my whole point in this thread was that there are reasons why players and DMs collapse into problems, and that a final little detail can be a symptom of a larger lack of communication.
Ok, we can agree on that point.
then why do you think the DM in question thinks he was in the wrong?
Because it is Hussar.
unless you have been raised somewhere very different then the world we live in you should understand telling people they are wrong, and they are like children, and they are argueing about nothing, and that there way of having fun is not fun at all or they are bad at things they are being good at... will make them mad. You are pushing buttons and I don't know why...
so I will ask one more time... How should I take being compaired to a 9 year old you would scould?
You should take it like someone who decides to learn to control their temper.
we now find something else we disagree on. I feel Anger is a natural response and can be used to good cause...
That's pretty obvious.
so if someone tries to punch me, and that angers me, that makes me evil? I really don't understand you at all...
No, I'm afraid you don't.
No it wasn't.
and used to impress how you are impacting people
I know why you decided to make a display of anger. I know what anger is for socially. I even said as much. Point is that if you admit you have a use for it, then you decided to be angry. You decided you had cause and where justified, and boy was I going to hear it from you.
it is a thing you could take as a learning experience and be nicer... but since you now belive me evil you will not...
I could always learn to be nicer. But as for thinking you evil, I certainly don't. Making mistakes doesn't make one evil. And a fleeting anger is hardly cause for damning anyone. But that doesn't justify your anger or make the anger less wrong. However, this is all a bit of a side track. I don't need to convince you to relinquish anger or convince you that you have no right to be angry. The point I intend to make which is relevant to what was brought up in the thread is that a player who is playing skillfully, has first recourse to playing the game, and only resorts to metagame when that avenue is unfruitful. You yourself admitted that there are times that the DM is entitled to hide information from metagame queries, and that you expect your players to trust you enough to allow you to do so. Having admitted that point, the rest of your anger isn't really about disagreement, but the fact that feeling belittled because I claimed that metagaming was poor play, you imagined I directing harsh criticism at you and so by gosh you are going to put on a big threat display about how angry you are. And the fact that I'm actually describing this to you probably feel patronizing to you and makes you even more angry. And I wish you'd choose to not be angry, but I can't choose for you.
so I can deal with players, and I do so in a different way... why do you think you can declair witch way is right?
Because again playing the game is superior in all sorts of ways to metagaming. And I've already listed lots of reasons regarding the lowered likelihood of arguments, the greater show of trust, the lowered likelihood of imparting knowledge that would better remain for an in game reveal, the greater degree of engagement it shows, the reduced chance of ulterior motive influencing your actions, the greater pleasure it affords, and the greater entertainment value in observing the play, and so on and so forth. And that judgment I have more of a right to than any one ever has to being angry because they think they've been insulted.
you could have used non insulting words... it isn't that you disagree, it's that you insult.
One thing that is very difficult for me is appearing to be sympathetic, especially when I'm not. In particular, I have a tendency to say things that coming from other people are intended to hurt and belittle, but which coming from me are intended to help. And I have a little idea what to do about that. Because from my perspective, people are just weird about how they don't like to know what other people are thinking and they'd prefer to be lied to or have information withheld from them or their own potential failings not called out. "You're not saying it nice" is not only perfectly true, but of course I can see you think that. So why not say it?
you have told me my way of running games is wrong...
I don't think I've gone so far as that any more than I have said you are evil. But I have said that metagaming a DM is playing less well than it could be and many similar things of the sort.
you have compaired me to a 9 year old in a bad light
You have displayed yourself in a bad light; the comparison is unflattering but apt.
you used the word evil to describe something I did
And I've also used the word evil to describe things I did and do. Getting angry in defense of your person is wrong. We've all done it.
hitting my head on the table is a tantrum?
And again, this is harsh, but I don't think most people have to be told the answer to that. I don't know any less harsh way to answer that question. The problem is you think it is a rhetorical question and you don't really want to hear my answer, so I can't answer it gently.
yes the same way I would emphasise those words in real life... those are important words that need emphasise...
Anger is no way to go around telling people how you are feeling. If anger has a purpose, it's not to emphasize how important you think something is. It is to gear the body for valorous action in the defense of someone else, and even then the anger is a bit superfluous most of the time I think.
