Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 7656407" data-attributes="member: 4937">It wasn't a mistake.  By his own admission, Hussar preferred that manticore's not be restricted to deserts.  Moreover, by the rules, even though manticore's in second edition had the 'favored terrain' desert, monsters don't have to be restricted to their favored terrains.  It is a mistake to suggest that monsters can only appear in their favored terrains and DMs have no right to place monsters wherever they wish.  Regarding Hussar's opinion that he was wrong because he wasn't aware of the 2e favored terrain, in that Hussar is mistaken.As for your position that I shouldn't make assumptions, you yourself have just made a most unwarranted assumption and one that strikes me as terribly unlikely - that the player who called this out to Hussar had a reason.  I think it highly improbable that he had any reason at all.   On the basis of my 40 years of experience with nerds, I suspect that there is no other reason than the player remembered the fact, and decided therefore 'he was right', and would not let go of it.  He had no reason for caring, but gosh darn it, that's what the book said so he was 'right'.  On the basis of my experience with people, and on the fact that even you admit you can't imagine any possible reason to care, I don't think any other explanation is remotely likely.   And if there is some other explanation, it would be even more ludicrous.  I'm not going to go in circles.  I already wrote a detailed explanation as to why the question was wrong.  I don't intend to repeat that whole post.  Feel free to peruse it.  But the question itself is a minor foible compared to the fact that apparently the encounter between the player and Hussar was so traumatic that Hussar remembers it as plowing over a player.  So on the assumption of unwarranted assumptions, I don't think we can actually affirm that there was a question.   I suspect it was more of a declaration or an accusation to be remembered in this light from this distance.  We know enough to know a player challenged a DM regarding the favored terrain placement of a monster.  This is enough.  And in conceding that, I feel you've conceded almost the entirety of my argument.  It's hardly worth reiterating the point if you agree that there are valid reasons.  It seems I'm mostly arguing with you then because you feel insulted, even if your actual disagreement with me is pretty small.I don't care particularly how you earn your trust.  Point is, not being challenged over the placement of a monster is a level of trust even a 6th grade DM randomly stocking his dungeon should be able to expect. I know full well?  To be fully frank, and I've said this before at EnWorld in other contexts, so I'm not just saying it now - I feel I have no right to be pissed.  Period.  I not only feel I have no right to be angry when someone tells me I'm in the wrong, but would feel I was further in the wrong to become angry about that.   I feel anger is morally evil, especially and perhaps always in defense of ones person.   I feel ashamed when I get angry about such things.  I have confessed to the boards that there are still some triggers that do get me angry - misquoting me in particular, actions I feel are unjust by authority figures, things I feel are deceptive - but have said repeatedly that you cannot get me angry by contradiction or any sort of insult.   Call me a SOB, call a jerk, call me a dipstick - public place or not, internet or to my face.  I will not be angry over that.   I'll probably laugh.  In a few cases, I might even agree with you.  I don't take any pride in the fact that I'm not yet fully in control of myself regarding people misconstruing me and misquoting me apparently willfully, but I am trying.   And as regard to people just disagreeing with me, that happens all the time.  I should be a terribly unhappy person if I raged about it to any degree at all.So I know no such thing 'full well'.It's not weird that you'd disagree with me.  It's weird that you'd say you were disagreeing with me while making all sorts of suggestions which any one reading my posts would know I fully agree with.  I can only put it down to the fact that you were blowing your top at time and impressing on me how angry you were and how seriously I should take that.Lately, pretty rarely.  I can handle most players and by and large most of my players have been pretty reasonable since reaching adulthood.   However, this neglects my actual point, that though I can deal with problem players and bad play, I don't feel I should have to.Well of course it was a strawman.  It went beyond starwman.  It's bloody well satire.  But it's really not that far from some table arguments I've seen regarding canon in the FR, the placement of tombs, or the HD distribution of goblins in a tribe.As for your feelings that you've been insulted, if I were to recall times when I 'snapped' and banged my head on the table and called out DMs, it wouldn't be with any intention of receiving approval and sympathy for such actions.   That I withhold such approval and indeed find the actions to be less than ideal, and that you nonetheless wish to feel insulted about, I cannot do anything about.  I don't ask that you not take my words as insulting.  I instead ask how you intend such a description of yourself to be anything but self-deprecating or how you imagined such a story would justify your opinion?  I would think that the story is funny because you can laugh now at your own folly, but did you intend for me to see the DM in the story as deserving of your abuse?  No, it wasn't, though since as you've pointed out we don't have any full information, I wonder how you know it was worse.  But leaving that aside, if it seems far worse it is only because we in the audience know the DM has a good explanation.   In point of fact, the complaint about the Manticore is far more trivial than that of any of the objections my hypothetical 'Luke' made.  In a different context, without a well thought out explanation, considering the established tropes of the setting, each of the issues that Luke's player raises are valid.   The big problem I was trying to demonstrate was the instincts of the Luke player.   And yes I've seen those instincts many times before.My original posts simply displayed my dismay at the poor level of play implied by the incident, and tried to explain why.  I don't see how that is verbally abusive.   You are the one who decided that the shoe fit.  My retort to your post was more colorful I admit, since you wished to tell me how grown ups were supposed to behave while providing as examples things which look more like temper tantrums to me.  Big font anyone?  As for looking for a fight.... well, you are the one suggesting how angry you are and how angry you've been in the past and well angry.   Physical violence hadn't accorded to me until you brought it up.  I suppose I'd get hit a couple times by you if this was in person, eh?</blockquote>

Verification