GMs abusing knowledge skills

[LilithsThrall]

TriOmegaZero wrote:

I'm saying if Kirth or I made an attack against you that had nothing to do with your position, why did you argue against it instead of going 'that is nothing like what I'm talking about'?

Kirth claimed that i treated my players like cattle.

That's not a claim meant to further discussion.

[LilithsThrall]

Kirth Gersen wrote:

LilithsThrall wrote:

Kir[th]'s attack was rather pointed.

It was a direct reply to your "sense of entitlement" quip (which you did direct at me by pronoun, rather than "he or she" as I replied).

I find it incredible that you posted a reply to a post when the post you posted in reply to was posted nine minutes -after- your reply.

[TriOmegaZero]

I think this is the attack and response he thought you were referring to.

Kirth Gersen wrote:

LilithsThrall wrote:

If you've got no sense of entitlement, then we've got no disagreement.

And if the DM has no delusions of grandeur and isn't a pathological control freak, I have no disagreement with him or her.

[TriOmegaZero]

LilithsThrall wrote:

TriOmegaZero wrote:

I'm saying if Kirth or I made an attack against you that had nothing to do with your position, why did you argue against it instead of going 'that is nothing like what I'm talking about'?

Kirth claimed that i treated my players like cattle.

That's not a claim meant to further discussion.

You were the one that made that comparison in the first place.

[LilithsThrall]

TriOmegaZero wrote:

LilithsThrall wrote:

TriOmegaZero wrote:

I'm saying if Kirth or I made an attack against you that had nothing to do with your position, why did you argue against it instead of going 'that is nothing like what I'm talking about'?

Kirth claimed that i treated my players like cattle.

That's not a claim meant to further discussion.

You were the one that made that comparison in the first place.

No, the connotations are totally different.

[TriOmegaZero]

Yes, comparing players to cows and DMs to farmers says nothing about your attitude towards your players.

Again, I am not sure I would want to play with someone who thinks he is my caretaker.

[LilithsThrall]

TriOmegaZero wrote:

Yes, comparing players to cows and DMs to farmers says nothing about your attitude towards your players.

Again, I am not sure I would want to play with someone who thinks he is my caretaker.

Who said anything about the GM thinking he's the PC's caretaker?

Seriously, are you looking for something to argue over?

I think the analogy was quite clear. It would take an infinite amount of time for the GM to prepare an infinite field. As he doesn't have that time, he prepares a much smaller field. The player still has an infinite number of options, it's just that there's limits on those options. The player isn't being strapped into a roller coaster and set off on a tracked plot. It's just that there's limits on his options.

Perhaps you think that the GM shouldn't be preparing any field - that he should come to the game with no campaign setting, no NPC backstories, nothing but a tabula rasa. Maybe you think the GM should be nothing but an audience to the player's ego masturbation. I don't know of very many GMs who will enjoy doing that.

Does that mean that the players should be nothing more than an audience to the GM's ego masturbation? I challenge you to point out where I said that they should. I've repeatedly said that they have the right to not play. If a GM expected me to be nothing more than such an audience, I'd certainly be exercising that right. In fact, I have. I don't support a sense of entitlement coming from either the GM or the player - which is why I've repeatedly emphasized the right not to play/GM. But if the right to not play/GM was enough for you, we wouldn't be having this argument. No, you seem to expect something more - that the person sitting across the table from you be required to play by the rules you want them to play by. And that's something I'll never support.

[TriOmegaZero]

LilithsThrall wrote:

Who said anything about the GM thinking he's the PC's caretaker?
Seriously, are you looking for something to argue over?

You did, when you compared the GM to the caretaker of animals.

As for the rest, none of what you attribute to me is even close to the actuality. I am attempting to make no judgements of you or your game style, as I am sure we have more in common than our arguments suggest. Kindly stop misrepresenting me.

Quote:

that the person sitting across the table from you be required to play by the rules you want them to play by. And that's something I'll never support.

Funny, isn't that what DMs expect of players?

[The Speaker in Dreams]

Man ... "hearts and sleeves" people.

Ease up - I'm pretty sure no one is intentionally attacking anyone (where LT picked up offense).

At this point, though, everyone's looking for excuses to respond to the "attack" that never *actually* took place.

"Player entitlement" is kind of exactly where camp A has been arguing.

"Players as cattle" is the counter-option extreme of camp A as well - one that ALL people in camp B have said is a bad idea (my camp, too, btw).

Kirth just mentioned this in quick follow up to your "cow crossing fields" scenario - so it *might* seem like an attack, but I'm pretty sure he wasn't intending that.

Anyway ... beyond trading of perceived insults, this thread is looking like an [/end] to me.

:shrugs:

thread relevance anyone?

[LilithsThrall]

TriOmegaZero wrote:

You did, when you compared the GM to the caretaker of animals.

As for the rest, none of what you attribute to me is even close to the actuality. I am attempting to make no judgements of you or your game style,

I used an analogy to describe a particular point. You chose to interpret that analogy in a totally different way even after I told you that the way you interpreted that analogy was not what I intended. Your pre-existing biases against GMs who set limits is clouding your ability to think.

Quote:

Funny, isn't that what DMs expect of players?

Maybe it's expected by -some- DMs, just like it's expected by some players. But most DMs realize that the player can choose not to play - that the player isn't required to play, let alone play by rules the player doesn't want to play by.

[Ravingdork]

Stay on topic everyone.

[TriOmegaZero]

Don't worry, I'm done. LT can't avoid insults, so there's no need to discuss with him any more.

[LilithsThrall]

TriOmegaZero wrote:

Don't worry, I'm done. LT can't avoid insults, so there's no need to discuss with him any more.

That's cute.

I've not insulted you even once. On the other hand, you keep making comments like saying that I'm comparing players to cattle - even after I've said repeatedly that I'm not and I've explained what I mean by the analogy of giving the players a large field to wander in.

At this point, I'm convinced that you've had no intent in this thread other than to find something to take offense at (even when told repeatedly that you're building straw men).

[Jeremiziah]

I was wondering why this topic had 464 posts, so I checked in...only to find out that there is no reason whatsoever.

[LilithsThrall]

Jeremiziah wrote:

I was wondering why this topic had 464 posts, so I checked in...only to find out that there is no reason whatsoever.

You just threw in your two cents after a thread has just died. Don't you feel special now?

[TriOmegaZero]

LilithsThrall wrote:

I've not insulted you even once.

LilithsThrall wrote:

Your pre-existing biases against GMs who set limits is clouding your ability to think.

Keep thinking that.

[LilithsThrall]

TriOmegaZero wrote:

LilithsThrall wrote:

I've not insulted you even once.

LilithsThrall wrote:

Your pre-existing biases against GMs who set limits is clouding your ability to think.

Keep thinking that.

Pointing out that you have pre-existing biases is not an insult. Everyone has pre-existing biases, the trick is to not let them cloud your judgement.

[TriOmegaZero]

No, but claiming I can't think because of them is. I can only guess your arrogance makes you blind to how insulting you are. Which I don't blame you for, since I've suffered that same flaw myself.

The sad thing is, if you, me, seeker, and Kirth sat down at a table we'd have a blast. because we're all passionate about the game and care about each others fun.

[memorax]

While i am certainly no saint when it comes to this thread I do see a pattern with LT.

Go completely of on another tangent in terms of discussion. Sone of the things he posted has little or no bearing on the discussion. Mind you I did the same but I am adimitting to it at least

Say something then denies saying it. Even when proven otherwise with a link to a thread.

Seems to want to post in a thread not to discuss the topic at hand but to boost his post count.

There is a difference between being passionate and going out of your way to push and prod so that you get the result you want.

[Jeremiziah]

LilithsThrall wrote:

Jeremiziah wrote:

I was wondering why this topic had 464 posts, so I checked in...only to find out that there is no reason whatsoever.

You just threw in your two cents after a thread has just died. Don't you feel special now?

No, I don't. Are you still talking?

[Mr.Fishy]

Mr. Fishy is here to feed on the flesh of the dead. You can stay but don't talk.

[TriOmegaZombie]

Mr.Fishy wrote:

Mr. Fishy is here to feed on the flesh of the dead. You can stay but don't talk.

...

[TriOmegaZero]

TriOmegaZombie wrote:

Mr.Fishy wrote:

Mr. Fishy is here to feed on the flesh of the dead. You can stay but don't talk.

...

Crap! It's my undead body! It wants my soul! *flees*

[LilithsThrall]

TriOmegaZero wrote:

No, but claiming I can't think because of them is. I can only guess your arrogance makes you blind to how insulting you are. Which I don't blame you for, since I've suffered that same flaw myself.

The sad thing is, if you, me, seeker, and Kirth sat down at a table we'd have a blast. because we're all passionate about the game and care about each others fun.

I didn't say you can't think. I said your pre-existing biases are affecting your judgement.

That's like saying "hey, you've got broccoli stuck in your teeth". It's not an insult.
On the other hand, if I'd called you "arrogant", that would have been insulting.

[Mr.Fishy]

LilithsThrall wrote:

If I'd called you "arrogant", that would have been insulting.

Not if it's true then is an observation.

[ZappoHisbane]

Hmmm.. topic?

Bill Dunn wrote:

Clearly, we totally disagree here. I'd have people hear the legends of the tarrasque. "Spells bounce off his thick hide! [Carapace] His bite can tear a man in half. [Critical feats] The spines rain off like cast spears with a snap of his tail! [Spines] Though many have tried, there's no way to kill him. He keeps coming back! [Regeneration]"

And when encountered, it should be pretty unmistakable what it is. "Gods above! It's the tarrasque! We are doomed, I tell you! Doomed!"

Unfortunately, by the rules, virtually nobody knows any of that stuff nor can identify him. If you don't really know anything about what it does, how can tales about it terrify children? It would be indistinguishable from a fairy tale or anything else completely made up. Including real information makes it scarier, if you ask me, because then despair really sets in.

Yup, we clearly disagree, at least when it comes to the Tarrasque, because it really is that unique. If you read the fluff about Rovagug, it turns out that the Tarrasque is his current herald, and he has had others in the past.

If we take modern mythology, recognizing the Tarrasque for what it is on sight would be like doing the same for (as an example) Satan's second in command. Would you be able to name him? Or recognize him on sight? Do you think your local minister could? How about the Pope?

[TriOmegaZero]

LilithsThrall wrote:

I didn't say you can't think. I said your pre-existing biases are affecting your judgement.
That's like saying "hey, you've got broccoli stuck in your teeth". It's not an insult.
On the other hand, if I'd called you "arrogant", that would have been insulting.

I didn't call you arrogant, I pointed out how your arrogance affects your thinking.

See, you can't have my statement be an insult while claiming yours wasn't.

[LilithsThrall]

TriOmegaZero wrote:

LilithsThrall wrote:

I didn't say you can't think. I said your pre-existing biases are affecting your judgement.
That's like saying "hey, you've got broccoli stuck in your teeth". It's not an insult.
On the other hand, if I'd called you "arrogant", that would have been insulting.

I didn't call you arrogant, I pointed out how your arrogance affects your thinking.

See, you can't have my statement be an insult while claiming yours wasn't.

If I refer to your pre-existing biases, that's not an insult.

If I refer to your arrogance, it is.
Everyone has pre-existing biases. It's part of being human, just like being a mammal. Everyone, however, does not have arrogance.

[TriOmegaZero]

Good thing I didn't even definitively state you had arrogance, what with the guessing and all.

[LilithsThrall]

Sir Francis Bacon wrote,

"I know that most men—not only those considered clever, but even those who are very clever, and capable of understanding most difficult scientific, mathematical, or philosophic problems—can very seldom discern even the simplest and most obvious truth if it be such as to oblige them to admit the falsity of conclusions they have formed, perhaps with much difficulty—conclusions of which they are proud, which they have taught to others, and on which they have built their lives"

I am sorry that you've taken offense that I dare point out that you are subject to the same foibles that the merely "very clever" of men are subject to. I will keep in mind in the future that you do not like to be compared to the merely "very clever" of men.

[TriOmegaZero]

And I'm sorry you have taken offense to me making observations about your character. Like I do with seeker, I will endeavor to only interact with you superficially, as we gain nothing from any more meaningful discussion. Hopefully you'll find this more to your liking.

[Mr.Fishy]

Sir Francis Bacon is dead. So he lost that fight. Bacon what do you do to get that name? Cure cancer?

Also most is in that quote thus leaving room for exceptions. Also your quote is proof of a bias in thinking dead people are smart. Also Mr. Bacon[greatest name ever] is bias, preaching airbreather.

[TriOmegaZero]

I hope we've kept you entertained Mr. Fishy, so that LT hasn't completely wasted his time here.

[LilithsThrall]

Mr.Fishy wrote:

Sir Francis Bacon is dead. So he lost that fight. Bacon what do you do to get that name? Cure cancer?

Also most is in that quote thus leaving room for exceptions. Also your quote is proof of a bias in thinking dead people are smart. Also Mr. Bacon[greatest name ever] is bias, preaching airbreather.

Dead people, being dead, aren't very smart. I think that's why they are always looking for brains on the rare occasion they rise from their graves. However, when they were alive, some of them were quite brilliant. I think a guy who managed to name himself after bacon deserves credit.

As for air breathers vs. water breathers, didn't your reverend saint Mr Limpit show that we can all get along?

[LilithsThrall]

TriOmegaZero wrote:

And I'm sorry you have taken offense to me making observations about your character. Like I do with seeker, I will endeavor to only interact with you superficially, as we gain nothing from any more meaningful discussion. Hopefully you'll find this more to your liking.

Specifically, I'm taking offense at you saying that I have arrogance.

And, yes, considering that kind of insult is your idea of a "meaningful discussion", I think it's better if you keep your interaction to me to only the superficial level.

[TriOmegaZero]

We haven't had meaningful discussion since the last page. Glad we've reached an accommodation. It will be nice if you back off the insults yourself.

[Kamelguru]

I made my knowledge check!

This is a "wyvern"-thread, one that will go on and on, arguing the same points, until people start to pseudo-intellectually call each other names, berate and belittle, misunderstand obvious things, and defend their viewpoints like a religious zealot.

It is strong against fire, shock and common sense, weak against songs, blunt damage and pie.

You're halfway there, almost. And as we all know (those of us who were sentient in the 80s at least); KNOWLEDGE IS HALF THE BATTLE! G.I. JOE!!

[Ravingdork]

Tri0megaZero, LilithsThrall: Get back on topic or else take your argument elsewhere.

[TriOmegaZero]

Tha fvck are you posting for RD? I'm done, he's done. You don't need to come in here as the thread police. All you're doing is buffing your own ego, because I don't care that we offended your sense of forum decorum.

[Ravingdork]

Just looking to get my thread back on track 0mega.

[Zark]

Ravingdork wrote:

Just looking to get my thread back on track 0mega.

Don't bother. Most posts here are made by *sh*les. The same people you see spaming the boards regardless of the topic.

Ravingdork wrote:

...Is this an example of me being screwed out of a knowledge check? Or am I just overreacting? I was hoping to get an outsider's objective opinion on the matter.

If you made the perception check you did not overreacting. I would say your DM is a Jerk.

[Zark]

TriOmegaZero wrote:

Tha fvck are you posting for RD? I'm done, he's done. You don't need to come in here as the thread police. All you're doing is buffing your own ego, because I don't care that we offended your sense of forum decorum.

And you don't have an ego? Yes, right.

Start your own thread if you wanna be God or else get the thread back on track.
Edit:
I often disagree Ravingdork, but this is just rude.
BTW, this is the first time I flaged a post. Guess who's.

[Mr.Fishy]

Mr. Fishy's?

It's better to get someone else to start your fan thread it's less...egotistical that way.

Mr. Fishy Fan Club Thread, just saying.

[TriOmegaZero]

Ravingdork wrote:

Just looking to get my thread back on track 0mega.

I apologize. I had forgotten you had started this thread. Mea culpa.

Zark wrote:

And you don't have an ego? Yes, right.

I don't recall claiming I didn't. Consider that post redirected to you instead of RD. He had a reason to admonish me. You're just fanning flames.

TL:DR. Flag it don't brag it.

I'm out RD. Sorry for the misaimed rage.

[memorax]

Maybe start a new thread? Not sure if you can salvage this one at this point. I alos recoomend writing exaclty what you want to see in the thread.