Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="El Jefe" data-source="post: 3143649" data-attributes="member: 19990">I read and responded to post 930 before seeing this one, so forgive me if this seems confusing.I think this might be the crux of the matter.  When you mentioned (after the party had escaped the encounter and crossed the ridge) that you thought that the party had (meaning, had physical possession of) all three soldiers, I thought that you'd just misread a post or two or maybe made an unsupported assumption.  As for myself, I was utterly baffled how you could be so convinced that Zaeryl couldn't have left one behind, given what was posted.  Then I read post 753, where Zaeryl claimed IC that "we got all three" (emphasis mine).  At the time, Zaeryl could not have any knowledge of the disposition of Private Stander, as he was out of sight.  Zaeryl knew that Private Stander had been blasted and fallen, but left the area before Michael even approached the fallen soldier.  So, Zaeryl is dragging Squatter, and encounters Giant Ironwolf who is carrying Kneeler, and says we got all three.It's that blasted word got.  You were (I think?) interpreting that as meaning, "the party has physical possession of all three dead or unconscious soldiers", and I interpreted it as meaning, "the party has defeated and rendered insensible all three soldiers".Unless Zaeryl counted noses when everyone but Ironwolf regrouped on their horses, there was no way for him to know Private Stander's fate.  I assumed (evidently a bad assumption) that when I posted that you were all (except Ironwolf, who you'd already seen carrying Kneeler) gathered in a clearing, all mounted, and that Hulgyr (and nobody else) had a soldier on his horse that you understood the sitation.  And IC, recall that this was about the time Zaeryl was not counting noses but rather arguing with Eternity over whether Squatter should be examined or not.  Zaeryl, as I recall, "couldn't be bothered with such trivialities".  Again, my bad...I assumed this extended to stopping and accounting for the presence of all three soldiers.And that's your perogative, and I certainly don't have a problem with that.  All I ask is that you don't assume that the DM is "out to get you" if, by some strange twist of plot or fate, that what appears to be unreasonable at first turns out to be much more sensible in the long run.From my perspective as a DM, I don't care if the party splits 1:5 (say, with Zaeryl going off on his own and everyone else thinking he's nuts) or 5:1 (with 4 PCs agreeing with Zaeryl that Michael is nuts) or 3:3.  I have to be fair to everyone, and if I allow Michael to run off on his own and do something the rest of the party doesn't like, then I have to also allow Zaeryl to run off on his own and do something the rest of the party doesn't like.  I'd prefer for the party to be one big happy family, but think it very poor form to demand that they do so like some petty tyrant.  And if the price for doing that is that I have to act like a lightning rod for these types of disagreements, then I'm willing to do that.  Really, I'm just trying to give everyone the best gaming experience I can.</blockquote>

Verification