Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Caliban" data-source="post: 7072566" data-attributes="member: 284">Doesn't sound like what you said in the post I originally responded to, but sure.&nbsp;&nbsp; Things like that do happen. See, this is what makes me doubt your story.&nbsp;&nbsp; You said, point blank &quot;And, I have every intention of making them pay for that decision throughout the campaign. &quot;&nbsp;&nbsp; And yet you claim that you have &quot;no idea&quot; how I would think you were planning on specifically targeting their weaknesses from here on out?&nbsp;&nbsp; Please. Did I though? First it was &quot;I make absolutely no excuse for that.&quot;&nbsp;&nbsp; Now &quot;it was tongue in cheek&quot;.&nbsp;&nbsp; No excuses...except that you didn't really mean what you said.&nbsp; Your story keeps changing. If I took it wrong, it was with a lot of help from you.&nbsp; So even though you were bragging about how you came down on your players and planned to do so for the entire campaign in your first post, and declared &quot;no excuses&quot; - now you are &quot;clarifying&quot; things to make it clear you were just running the game and it's all their fault for their character choices and you had nothing to do with it.&nbsp;&nbsp; (Which is actually a DM'ing philosophy I can agree with - it's just not one you presented in the post I originally responded to.)&nbsp;&nbsp; And if I have any doubts, it's all on me, not you.&nbsp;&nbsp; Yes sir, DM Trump.&nbsp; <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />A)&nbsp; I am sorry for calling you a bad DM.&nbsp; I stand by everything else I've said, but that crossed a line.&nbsp;&nbsp; I was on a roll and it sounded good at the time I was writing it.&nbsp; My apologies.&nbsp; B) Bragging/Gloating about how you punished your PC's, not because they made a poor in-game decision, but because they all happened to make characters with a similar weakness...that's just bad form.&nbsp;&nbsp; Especially when you follow up with &quot;I have every intention of making them pay for that decision throughout the campaign.&quot;&nbsp; That's almost the definition of adversarial DM'ing.&nbsp; You've tried to walk it back since then, and you may not have actually meant it (despite your &quot;no excuses&quot; statement) but that is what inspired my negative opinions on your post.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Caliban, post: 7072566, member: 284"] Doesn't sound like what you said in the post I originally responded to, but sure. Things like that do happen. See, this is what makes me doubt your story. You said, point blank "And, I have every intention of making them pay for that decision throughout the campaign. " And yet you claim that you have "no idea" how I would think you were planning on specifically targeting their weaknesses from here on out? Please. Did I though? First it was "I make absolutely no excuse for that." Now "it was tongue in cheek". No excuses...except that you didn't really mean what you said. Your story keeps changing. If I took it wrong, it was with a lot of help from you. So even though you were bragging about how you came down on your players and planned to do so for the entire campaign in your first post, and declared "no excuses" - now you are "clarifying" things to make it clear you were just running the game and it's all their fault for their character choices and you had nothing to do with it. (Which is actually a DM'ing philosophy I can agree with - it's just not one you presented in the post I originally responded to.) And if I have any doubts, it's all on me, not you. Yes sir, DM Trump. :) A) I am sorry for calling you a bad DM. I stand by everything else I've said, but that crossed a line. I was on a roll and it sounded good at the time I was writing it. My apologies. B) Bragging/Gloating about how you punished your PC's, not because they made a poor in-game decision, but because they all happened to make characters with a similar weakness...that's just bad form. Especially when you follow up with "I have every intention of making them pay for that decision throughout the campaign." That's almost the definition of adversarial DM'ing. You've tried to walk it back since then, and you may not have actually meant it (despite your "no excuses" statement) but that is what inspired my negative opinions on your post. [/QUOTE]

Verification