Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 6098495" data-attributes="member: 4937">No.  It isn't.  First of all, I am not you.  We not only don't have the same agendas but our agendas are also not opposites, reverses, inverses, or in any way related to each other.  You can't reverse your expectations and come up with what I'm thinking or feelings.  I'm not your mirror.  I am not you.  You haven't been remotely fair to my position in this whole thread, so don't ask me to bless your description of me as fair.  Heck, you are still beating on the drum that my DM agenda is crushing player 'creativity'.  I can't even address the unfairness of your claims anymore.  All I can say is that I am not you.  To begin with, I'm making my own play in that scene independent of a need for the DM to provide me anything.  I'm perfectly content to self-express and fellowship in that scene, as is indicated by my own character establishing scene using my character advocacy.  Afterwards we did some intraparty RP, ending with me exchanging a spell with another wizard in the party.  By focusing on what my player does rather than outcome, I free myself from the need for a particular DM response.  However the DM chooses to take up this offering, I'm happy to find play where I am.Secondly, since I have a flexible agenda, if the DM responds by offering up different responses - say an encounter with a brown dragon or the discovery of a half buried pyramid (both of which happened) - I'm ok with that.  Here is something new to do and something new to play with.   If the DM can't think of anything and we arrive at our destination (a city, where we believe a relative of one of the PC's has been taken after having been captured by pirates and sold into slavery) and the quest continues in earnest, then I'm happy with that too.  And if we arrive in the city and learn that the relative is no longer here, but has been taken elsewhere, then I'm happy with that too.  I'm not invested in the desert, but I'm also not unwilling to become invested in the desert in the same way that I was also willing to become invested in something that is partly or mostly about another player's agenda.If after a few sessions I found the DM boring or the groups agenda too narrow or too different from my own, and if my tentative overtures to create new agendas and play that interested me more were ignored or rebuffed (politely or not), I'd politely bow out.  My intention is to create IC drama, not OOC drama.Why must this be about you being 'a bad player' - something I have never said and which is part of your continuing gross misstatements of anything I've ever said.  I believe you made a mistake, one that I mostly find understandable and sympathetic.  That doesn't mean I believe you are a mistake.  I believe you made one bad play, but that doesn't mean I believe you are a bad player.  I have lots of players with specific agendas.  There agendas aren't wrong, they just require special handling.  I would prefer that all players had broad agendas, but there is nothing wrong with having speciifc focuses.  Enjoyment is a very personal experience.  Likewise, I've never really sided with your DM either, because as I said, I don't know what he was thinking either.  It's quite possible he needs to step up his game to prevent the sort of distrust and disengagement he evidently got frustrated with and failed to handle as well as it could be. I almost never accept that there are only two ways.</blockquote>

Verification