. So, in my Knights of the Round table campaign, why are you playing a character that specifically WASN'T a knight of the round table and then blaming me for not being flexible enough? But, if I don't want to deal with ronin or whatnot in my game, why are you forcing me to and then insisting that I'm not being flexible enough? The game is NOT ABOUT subverting expectations, this time around, it's about THESE EXPECTATIONS. So, in the Samurai game, PLAY A SAMURAI. No, don't play a Ronin. No, don't play a commoner. No, you can't play a Yakuza. This is a game about a group of Samurai. Now, if you don't want to play in that? No problems. That's fine. This is not the game for you. But, don't agree to play and then try to sabotage the game by pretending to be compromising and then go all passive aggressive on the DM and expect him to be happy about it. [/QUOTE] I think you have demonstrated how clearly expectations need to laid out. You say "Knights of the Round Table" and mean everyone must play a knight, but don't explicitly say that. And then you are getting mad when people suggested characters that are central figures in the Round Table (Arthurian) legends. It clearly shows that your expectations of what Knights of the Round Table means does not match everyone else's. There is nothing wrong with people inferring different things from a vague concept like that, but you can't blame other people for not understanding what you meant when you made a vague suggestion. Especially when it comes to Merlin. Merlin set up the Round Table and was an advisor to the Knights of the Round Table. Why wouldn't people think "wizard/cleric/etc. advisor to the Knights" is an acceptable character idea for a Knights of the Round Table game? [/QUOTE]

Verification