Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Sacrosanct" data-source="post: 6410163" data-attributes="member: 15700">Oh barf...  That's twice you've used "victim blaming" for this.  Look man, there are certain things here that are objective and not up for debate.  THey are:* OP posts thread on several forums complaining about how horrible this DM is and what a horrible person he is.   You yourself jumped in with personal insults to him by calling him lazy, ignorant, and even questioned that he might be a liar* OP engages in heavy use of hyperbole in his complaints that aren't literally true.* AFTER being called out publicly and thrown under the bus, the DM in question used phrases like "I'm sorry you feel that way, maybe this isn't for you."* BEFORE being called out publicly, we have no idea how the conversation went.So based on the above, which is objectively true, you're conclusion is that it's the OP who was rational and the DM was irrational?  Come on now.  Heck,I'd even go so far as to say the DM, regardless of any mistake he might have made about not clearly calling out house rules before the game started, deserves extra credit, as if I were in his shoes and someone just did to me on all these forums what the OP did to him, I would have been a hella lot LESS polite than the DM was in the chat log above.  My response would have been closer to, "Look dude, you didn't get your way and you decided the best way to handle this was to take it public and throw a fit?  Good riddance, because you're not the player I want anywhere near my table."  But this DM didn't do that.  EVen after being called out and thrown under the bus (with inaccuracies to boot), he was still polite and reasonable.  There is nothing in the DM's chat logs that was blatant hyperbole like the OP has used frequently.You said all new DMs should stick with pre-published material.  When pointed out how ridiculous that is because the hobby never would have taken off like it did if all new DMs had to follow your rules, you called that hyperbole.  Look man, you've had more than one person who was there tell you it's not hyperbole, and thus your assumptions are flat out ridiculous.  By your own admission, you weren't there.  You have no idea.  And I have no idea what you're doing here, trying to imply I am talking bad about those old adventures.  Yet another shifting of the goal posts I suppose.  My point was, and is, that if new DMs were required to only use prepublished material, you wouldn't have seen the growth in the hobby because the vast majority of us in the late 70s/early 80s were new DMs, and many of us immediately ran our own adventures.  You don't go from 5,000 D&D players to 100,000 in a few years by saying only experienced DMs should run their own stuff.  If I had to only run officially published adventures?  F that.  That also flies directly into the face of what D&D is, by discouraging new DMs to create their own stuff.  I suggest you read the AD&D DMG.  Heck, check that.  I suggest you read the BASIC set, because it's got a significant section on creating your own stuff.Person A engages in hyperbole and takes discussion public trying to throw person B under the bus.  Person B responds with reasoned responses devoid of insults or hyperbole, and you're saying "everything I see clearly points to (person B being) a BAD DM"?Wow.  Like I said, you're using your own biases to completely ignore the objective stuff we have to push your own agenda.  Your usage of phrases like "victim blaming" only confirm those suspicions. If there's a victim here, it's the DM, as he's the one who didn't take this public, and he's the one who has been called incompetent and lazy (by yourself nonetheless).</blockquote>

Verification