Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="gizmo33" data-source="post: 2943810" data-attributes="member: 30001">Good, can't wait to see some reasoning.I would agree that a single player can ruin a gaming session.&nbsp; For example, a single player can grab the DMs notes and set fire to them.&nbsp; A single player can insult and threaten other players.However, that's not what we're talking about.&nbsp; What Quas is apparently talking about is being &quot;forced&quot; to kill PCs.&nbsp; Or something like that.&nbsp; I'm not sure how insulting a lich &quot;poisons the convivial atmosphere&quot; of a group (unless lich=DM).&nbsp; I also don't see how a character who is insulting to a lich is trying to destroy the campaign.&nbsp; I'm not blaming him for his players being immature (which is even debateable for some of his examples above).&nbsp; However, immature players don't destroy a campaign.&nbsp; I DMed when I was 10, I believe I was immature at the time, and so was everyone that played with me.&nbsp; Somehow none of my campaigns were destroyed.&nbsp;&nbsp; Hmmm...&nbsp; I wonder how that could be?Apparently Quas considers his expectations to be identical to the &quot;campaign&quot;.&nbsp; When his expectations are not met in certain ways, either by character death, TPK or some other events, he considers the campaign &quot;destroyed&quot;.&nbsp; Paradoxically, he is the sole authority on what constitutes the campaign (no opinions of the players are discernable in his assessment of what constitutes a &quot;destroyed campaign&quot;) and yet he is apparently unable to get what he wants from his players.He doesn't stop them from insulting the lich, he doesn't stop them from running off into the dungeon on some tirade.&nbsp; Apparently he believes that the players should be able to do whatever they want with their characters.&nbsp; He lets the dice fall (as I would) but yet the outcome is somehow considered a failure.&nbsp; Why would he continue to DM in a &quot;gamist&quot; style when apparently he is a story-teller DM at heart?What I was really trying to get across is that Quas' expectations are contributing to his definition of &quot;destroyed campaign&quot; and that I think he should take another look at how his expectations and those of his players are matching up (or not matching up).&nbsp; People that don't do what you want them to do are not immature.&nbsp; (Something that I think a lot of parents should think about.)Being insulting when you can't be sure of what I'm saying might also be dumb.&nbsp; Please save the insults and just tell me WHY you disagree.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="gizmo33, post: 2943810, member: 30001"] Good, can't wait to see some reasoning. I would agree that a single player can ruin a gaming session. For example, a single player can grab the DMs notes and set fire to them. A single player can insult and threaten other players. However, that's not what we're talking about. What Quas is apparently talking about is being "forced" to kill PCs. Or something like that. I'm not sure how insulting a lich "poisons the convivial atmosphere" of a group (unless lich=DM). I also don't see how a character who is insulting to a lich is trying to destroy the campaign. I'm not blaming him for his players being immature (which is even debateable for some of his examples above). However, immature players don't destroy a campaign. I DMed when I was 10, I believe I was immature at the time, and so was everyone that played with me. Somehow none of my campaigns were destroyed. Hmmm... I wonder how that could be? Apparently Quas considers his expectations to be identical to the "campaign". When his expectations are not met in certain ways, either by character death, TPK or some other events, he considers the campaign "destroyed". Paradoxically, he is the sole authority on what constitutes the campaign (no opinions of the players are discernable in his assessment of what constitutes a "destroyed campaign") and yet he is apparently unable to get what he wants from his players. He doesn't stop them from insulting the lich, he doesn't stop them from running off into the dungeon on some tirade. Apparently he believes that the players should be able to do whatever they want with their characters. He lets the dice fall (as I would) but yet the outcome is somehow considered a failure. Why would he continue to DM in a "gamist" style when apparently he is a story-teller DM at heart? What I was really trying to get across is that Quas' expectations are contributing to his definition of "destroyed campaign" and that I think he should take another look at how his expectations and those of his players are matching up (or not matching up). [i]People that don't do what you want them to do are not immature.[/i] (Something that I think a lot of parents should think about.) Being insulting when you can't be sure of what I'm saying might also be dumb. Please save the insults and just tell me WHY you disagree. [/QUOTE]

Verification