Diplomatic Immunity OOC: The Third

[Rystil Arden]

Actualy, I thoguht my manifester level was different for each set, because they were seperate manifestor progressions.

Your PsP are actually pooled together and you can choose to cast any Psywar power you know as a Psywar or Warmind if you like (and of course you'll choose Psywar when it has a higher ML and Warmind when it does)--they both come off the Psywar list. If you have the XPH, you can check the Warmind description where it mentions that. The bad news is that you only get bonus power points once between the two classes.

 

[Bront]

Your PsP are actually pooled together and you can choose to cast any Psywar power you know as a Psywar or Warmind if you like (and of course you'll choose Psywar when it has a higher ML and Warmind when it does)--they both come off the Psywar list. If you have the XPH, you can check the Warmind description where it mentions that. The bad news is that you only get bonus power points once between the two classes.

I knew the bonus.

Ok, in that case, yes, 5 levels of Psi-war make a lot more sense, and if I had known that, I would have taken Vigor at 1st, but I was told it worked differently. I guess Toughen Skin is an adiquate power for low levels till you get enchanted armor.

 

[Rystil Arden]

I knew the bonus.

Ok, in that case, yes, 5 levels of Psi-war make a lot more sense, and if I had known that, I would have taken Vigor at 1st, but I was told it worked differently. I guess Toughen Skin is an adiquate power for low levels till you get enchanted armor.

Toughen Skin stacks with enchanted armour since it's a Natural Armour bonus But yeah--Vigour is totally awesome (I don't make a Psion without it)

Who told you the other interpretation? It's wrong, but it may be troublesome if it was an LEW Judge

Oh, and I just remembered that the War Mind only learns 1 power of every level except 1st, which is another count in favour of taking Psywar to get more different powers.

 

[Brother Shatterstone]

[SBLOCK=RA]

In a game of D&D, if a player asks something and the GM says no, that's the answer. There will be no compromise. If the GM asks for a reason, and the player gives it, and it makes sense, then sometimes there will be.

Yup, I agree, However, I think that a player should have the right to explain... something I honestly don't feel like I get with you. You come of as rather closed minded about such things.

As we stand here talking, one of us has edited the post and one of us *still hasn't*. Guess which one hasn't edited--it isn't me.

Yup I didn't do it. I quoted and moved the OOC stuff to the OOC thread where it was suppose to be cleaned up the thread so we could get ready to go and before I got a chance to edit you said you would get back to me in 24 hours.

Seemed like editing the post wasn't truly needed then...

If you were really willing to edit, you would have done so first before asking me to edit.

RA, I'm not clairvoyant so expect for putting up a generic “oh, cool” post theirs no way I can make a post based upon what he was going to say… I’m sorry if you don’t understand that.

I could indeed tell from your OOC at the end of your post that you knew that your interpretation was wrong--and frankly, the fact that you clearly knew that made matters worse--you couldn't claim ignorance.

Very interesting, and to be honest very thought provoking. I will in all honesty give it alot of thought and I am truly sorry that you see me as complete distraction. I’m not in my other games, I can honest say this as I never would have become a PbP mod here if I was a disruptive player but that doesn’t excuse my actions in your games. (and for whatever reason it is just your games and that’s what baffles/bugs me the most…)

Anyhow, I would like to think of myself as someone more reasonable than my actions have portrayed me to be so if you chose to keep me around I will keep such “renegade posts” to a minimum and I will keep them to email or the OOC thread them till you see them.

In this case it is what I sincerely think I should have done. I should have wrote the post that I did (as it was honestly my first interpretation, and there for, probably a valid interpretation of someone who’s very life hung on the words) but I should have posted it OOC/emailed it so you could see it, think about it, not be blind sided by it as who knows maybe you did want the post open to interpretation. (I’m not saying you did in this case only that you could have at the time.)

And honestly I’ve written far longer posts in preparation to things that didn’t happen so 3 paragraphs mean very little to nothing to me. (We all type way too much to worry about something so small.)

Anyhow, I did edit the post in question, and if I had know it was bothering you I would have done it much sooner… I honesty don’t know it will truly be to your liking, I honest think its not what you would want, but it gives far more chance for “recovery” than the previous post did.

Now IF you still don’t like it I will edit on it again.

Anyhow, I should be leaving so to visit my father soon but I will continue to think on what you said here when the moment allows and I look forward to seeing what the end of that 24 hours brings. [/sblock]

 

[Rystil Arden]

[SBLOCK=BS]
I think that your last reply was a very good start into helping with the problem. However, there are still a few issues I'd like to try to bring up:

However, I think that a player should have the right to explain... something I honestly don't feel like I get with you. You come of as rather closed minded about such things.

The player has the right to explain only if the GM hasn't already made a final decision. When the player exercises that right, they explain once, and then the GM makes a choice. There is not extra arguing after that, and if the GM still decides something else, it doesn't mean they are being close-minded. My other players tend to find me open-minded to ideas, but that is because your definition of open-minded diverges a little from theirs, I think.

RA, I'm not clairvoyant so expect for putting up a generic “oh, cool” post theirs no way I can make a post based upon what he was going to say… I’m sorry if you don’t understand that.

I think I need to reiterate what I said before: If you were really willing to edit, you would have done so first before asking me to edit.

But your response makes a big and rather startling assumption--it assumes that I was going to edit my post. You should have edited first regardless of whether I edited or not. No clairvoyance necessary. Look how the NDP did it in my long post.

In this case it is what I sincerely think I should have done. I should have wrote the post that I did (as it was honestly my first interpretation, and there for, probably a valid interpretation of someone who’s very life hung on the words) but I should have posted it OOC/emailed it so you could see it, think about it, not be blind sided by it as who knows maybe you did want the post open to interpretation. (I’m not saying you did in this case only that you could have at the time.)

That would have been completely acceptable. Also, if you had immediately edited it, that would have been fine too. The reason why posting it OOC would have been better is actually not for me (I don't care where it goes first) but for you--you seem to be a lot more stubborn about changing things once you've posted them IC, so if you posted it OOC, I think you would have been more likely to listen--because let's face it: If all we had was your post, my request for an edit, and then you edited, we wouldn't be here right now, which is why this next thing you said seems to be a bit dishonest:

Anyhow, I did edit the post in question, and if I had know it was bothering you I would have done it much sooner…

Last point:

Anyhow, I did edit the post in question

You did, but then you didn't. You kept everything that was wrong and then cut off the end. And especially with my edit, which was carefully chosen to make your old interpretation 100% untenable, you leave Kalli looking like, for lack of a more polite way to say it, an idiot, if we put the text together like this:

K: “Oh, so even if there was no Lynestra there would still be someone else to keep us apart?”

C: "Oh, no, not at all--don't worry Kalli. Lynestra is the only one."

K: “You would rather be single forever than to be with me?”
[/SBLOCK]

 

[Brother Shatterstone]

[SBLOCK=RA]

I think that your last reply was a very good start into helping with the problem.

Well that's good.

The player has the right to explain only if the GM hasn't already made a final decision. When the player exercises that right, they explain once, and then the GM makes a choice.

I have no issue with that, never have, but I would like for the DM to understand why and we’ve spent alot of time debating/arguing cause when I explain something you don’t seem to catch what I’m truly trying to say. (Your replies talk about things other than what I’m truly trying to say.)

I think I need to reiterate what I said before: If you were really willing to edit, you would have done so first before asking me to edit.

Okay, next time I will edit, ask you to edit (if need be), and then edit my post again. (if need be.)

I know that's going to come off as wrong but, RA, I don't really know what to see other than your post came first and if its going to be edited it needs to be done first.

Now I know we have talked about this so there is no need to do it again. If I'm still around I will do as you've asked me to do here. (and if need be I will ask OOC if it’s okay if I edit my post again after/if you edit your own.)

But your response makes a big and rather startling assumption--it assumes that I was going to edit my post.

Your right. In this case I did assume you where going to edit. It was simple text and we were both trying to keep from having an IC misunderstanding.

The reason why posting it OOC would have been better is actually not for me (I don't care where it goes first) but for you--you seem to be a lot more stubborn about changing things once you've posted them IC, so if you posted it OOC, I think you would have been more likely to listen--

I would agree. It becomes more of a "I, the DM, know your character better than you do" and I don't really handle that all to well.

because let's face it: If all we had was your post, my request for an edit, and then you edited, we wouldn't be here right now,

Actually, again I would agree except that I also asked you for an edit for IC clarification and that started us down this path.

which is why this next thing you said seems to be a bit dishonest:

It shouldn't, and if it does then you’re misinterpreting my words. (Funny how that happens)

You did, but then you didn't. You kept everything that was wrong and then cut off the end.

Your right I did. I reread your post much to quickly (obviously) and went and edited without back tracking far enough. Your changes seemed rather too subtle to truly effect it but your right IT DOES. (I am sorry)

I will edit again, though to be honest, it won't be as much as an "edit" as a whole new, and much happier, post.

I don't know if I will get the edit in now though. My sister is on her way here so we can go and visit father. (I will edit as soon as I get home though. It should only be a few hours.)[/sblock]

 

[Brother Shatterstone]

RA: [sblock]got the edit in[/sblock]

 

[Rystil Arden]

[SBLOCK=BS]
Well, it looks like we are coming to an amicable agreement, which is good. A few minor things:

we’ve spent alot of time debating/arguing cause when I explain something you don’t seem to catch what I’m truly trying to say. (Your replies talk about things other than what I’m truly trying to say.)

I find this a little bit odd (and a bit ironic) because I just received an e-mail a few minutes ago that said:

In particular, I think you're good about listening, because you'll tend to refute using their arguement, showing that you see what their saying, and that's why it's wrong. At least when you can.

(and if need be I will ask OOC if it’s okay if I edit my post again after/if you edit your own.)

Perfectly acceptable--makes sense to me.

I would agree. It becomes more of a "I, the DM, know your character better than you do" and I don't really handle that all to well.

That's because you are getting the wrong idea. What this really is "I, the DM who wrote that text, know what I said better than you and you may not have been reading clearly. This is what it really means, so have your character react for that." This is not the first time you misread something I wrote to say something it seemed like you preferred--The weirdest and most unusual was where I sent you an e-mail that only said 'No' and you thought it said 'Yes'. That one was particularly hard for me to fathom, but at least afterwards I expected you would take me at my word about things like this in the future.

Actually, again I would agree except that I also asked you for an edit for IC clarification and that started us down this path.

You actually didn't want an edit for IC clarification--you wanted a total rewrite that changed the entire meaning. My reason for believing this is that when I gave an edit for clarification, you declared it not enough--you deleted the post where you said this, but it was basically "I still see no reason to edit my post." Let's not talk about this matter though--we're over it.

It shouldn't, and if it does then you’re misinterpreting my words. (Funny how that happens)

Let's take a look at the quote in question--

Anyhow, I did edit the post in question, and if I had know it was bothering you I would have done it much sooner…

To my mind, this is clearly untrue. I let you know it was bothering me right away, and you didn't edit it until now. If you had, everything would have been fine.

Your right I did. I reread your post much to quickly (obviously) and went and edited without back tracking far enough. Your changes seemed rather too subtle to truly effect it but your right IT DOES. (I am sorry)

Thank you. I am honestly glad you agree because this is the root of your more recent problems, particularly

I reread your post much to quickly (obviously)...but your right IT DOES.

The secret is that if I had done exactly the same thing with my original post, it would have looked almost entirely as silly. I think if you approach the next time I call for an edit remembering that I generally know what I'm talking about when I say that a sequence of responses make sense logically, that this will work better. It's a bit of variation of this:

I would agree. It becomes more of a "I, the DM, know your character better than you do" and I don't really handle that all to well.

and this:

I'm rather empathic, which is probably what makes me such a great
roleplayer

that is your problem: You think that you understand what is going on in the gameworld better than the GM. What's more, you think of your opinion as being objectively correct and the be-all-end-all, particularly if it involves your character. In fact, it seems to me from your last few posts that you *still* think that way, but that out of respect for the fact that it is frustrating me you are willing to do what I say in the future despite the fact that you find it to be wrong to do so. This will work for keeping the game from being disruptive, but I'm not sure that you will be happy that way. My suggestion to you if we want to keep everyone happy is that you learn to get over this perception, so that doing the things I suggest becomes normal instead of a painful thing you do only because I told you you had to.[/SBLOCK]

 

[Brother Shatterstone]

[SBLOCK=Rystil Arden]

Well, it looks like we are coming to an amicable agreement, which is good. A few minor things:

Again I would agree for the most part.

I find this a little bit odd (and a bit ironic) because I just received an e-mail a few minutes ago that said:

Oh, RA, when you want to you can but there has been many times where you haven't looked or thought about what I posted. I can point to the cause and effect and the editing of posts from the previous time and if need be I could dig through other things but it shouldn't be needed.

Maybe it’s just my perception but it is an issue that needs to be addressed and worked on.

You actually didn't want an edit for IC clarification--you wanted a total rewrite that changed the entire meaning.

How was, "No, Kalli there would be no one else in the way" a total rewrite?

To my mind, this is clearly untrue. I let you know it was bothering me right away, and you didn't edit it until now. If you had, everything would have been fine.

RA, that's a bunch of crap. You let me know as a DM that it needed to be changed. I didn't know it bothered you personally till I read it this morning... but this is a good time to bring up an issue you are having. A lack of trust.

You think that you understand what is going on in the game world better than the GM.... In fact, it seems to me from your last few posts that you *still* think that way, but that out of respect for the fact that it is frustrating me you are willing to do what I say in the future despite the fact that you find it to be wrong to do so.

No, nope not really at all. I've asked many, many, questions about your gaming world and your right in some ways, when it comes to what my character's actions/motives/thoughts I do know better than you but you implied alot in this part of the post that I'm going to ignore for the betterment of the game.

This will work for keeping the game from being disruptive, but I'm not sure that you will be happy that way.

If I have to take a possible troublesome post and post it OOC to keep from having this crap happen again so be it.

My suggestion to you if we want to keep everyone happy is that you learn to get over this perception, so that doing the things I suggest becomes normal instead of a painful thing you do only because I told you you had to.[/SBLOCK]

RA, I will do it in your games cause you need it done but to be honest you’re a rather unique GM. An example of this is this last night I PMed another GM about a character he had just introduced to the game. This character was for one scene and a scene with no long term effect to the game. After a few PMs my suggestion was acted on. Did I expect this to happen? No not really but I knew I had a better chance with this GM than you can his world, for better or worse, isn’t planned out to the minute detail that your world is and you, RA, hate making changes more than me.

Anyhow, I think we’ve cleared up the issues you have with me so I think it’s time for us to address the problems I have with you.

Lack of trust, if I do something wrong, reading a post wrong, email or what not, I seem to be accused immediately of trying to cause problems, and even as I explain, I’m still accused of more things... I cannot make a simple mistake with you I’m some evil creature out to cause trouble. Now, you can argue that I deserve to be treated like this if you wish but that’s not going to change the fact that this isn’t a healthy way for a game to be ran…

I’m not expecting you to give me the “key to your city” right now but you do need to learn to trust me again cause if not then you might as well kick me out of the game now because, like anyone else, I don’t like to be accused of reading something wrong on purpose, general causing trouble, or anything else. I’m not perfect, never claimed to be, and would like to have a chance to explain myself before I’m accused of some ghastly deed the next time I error. (Which, I will also admit right now I will do again.)

My next issue might just be my perception and your choice of words but I really don’t think my ideas are being truly considered. Now, I’ve never once said a DM “You need to change this in your world or I’m gone” and, no, I’m not saying that now but if I’m going to have any fun (and that’s what we are hear to do) your going to practice saying no while giving the impression you considered my idea. It can happen, I've seen it done alot, hell you use to do it back in the Molpe heydays...

Maybe you honesty do, RA, and it’s just my perception in which case you just need to chose your words with a little more thought and if you don’t see that as a problem then you might as well just kick me out.

I think if I work on what you addressed and you work on what I address then we should be able to make this work with no more issues… (Which would be nice… so nice indeed.)

Edit: Damn’t sblock. (see I told you I would make another mistake soon…) [/sblock]

 

[Rystil Arden]

[SBLOCK=BS]

Maybe it’s just my perception

Yes, I think it is clearly your perception. I always read and think through before responding--suggesting that I don't is something of an insult to my GMing.

How was, "No, Kalli there would be no one else in the way" a total rewrite?

That's not what you wanted to have as the rewrite. Conveniently, however, you deleted what you really said.

RA, that's a bunch of crap. You let me know as a DM that it needed to be changed. I didn't know it bothered you personally till I read it this morning... but this is a good time to bring up an issue you are having. A lack of trust.

Of course it didn't bother me personally. But as you mentioned, I said it had to change. It bothered me as a GM because it was wrong.

but this is a good time to bring up an issue you are having. A lack of trust.

It is somewhat misleading to describe a lack of trust as an issue on my side when that lack of faith is a direct consequence of your actions. I began with a lot of good faith for you, BS. I'm sure you could see that. But it has been steadily trickling away through your actions and attitude. As I mentioned earlier, if it wasn't for the beginning where I had that faith and trust in you, and the first example of the way you act is what you had been doing recently, You would have been kicked out a while ago.

you implied alot in this part of the post that I'm going to ignore for the betterment of the game.

Unfortunately, what I implied is accurate according to the way you've spoken of things. I've heard you talk in objective senses about the 'correct' response or the 'right' thing or how you 'can't' change it without X edit.

and you, RA, hate making changes more than me.

You know what? I never have problems about making changes, and in fact, am known to make changes frequently--I find it fun. The issue is this, though: When it comes down to player and GM and one of them has to change, the player always makes the change.

Maybe you honesty do, RA, and it’s just my perception

Yes, it's just your perception--and that perception is actually a problem. You think that a GM who is disagreeing with you and making decisions contrary to your wishes is not listening to you. I'm always listening, but I'm just often not agreeing.

Now, I will admit--sometimes, very rarely, I will dismiss your arguments immediately, but this only occurs in rare instances where you try to argue things that you have absolutely no right to argue (like that time you were rules-lawyering with me on the abilities that I invented--I mean, what the heck?)
[/SBLOCK]