Attacked on introduction?

[librarius_arcana]

So you think it is an adult and conductive response to remain in character and engage in intra-party conflict? Without discussing such matters in advance, or taking a time-off for a metagame discussion?

Don't assume anything

I don't. I agree that the OP could have handled the problem better.

Again maybe you needed to be there

 

[ColonelHardisson]

While the kid seems immature, he is, well, a kid. So that's to be expected. What I can't figure is why everyone is holding the OP blameless in the situation.

I mean his character concept is that he gullible, a lunatic or a gullible lunatic. Dressed in aurthurian myth or not the core of his character concept is that he suffers from a delusion. He doesn't bother to explain this to any of the other players, apparently because he prides himself on his roleplaying. When he reveals his delusion, the DM asks for a know nature check. (not know history, sense motive, know nobility or anything that might allow him to give the other player some hint of what is going on.) His character defends his delusion, becoming more extremely delusional, rather than give the kid a break and step out of character for a moment to explain what is going on in the conversation. No, "the fine art of staying in character" requires that he continue to act in a completely irrational manner.

Wow, what a shock that the kid got frustrated and just went for PVP. :\

I wouldn't have either the kid or the OP at my table based on this story.

You're really reaching to get a contrarian view on this.

 

[shilsen]

Hey, leave his parents' motivations out of it!

Dammit - you beat me to it!

 

[Kahuna Burger]

You're really reaching to get a contrarian view on this.

Actually I'm responding to the thread honestly. I'm sorry that you can't concieve of a alternate veiw except as a constructed opposition. :\ Try saying what you think instead of imagining what I do.

 

[ColonelHardisson]

Actually I'm responding to the thread honestly.

I don't believe you.

I'm sorry that you can't concieve of a alternate veiw except as a constructed opposition.

I can. But are you really sorry? Honestly apologetic? Is that what you really think?

:\ Try saying what you think instead of imagining what I do.

I do say what I think. I think what you said was nonsense. You tried to take a contrarian view, and went into verbal contortions to wring "constructed opposition" (whatever that is) out of little substance.

 

[Menexenus]

I can't attack a hempless foe.

Quick! Drop the rope! He can't attack us if you do!

Hahaha! I got a good laugh out of this one!

 

[Teflon Billy]

...Wow, what a shock that the kid got frustrated and just went for PVP. :\

What the?

The kid tried for a player kill, and it was ok becasue he was frustrated :\

What kind of rejects do you play with?

 

[Agent Oracle]

While the kid seems immature, he is, well, a kid. So that's to be expected. What I can't figure is why everyone is holding the OP blameless in the situation. Snip Wow, what a shock that the kid got frustrated and just went for PVP. :\

Now see here, I had gotten to say a grand total of two lines to the kid before he took a shot at me. I said I was looking for a questing beast, and then described it (I should have said serpent / leopard / lion / deer combination, but i digress) he attacked me before I ever got a chance to drop character and explain the concept of a "backstory".

He made a Knowledge check, with a grand total of +6 to the roll (+4 INT, +2 ranks) and when the GM said "you don't know it". he attacked me.

I wouldn't have either the kid or the OP at my table based on this story.

Wow, that's harsh. I guess you don't like roleplayers. I'm going back to the group to see if I can take this kid in under my wing. Get him some familiarity with backstorys and roleplaying for it's own reward.

 

[genshou]

Now see here, I had gotten to say a grand total of two lines to the kid before he took a shot at me. I said I was looking for a questing beast, and then described it (I should have said serpent / leopard / lion / deer combination, but i digress) he attacked me before I ever got a chance to drop character and explain the concept of a "backstory".

He made a Knowledge check, with a grand total of +6 to the roll (+4 INT, +2 ranks) and when the GM said "you don't know it". he attacked me.

Based on these facts, I can't imagine suddenly attacking someone to be within the norms of socially acceptable human behaviour. In fact, about the only person who could be provoked to attack given the circumstances would be a madman. Unlike some here I don't see saying two lines about a quest beast to be such bad playing that I should blame the situation on you and never game with you. That does strike me as contrarian just for the sake of being contrarian. I don't even see a valid argument within that statement at all.

Wow, that's harsh. I guess you don't like roleplayers. I'm going back to the group to see if I can take this kid in under my wing. Get him some familiarity with backstorys and roleplaying for it's own reward.

It's certainly possible that this kid might be redeemed if given a chance, and by age 18 we could have an upstanding role-player to add to the gaming community. Bravo for your willingness to try where I would not have the tenacity to go on.

 

[merelycompetent]

...I'm going back to the group to see if I can take this kid in under my wing. Get him some familiarity with backstorys and roleplaying for it's own reward.

I like that answer better than my previous one. I hope it works out