Help please. Complaints by players!

[JacktheRabbit]

Doc, really... What the heck is wrong with you? You are the single most confrontational person on these boards, and to the best of my knowledge, no one is this thread has make this a "Lets Argue with Doc" thread...

And I'm going to take issue with your whole "end of reality" bit. NOT end of reality.

I've had a number of years of weapons training and experience, from the SCA, to Kenjitsu, to fencing. You bloody well know what you over-extend yourself, when you mess up and fall for a feint, and when you put yourself at a disadvantage against even one opponent. You really really do. And I'm not someone who has to rely on my skill for anything, it's just a hobby. If I were someone who fought for my life often, it wouldn't even be up for discussion.

Really. I do believe that in this thread I have been twice if not thrice insulted by derogatory comments about my DMing style merely cause I put forth my opinion on this topic.

Now the problem between us is obvious. I play a role play game. the rules are there as a background to make the world work. Your attitude seriously seems to suggest your DnD sessions are elaborate versions of chess where everything is very regimented and structured.

You tell the fighter that the rogue just bluffed him and now is striking with sneak attack damage included. I on the other hand describe how the rogue missed horribly in his last round of combat and when you attempted to take advantage of it he suddenly stepped in and buried his dagger deeply in your side.

Both methods are DnD and both are legitimate game styles. I know which one I want to play in and you know which one you want to play in. Don't tell me or anyone else they did something wrong because they didnt do it the way you like to play.

 

[Tsyr]

Now the problem between us is obvious. I play a role play game. the rules are there as a background to make the world work. Your attitude seriously seems to suggest your DnD sessions are elaborate versions of chess where everything is very regimented and structured.

Uh, no. Sorry.

Actualy, I'm one of the most rules-light DMs I know, online or off.

You tell the fighter that the rogue just bluffed him and now is striking with sneak attack damage included. I on the other hand describe how the rogue missed horribly in his last round of combat and when you attempted to take advantage of it he suddenly stepped in and buried his dagger deeply in your side.

No, I don't. And I'll thank you to keep your (wrong) asserations about how I play to yourself in the future.

Both methods are DnD and both are legitimate game styles. I know which one I want to play in and you know which one you want to play in. Don't tell me or anyone else they did something wrong because they didnt do it the way you like to play.

I was asked for my opinion, damnit. That gives me the right to say whatever I feel like. While we are on the topic about not telling people what is right and wrong, how about you calling names (IE, Lord Meta Gamer) and spouting out crap like "And I bet you flip over other people's cards in poker!" to people who disagree with you.

 

[JacktheRabbit]

(Interesting thing I just noticed...technically, by the rules, there is no time limit on a Bluff. It's just 'your next attack'. That's probably an oversight.)

J

I noticed this too. I do it as the following round only.

I also feel that if the fighter moves more than 5' he will be so out of position relative to where he was bluffed that he will still get his dexterity bonus. This would make the battle more fluid as one side would retreat once they knew they were in a bad position tactically. I don't use it though since no one in the party uses this particular combat style and I have only to date thrown one rogue at them that did specialize in it.

 

[JacktheRabbit]

I was asked for my opinion, damnit. That gives me the right to say whatever I feel like. While we are on the topic about not telling people what is right and wrong, how about you calling names (IE, Lord Meta Gamer) and spouting out crap like "And I bet you flip over other people's cards in poker!" to people who disagree with you.

Opinion? you told him he broke a rule when he most certainly did not break a rule.

Lord Meta Gamer? Flip over other peoples poker hands?

Pretty thin skinned aint ya there Tsyr seeing as neither of these were aimed at you and were in fact aimed at someone who called me a Nazi.

Now you tell me.

What is the deeper insult? Being called a meta gamer? Or being compared to a political organization who butchered 12 million plus people for not being blonde and blue eyed?

In fact do me one better. Tell me where my insults are even.

Meta Gamer - Thats a description not an insult. The person (and other people in question as well) are arguing that the DM changed something that the player in question would never know in character. That is meta gaming. Saying hey this rope bridge is more slippery than a slippery rope bridge should be is not only meta gaming its LAME meta gaming.

Flipping Cards - That one is simple. It describes exactly what he wants to happen. He wants to know when he is bluffed the instant he is bluffed even though that defeats the whole purpose of bluffing.

To be honest I did not insult anyone. I used terms to accurately describe how people are acting. If you do not like the terms being used then don't act that way.

At the same time I was called a nazi.


Gee, we can sure see why you are jumping all over my case and not his.

Next time Ill play it safe and tell the player he should look for job openings in the Khmer Rouge. That way I don't have to worry about your lordship jumping all over my case.

 

[Tsyr]

Opinion? you told him he broke a rule when he most certainly did not break a rule.

Why don't you try reading ALL of what I said, instead of just the first little bit?

What I said was, by (and I do believe this is the second time I'm saying this to you alone, much less in the thread) some people's standards, the rules in the PHB/DMG are absolute, and technicly their are rules existing to cover this type of situation.[/b]

Lord Meta Gamer? Flip over other peoples poker hands?

Pretty thin skinned aint ya there Tsyr

Not hardly. If I actualy felt you had insulted me in truth, I wouldn't be posting to this thread anymore.

seeing as neither of these were aimed at you and were in fact aimed at someone who called me a Nazi.

Now you tell me.

What is the deeper insult? Being called a meta gamer? Or being compared to a political organization who butchered 12 million plus people for not being blonde and blue eyed?

Actualy, a cursory Ctrl+F search of all four pages of this thread reaveals exactly two instances of the word nazi... both in your post.

If, however, someone did call you a nazi... And I'm just not seeing it... Was it by any chance "rule nazi", or similar? In that case, the word nazi has about as much strength as calling something "gay" to call it uncool. Neither are a good use of the english language, but nor is it trying to factualy assert you are a genocidal maniac.

And you accuse me of having thin skin?

In fact do me one better. Tell me where my insults are even.

Meta Gamer - Thats a description not an insult. The person (and other people in question as well) are arguing that the DM changed something that the player in question would never know in character. That is meta gaming. Saying hey this rope bridge is more slippery than a slippery rope bridge should be is not only meta gaming its LAME meta gaming.

Flipping Cards - That one is simple. It describes exactly what he wants to happen. He wants to know when he is bluffed the instant he is bluffed even though that defeats the whole purpose of bluffing.

To be honest I did not insult anyone. I used terms to accurately describe how people are acting. If you do not like the terms being used then don't act that way.

At the same time I was called a nazi.


Gee, we can sure see why you are jumping all over my case and not his.

Next time Ill play it safe and tell the player he should look for job openings in the Khmer Rouge. That way I don't have to worry about your lordship jumping all over my case.

To insult someone does not require saying "Hey, Bob, I insult you!". Insulting can be anything from the tone of the post, to the language, to the words, to the intent behind the words. "

 

[mmu1]

A bluff only works when you dont know its a bluff!

As far as the fighter knows the rogue missed the first round and then hit him really hard the second round.

End of story, end of reality, that is all BYE BYE.

Hah... Please. You post your idiotic example to try to prove how players are wrong to ever question a DM, and it's one in which the player was right to question you because you can't even get the rules straight...

So you switch to talking about something you're intimately familiar with - calling the use of every little bit of information that YOU didn't personally feed your players "Metagaming".

Guess what - if you describe a feint as someone missing badly one round, and then hitting hard in the following round, you're either a)An inept DM that couldn't describe an "orc and pie" encounter or b)Going out of your way not to imply a relationship between the two in order to keep your players confused and satisfy your control-freak impulses.

I wouldn't discount option a) out of hand, but given how many of your posts read like: "One of my players dared to display independent thought, so I had to threaten to shoot his dog. Was I wrong? ... NO! SILENCE! You're WRONG! METAGAMER! You can all go to hell, I'll run my game the way I like to! METAGAMER!", I'm leaning towards b).

And since watching you foam at the mouth amuses me, I'll continue posting my opinions when and where I feel like it, thank you very much.

 

[JacktheRabbit]

Hah... Please. You post your idiotic example

Nope, no immature name callers here.

Your posts are no longer worth the effort to respond to. No matter how much your comments make me laugh.

Btw, as for that Orc and Pie. Take a guess where you can shove it.

 

[drnuncheon]

I also feel that if the fighter moves more than 5' he will be so out of position relative to where he was bluffed that he will still get his dexterity bonus. This would make the battle more fluid as one side would retreat once they knew they were in a bad position tactically.

No wonder your players would retreat if they thought they had failed a Sense Motive roll.

If you want to changing things to avoid making Sneak Attack useless, you might want to consider tossing out this house rule first.

J

 

[JacktheRabbit]

No wonder your players would retreat if they thought they had failed a Sense Motive roll.

If you want to changing things to avoid making Sneak Attack useless, you might want to consider tossing out this house rule first.

J

Partial quoting on purpose to serve a purpose or by accident?

I very clearly said :

"I also feel that if the fighter moves more than 5' he will be so out of position relative to where he was bluffed that he will still get his dexterity bonus. This would make the battle more fluid as one side would retreat once they knew they were in a bad position tactically.<b>I don't use it though</b> since no one in the party uses this particular combat style and I have only to date thrown one rogue at them that did specialize in it."

 

[mmu1]

Btw, as for that Orc and Pie. Take a guess where you can shove it.

That's the best you can do?

I'd answer your question, but I don't want to offend Eric's Grandma, and I'm shocked and appalled anyone would suggest I do such a thing to his own mother...