Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="jmucchiello" data-source="post: 4046984" data-attributes="member: 813">I realize that. Still, I felt they needed to be addresses seriously.This is the part that makes Ultimatums immature. We're not talking about a prisoner swap here. No felonies are being committed. It's a game, a social gathering. Everything should be negotiable. Only after talks break down should you get to the point of capitulating or leaving. But your suggestions was skipping the negotiation phase (Or I missed it somewhere.)Presumably a DM who saddles the party with a Mary Sue has not learned the lesson you have. Your character will die. A Mary Sue by definition is immune to death and destruction. Now, having a dead PC is a great excuse to leave the game. But I don't think you were looking for excuses to leave the game.I think the fun of the other players could be collateral damage to this. Just because the DM is violating the social contract for playing a game doesn't excuse you to do the same.Again you are having fun at the expense of someone else's fun, violating the social contract of playing a game. This is not a mature response. If you failed all attempt to right the game that you are left with this choice, not participating is the mature response.In fact you are attempting to destroy the game. This goes beyond My way or the Highway and straight into Taking Your Ball and Leaving, or If I can't have it, no one can. The important difference in TYB&amp;L is that no one can play if the ball is gone.This hits home because I've done the game destruction thing in my youth and nothing good came of it. Being older now I see how juvenile it was. We (the rebelling players) should have just quit since other players were fine with playing the game.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="jmucchiello, post: 4046984, member: 813"] I realize that. Still, I felt they needed to be addresses seriously. This is the part that makes Ultimatums immature. We're not talking about a prisoner swap here. No felonies are being committed. It's a game, a social gathering. Everything should be negotiable. Only after talks break down should you get to the point of capitulating or leaving. But your suggestions was skipping the negotiation phase (Or I missed it somewhere.) Presumably a DM who saddles the party with a Mary Sue has not learned the lesson you have. Your character will die. A Mary Sue by definition is immune to death and destruction. Now, having a dead PC is a great excuse to leave the game. But I don't think you were looking for excuses to leave the game. I think the fun of the other players could be collateral damage to this. Just because the DM is violating the social contract for playing a game doesn't excuse you to do the same. Again you are having fun at the expense of someone else's fun, violating the social contract of playing a game. This is not a mature response. If you failed all attempt to right the game that you are left with this choice, not participating is the mature response. In fact you are attempting to destroy the game. This goes beyond My way or the Highway and straight into Taking Your Ball and Leaving, or If I can't have it, no one can. The important difference in TYB&L is that no one can play if the ball is gone. This hits home because I've done the game destruction thing in my youth and nothing good came of it. Being older now I see how juvenile it was. We (the rebelling players) should have just quit since other players were fine with playing the game. [/QUOTE]

Verification