Tom Cashel said:
You don't know Thing One about my campaign.
Pot. Kettle. Black.
Tom Cashel said:
You don't know Thing One about my campaign.
Pielorinho said:
Note that when you say you don't want to waste time "on role-playing every scene the PCs choose to create," it sounds like you don't want the PCs to choose their direction. THe halfling-in-a-bar scene coulda been tons of fun to play through; I gave four examples of how to turn it into an interesting, dramatic scene.
However, in this case, I think the DM missed an opportunity to play out a great scene that could have helped define the halfling's personality.
Daniel
hong said:
Pot. Kettle. Black.
Tom Cashel said:
And yet, I'm not the one who diverged from the topic at hand to say, "Gee, Hong...if you feel that way then your campaign must really suck."
Nor am I saying it now. Although I do know that you have run games in FR, and I've looked at a few of your story hours, and thought they were interesting.
Tom Cashel said:
Anyway, I still think there's not much else to say without knowing why the DM chose to throw the halfling out. I think I just read the original post a little differently...the player griping about how he was made a fool of, and he argued with the DM, "and my wife agreed with me too!" Sounds like there could be a lot of reasons why the DM did what he/she did...not all of them related to game mechanics.
But I could be wrong.
Tom Cashel said:
As we all know, Australia is entirely peopled with criminals. Perhaps that is why you take my statements as provocative.
Oh, wait...being an American, that is surely the pot calling the kettle black.
But I'd better be smugly abbreviated:
Hey, hong--pot. kettle. black.
Ooh, I feel so cool now.
Umbran said:As a number have noted, we here can speculate until we are blue in the face. We can make criticism or give support to the DM's actions until Doomsday. I am no longer sure it's relevant.
There's an old saying - "You have to pick your battles."
The DM is human. The players are human. No human ever sees all of another's actions as 100% optimal. Whether it's a matter of an actual right/wrong, or just a matter of perception is not important. It is important to realize that you will, on occasion, disagree with the DM.
You are engaged in a cooperative story-telling effort. Cooperation implies compromise. Sometimes you get what you want, sometimes someone else does. In joining up, you implicitly agreed to accept the occasional sub-optimal scenario for yourself.
Now, as this is a cooperation, sometimes you should get what you want. The question is, is this the proper time and event to push for that? Remember, the character came to no harm. Given that, is this important enough to make a fuss over?