Just treat everything I say as a lie.
(returns to planning next week's BadWrongFun)
|
I love the term "BadWrongFun" as it's used on these boards.
The implicit definition of it is: "You're telling me that the way I'm having fun is bad and wrong, which is a moronic statement, because I'm having fun doing it."
However, this in and of itself is silly. Of course you can be having fun, and yet be doing something bad and wrong. Hundreds of examples immediately spring to mind. Any number of recreational drugs fall into this category, as does riding around drunk in your car, as does a number of like-minded kids picking on weaker/smaller kids at the playground. These are just a few examples. We're human beings. We don't all get the most pleasure out of the most cherubic experiences. We're flawed. It's actually pretty cool.
In the context of this discussion, BadWrongFun is a logical fallacy of the worst order. Some of us are saying "You're headed down a road that could cause unnecessary tension amongst your gaming group, and more importantly, your friends", and the response is "BadWrongFun!".
Well, actually, yeah. BadWrongFun. It's all BadWrongFun and games until somebody's character doesn't get a roll flubbed for them that got flubbed for the last guy, and they get ticked off and leave the group. That's what we're talking about. We're actually trying to help, even if some of us aren't the most diplomatic rats in the pack.
For my part, I sincerely hope it continues to go your way, and nobody gets ticked off and leaves your group over it. Do I prefer to not incur the risk of that happening? Absolutely.
I love the term "BadWrongFun" as it's used on these boards.
The implicit definition of it is: "You're telling me that the way I'm having fun is bad and wrong, which is a moronic statement, because I'm having fun doing it."
However, this in and of itself is silly. Of course you can be having fun, and yet be doing something bad and wrong. Hundreds of examples immediately spring to mind. Any number of recreational drugs fall into this category, as does riding around drunk in your car, as does a number of like-minded kids picking on weaker/smaller kids at the playground. These are just a few examples. We're human beings. We don't all get the most pleasure out of the most cherubic experiences. We're flawed. It's actually pretty cool.
In the context of this discussion, BadWrongFun is a logical fallacy of the worst order. Some of us are saying "You're headed down a road that could cause unnecessary tension amongst your gaming group, and more importantly, your friends", and the response is "BadWrongFun!".
Well, actually, yeah. BadWrongFun. It's all BadWrongFun and games until somebody's character doesn't get a roll flubbed for them that got flubbed for the last guy, and they get ticked off and leave the group. That's what we're talking about. We're actually trying to help, even if some of us aren't the most diplomatic rats in the pack.
For my part, I sincerely hope it continues to go your way, and nobody gets ticked off and leaves your group over it. Do I prefer to not incur the risk of that happening? Absolutely.
Congratulations!
Frankly, I think I'm pretty safe here. I've been running games since 1982 in all incarnations of D&D since the blue box, I've been running games at conventions since 2003, and the only feedback I've ever gotten (both directly and indirectly) has been positive. People have fun.
This is especially important in a convention setting, where you as a GM have to remember that it is NOT your game; it is the players' game, as they are the paying customers and you're the one with the free ride.
So, yeah, call it BadWrongFun if you want, and I'll continue to call myself Captain of the BadWrongFun League. And hey, it doesn't even involve running people over with cars or Charles Manson!
Exactly HOW is this a defense?It just boggles my mind.
It's not the getting noticed part that's wrong here, it's the basic act. There's a reason that you don't want to get noticed. At some level you realize that it's not the right thing to be doing, and being noticed would make you have to face it. Thus you conclude that being noticed is the problem...
There is a difference between the following two occurrences when a PC is getting reincarned (as it was given as an example):
1. "Oh look I rolled 00 DM's choice.. I'll give you this that you wanted" (Meanwhile the real roll was 99).
2. "Hey you wanted to be this, I'll let you come back at that".
Now personally I wouldn't care for either of these, but I find that there's absolutely no reason to take choice 1 over choice 2. Choice 2 is at the very least being honest with everyone, even if it's not kosher.
-James
James, I get it - you don't approve. I get it you are all about 100% honesty all the time.
I have clearly stated that my players and I have a clearly defined understanding that this is how we play. They know I will sometimes fudge, they want that, and they have told me that they do not want to know when I am doing it.
Again, I get that this is alien and wrong to you, and that we don't even play the same game.
So be it.
|
|
Congratulations!
Frankly, I think I'm pretty safe here. I've been running games since 1982 in all incarnations of D&D since the blue box, I've been running games at conventions since 2003, and the only feedback I've ever gotten (both directly and indirectly) has been positive. People have fun.
This is especially important in a convention setting, where you as a GM have to...
Not trying to win the internet. Just trying to help out the community.
But of course you know that, because you utterly ignored that part of what I said.
The hobby is at a point in it's history where almost everyone you're going to talk to on a messageboard about the hobby has been in the hobby for awhile. It's a base assumption that I make, and doubly so when I'm talking to someone with a purple border.
I respect your experience. I also have some experience. Experience is not the subject in this thread, although it does have some peripheral value. I would agree that someone with as much experience as you or I is less likely to make bad decisions with where and when to fudge rolls than someone who's new at the hobby. Maybe even exponentially less likely.
That doesn't decrease the validity of the recommendation to let the dice fall where they may, and when possible, GM without a screen. I don't like seeing tables break up or friends fight. This is one of the few in-game things that can make that happen. Why risk it? That's my point. I'm speaking more to people who might visit this thread in the future with open minds than I am to people who are set in their ways.
Also, I didn't make the Manson comment, or the running people over with cars comment. That was snorter and TOZ respectively.
|
I object to being called a cheater for fudging the dice for the same reason I would object to being called a murderer for running someone over with my car. Yes, it can be true, but not always.
If you only did it the once, and only because he jumped out in front of you, then, I forgive you.
If you chased him round four blocks, knocked him over, then reversed over him a few times, just to be sure?
Hmmmm.
And then did the same thing again, next week?
Several times in the same night?
It was an honest question.
Your defense was 'I don't think I'll get caught'!
Yeah I think that we do agree.. this is alien and wrong to me, and it does seem like we don't even play the same game.
James
The defense was not simply that I don't think I will get caught. The defense was that we have an agreement (the players and I) that I will only fudge if I don't get caught.
Not because I fear being caught up to no good, but because that is what they want. They want me to fudge occasionaly if it is not obvious.
It seems the pro-cheating opposition is just having some trouble owning up to what they're doing-cheating and lying. I understand they have negative connotations, but how much do you want to have it sugar coated?
The rules say this weapon does 1d8+22 damage (arbitrary figures) and you roll an 8 (30) but that would kill a player, so instead you fudge it to be a 1 (23). Unless you say "Oops, did too much damage, I'm just going to turn that into a 1" you are committing a lie by omission, and not obeying the basic principles of the game (rolling dice to simulate thousands of unforeseen factors in an unbiased manner) ergo cheating.
You can come up with a nice name for it, or deny it, or whatever, but it doesn't change facts.
So, to reiterate, the proper tool to overcome this death by statistical anomaly while refraining from cheating/lying would be a house rule. We use action points. One use of action points is using multiples to turn a killing blow into putting you 1 point from the brink of death and giving the healer a chance to stabilize you. Another is using an action point to re-roll a natural 1, somewhat mitigating the string of bad rolls in the anecdote up thread.
The outcome still has weight, the players don't feel cheated by an undying boss or an unkillable player among other problems, but they have tools on their own, written into the rules of the game, to combat unwanted statistical aberrations.
It was an honest question.
Your defense was 'I don't think I'll get caught'!
Yeah I think that we do agree.. this is alien and wrong to me, and it does seem like we don't even play the same game.
JamesThe defense was not simply that I don't think I will get caught. The defense was that we have an agreement (the players and I) that I will only fudge if I don't get caught.
Not because I fear being caught up to no good, but because that is what they want. They want me to fudge occasionaly if it is not obvious.
I guess what doesn't make sense to me here is that they want you to fudge unless you get caught. The condition on which you fudge isn't ascertained until after the act. Like feel free to drive drunk as long as you don't kill anyone-the moment you do it's already too late to stop.
Also, if they know you're fudging (somewhere, somewhen) it seems very irrational to me to be vehement about not knowing when. I just can't wrap my head around that mindset it's so alien.
Possibly apropos: I just bought a copy of Sam Harris' new book, Lying, in which he purportedly will make a case for radical honesty as a better social strategy than telling white lies. That's a tall order, but I look forward to seeing what he has to say.
Possibly apropos: I just bought a copy of Sam Harris' new book, Lying, in which he purportedly will make a case for radical honesty as a better social strategy than telling white lies. That's a tall order, but I look forward to seeing what he has to say.
That's interesting, and personally I find myself edging ever more towards that extreme position.
I guess what doesn't make sense to me here is that they want you to fudge unless you get caught. The condition on which you fudge isn't ascertained until after the act. Like feel free to drive drunk as long as you don't kill anyone-the moment you do it's already too late to stop.Also, if they know you're fudging (somewhere, somewhen) it seems very irrational to me to be vehement about not knowing when. I just can't wrap my head around that mindset it's so alien.
It really is not that hard to understand. If I determinine that the player will know I am fudging, then I don't do it. So far in my current campaign I have not done it.
Irrational to you or not that is how we like it. I don't think everyone finds the concept so alien to wrap their heads around. For instance the people I play with, also known as my friends. And a few people in this thread and on this site. Oh and the game designers.
Playing with a GM who fudges is like going to see a magic show. Some people will vehemently object to going to watching such a performance. Of the people who do enjoy magic shows or GM fudging, they want the performer to be good at what they do, deceiving the audience. If what they do is blatantly obvious it ruins the 'magic'. That is why fudging should not be obvious, because that's just a poor show. Neither GMs nor Illusionists are insinuating that their audience is stupid, they are just doing their best to provide entertainment.
People who fudge, may or may not provide an enjoyable game, but that does not make them morally ambiguous. It's a game and what happens inside of the game should not affect anything outside of the game, and if it does you have some major issues in real life to take care of.
People who hide information or even lie about information are also not terrible people. If your friend or spouse asked you about all of your private information and all of your passwords in a public area, would you spill your soul and connections?
People are forgetting that there is a reasonable amount of acceptable deception in society.
Possibly apropos: I just bought a copy of Sam Harris' new book, Lying, in which he purportedly will make a case for radical honesty as a better social strategy than telling white lies. That's a tall order, but I look forward to seeing what he has to say.That's interesting, and personally I find myself edging ever more towards that extreme position.
I can tell you'll have fun when a wife or girlfriend asks you whether she looks fat (or some such) in her outfit.
Playing with a GM who fudges is like going to see a magic show. Some people will vehemently object to going to watching such a performance. Of the people who do enjoy magic shows or GM fudging, they want the performer to be good at what they do, deceiving the audience. If what they do is blatantly obvious it ruins the 'magic'. That is why fudging should not be obvious, because that's just a poor show. Neither GMs nor Illusionists are insinuating that their audience is stupid, they are just doing their best to provide entertainment.
People who fudge, may or may not provide an enjoyable game, but that does not make them morally ambiguous. It's a game and what happens inside of the game should not affect anything outside of the game, and if it does you have some major issues in real life to take care of.
People who hide information or even lie about information are also not terrible people. If your friend or spouse asked you about all of your private information and all of your passwords in a public area, would you spill your soul and connections?
People are forgetting that there is a reasonable amount of acceptable deception in society.
I really appreciate your analogy, thank you.
I guess the issue is for me whether we're going to see a magic act or not. I don't see the game in those terms, or at least not quite analogously. It still comes down to accepting being deceived. When it's on a stage it's legerdemain, in the streets it's pickpocketing. When I agree to participate in a participatory storytelling and tactical combat game, and this is just me speaking personally, I expect candor and honesty.
As to your final statement, I agree, or at least it is that way with other people. If deception is acceptable in your group, then by all means deceive away, but I enjoy it much more when we don't.
I can tell you'll have fun when a wife or girlfriend asks you whether she looks fat (or some such) in her outfit.Possibly apropos: I just bought a copy of Sam Harris' new book, Lying, in which he purportedly will make a case for radical honesty as a better social strategy than telling white lies. That's a tall order, but I look forward to seeing what he has to say.That's interesting, and personally I find myself edging ever more towards that extreme position.
I realize this was meant in jest, but I DO have a girlfriend (of 7 1/2 years) and she expects me to be honest. And I am, and we move on.
Playing with a GM who fudges is like going to see a magic show.
Not quite -- the best magicians are always up front about it being sleight of hand -- witness Houdini, the Amazing Randi, and Criss Angel practically begging their audiences to understand that there are no magic powers at work. Hell, Penn and Teller go so far as to tell the audience how their tricks work.
That's a far cry from a GM who thinks he can magically save the characters' lives at will without anyone ever being the wiser.
A better analogy is that a fudging GM is like watching movies with CGI car chases. They're fake as hell, but purport to be real, and the audience is happy to delude themselves into thinking as much. Judging from Vin Diesel's popularity, the formula has a lot going for it. Personally, though, I'll stick with "Bullitt" and "Death Proof" -- I like when there's a real car involved in the car chase.
Also in my defense, I only fudge if I think I can do so without it being noticed.Exactly HOW is this a defense?
It just boggles my mind.
It's not the getting noticed part that's wrong here, it's the basic act. There's a reason that you don't want to get noticed. At some level you realize that it's not the right thing to be doing, and being noticed would make you have to face it. Thus you conclude that being noticed is the problem...
There is a difference between the following two occurrences when a PC is getting reincarned (as it was given as an example):
1. "Oh look I rolled 00 DM's choice.. I'll give you this that you wanted" (Meanwhile the real roll was 99).
2. "Hey you wanted to be this, I'll let you come back at that".
Now personally I wouldn't care for either of these, but I find that there's absolutely no reason to take choice 1 over choice 2. Choice 2 is at the very least being honest with everyone, even if it's not kosher.
-James
Here's why there is a significant difference between the two, I made the decision that 99-100 is GM Choice, not that the entire thing is GM Choice. I essentially just made a houserule at the time. I see it as fudging because in another situation, I may have allowed Troglodyte. I removed a single option that the player didn't even know was there (he doesn't look up spells that others are casting).
Choice 1 allowed for 13 other options while Choice 2 is simply choosing the result. As I have said, a few times now, had he rolled something else he would have had to keep it. I I'm running a world with no elves, and he rolls an elf for reincarnate, am I obligated to keep it as GM or can I cheat and change it?
I love the term "BadWrongFun" as it's used on these boards.
The implicit definition of it is: "You're telling me that the way I'm having fun is bad and wrong, which is a moronic statement, because I'm having fun doing it."
However, this in and of itself is silly. Of course you can be having fun, and yet be doing something bad and wrong. Hundreds of examples immediately spring to mind. Any number of recreational drugs fall into this category, as does riding around drunk in your car, as does a number of like-minded kids picking on weaker/smaller kids at the playground. These are just a few examples. We're human beings. We don't all get the most pleasure out of the most cherubic experiences. We're flawed. It's actually pretty cool.
In the context of this discussion, BadWrongFun is a logical fallacy of the worst order. Some of us are saying "You're headed down a road that could cause unnecessary tension amongst your gaming group, and more importantly, your friends", and the response is "BadWrongFun!".
Well, actually, yeah. BadWrongFun. It's all BadWrongFun and games until somebody's character doesn't get a roll flubbed for them that got flubbed for the last guy, and they get ticked off and leave the group. That's what we're talking about. We're actually trying to help, even if some of us aren't the most diplomatic rats in the pack.
For my part, I sincerely hope it continues to go your way, and nobody gets ticked off and leaves your group over it. Do I prefer to not incur the risk of that happening? Absolutely.
I've been running things like this for dozens of systems since 1979 without a problem. I don't think it's going to start now. If it does, then that type of player is probably not the type I want to play with. There are plenty of people I haven't enjoyed gaming with and I'm sure they felt the same way about me.
From what I can tell, we are all experienced GMs in this discussion. I think that we all have a lot of experience to bring and that is forming our opinions. None of us are wrong for the way we are gaming. I think it is wrong when someone tells me that I am wrong for the way I game.
It seems the pro-cheating opposition is just having some trouble owning up to what they're doing-cheating and lying. I understand they have negative connotations, but how much do you want to have it sugar coated?
The rules say this weapon does 1d8+22 damage (arbitrary figures) and you roll an 8 (30) but that would kill a player, so instead you fudge it to be a 1 (23). Unless you say "Oops, did too much damage, I'm just going to turn that into a 1" you are committing a lie by omission, and not obeying the basic principles of the game (rolling dice to simulate thousands of unforeseen factors in an unbiased manner) ergo cheating.
You can come up with a nice name for it, or deny it, or whatever, but it doesn't change facts.
So, to reiterate, the proper tool to overcome this death by statistical anomaly while refraining from cheating/lying would be a house rule. We use action points. One use of action points is using multiples to turn a killing blow into putting you 1 point from the brink of death and giving the healer a chance to stabilize you. Another is using an action point to re-roll a natural 1, somewhat mitigating the string of bad rolls in the anecdote up thread.
The outcome still has weight, the players don't feel cheated by an undying boss or an unkillable player among other problems, but they have tools on their own, written into the rules of the game, to combat unwanted statistical aberrations.
There is no "pro-cheating position." I think that's the problem with this discussion. You are equating cheating with fudging. Have you ever played pinball? You can nudge the ball by bumping the machine and is encouraged. If you nudge it too much though, you lose that ball. Fudging is like this. You can nudge a little here and a little there but if you do it too much or too hard, the game will come to a halt.
Also in my defense, I only fudge if I think I can do so without it being noticed.Exactly HOW is this a defense?
It just boggles my mind.
It's not the getting noticed part that's wrong here, it's the basic act. There's a reason that you don't want to get noticed. At some level you realize that it's not the right thing to be doing, and being noticed would make you have to face it. Thus you conclude that being noticed is the problem...
There is a difference between the following two occurrences when a PC is getting reincarned (as it was given as an example):
1. "Oh look I rolled 00 DM's choice.. I'll give you this that you wanted" (Meanwhile the real roll was 99).
2. "Hey you wanted to be this, I'll let you come back at that".
Now personally I wouldn't care for either of these, but I find that there's absolutely no reason to take choice 1 over choice 2. Choice 2 is at the very least being honest with everyone, even if it's not kosher.
-James
Here's why there is a significant difference between the two, I made the decision that 99-100 is GM Choice, not that the entire thing is GM Choice. I essentially just made a houserule at the time. I see it as fudging because in another situation, I may have allowed Troglodyte. I removed a single option that the player didn't even know was there (he doesn't look up spells that others are casting).
Choice 1 allowed for 13 other options while Choice 2 is simply choosing the result. As I have said, a few times now, had he rolled something else he would have had to keep it. I I'm running a world with no elves, and he rolls an elf for reincarnate, am I obligated to keep it as GM or can I cheat and change it?
The real question is how simply fiating without rolling IE simply declaring you god powers and ignoring the rules of the spell is different than removing an undesirable option.
Though on a strange note was running a drow campaign and the cleric got reincarnated as a true elf. Proceeded to demand the druid get ready to cast it again and coup de grace herself voulantarily failing the save.
The real question is how simply fiating without rolling IE simply declaring you god powers and ignoring the rules of the spell is different than removing an undesirable option.
Though on a strange note was running a drow campaign and the cleric got reincarnated as a true elf. Proceeded to demand the druid get ready to cast it again and coup de grace herself voulantarily failing the save.
For me, the difference is that I simply removed an option and decided to merge it with the GM Choice instead of Orc. Sure, it was an on-the-fly decision that fudged in the player's favor, but I could have just as easily had him come back as an orc if I only wanted to fudge the die by 1 point. I went for the "more fun" option.
Had he actually rolled an elf, I would have allowed him to return as a drow since that was his original race. If he had come back as a half-elf, he would have been half-drow. All of them require some fudging and the all make sense.
There is no "pro-cheating position." I think that's the problem with this discussion. You are equating cheating with fudging. Have you ever played pinball? You can nudge the ball by bumping the machine and is encouraged. If you nudge it too much though, you lose that ball. Fudging is like this. You can nudge a little here and a little there but if you do it too much or too hard, the game will come to a halt.
Wow. Just...wow. No, sorry, cheating is cheating no matter how much you sugar coat it. The fact that you are in hard denial about your blatant lying and cheating to your players doesn't change the situation.
|
I'm going to start this by admitting that I have not read all the posts in this thread. I apologize.
I just got back from a game where the DM rolled everything in plain view, and several times one or all of our characters were at death's door. It was scary, but it was also tremendous fun. Our level 1 characters were cowering and terrified of this crazy owlbear with 3 natural attacks (shredded my character, taking me down from full to -8 with one full attack), but when we beat it, it was freaking awesome.
All the more awesome because the monsters were being dangerous, and the DM was trying to kill us. That said, it may not have been so awesome if we'd been slaughtered, but I'm still glad he was rolling in front of us, because the story is much better.
|
Possibly apropos: I just bought a copy of Sam Harris' new book, Lying, in which he purportedly will make a case for radical honesty as a better social strategy than telling white lies. That's a tall order, but I look forward to seeing what he has to say.
I'll have to pick it up myself. I look forward to the day when such a strategy can be practiced without risking your life.
Edit: Ooo, I can get it on Kindle and start reading tonight!
Only caught up with this discussion last night. It reminds me of a situation four or five years ago, where I was in a long-running campaign. The guy running it was brilliant but definitely a member of the 'non-fudging' fraternity. We happened to be crossing a swollen river and the GM decided that we should all make ride rolls to do so. One incredibly bad roll followed another - someone fell in, a rescue was attempted, then someone else got swept away, and so on and so on, until everyone bar one character drowned. I can vividly remember GM's quiet panic as we started dying one after another, but he just couldn't bring himself to say 'You know what, this is stupid, forget it - you all cross the river,' and then move on to something more meaningful. Contrary to what some have suggested in this thread, I didn't feel particularly empowered by my own death, that I was telling 'my' story rather than the ref's - to me the dice was just getting in the way of common sense. What I was feeling was a very real sense of ten wasted months playing because of the GM's dogmatism. Not my idea of 'fun'.
When I started this thread, I had no idea anyone even considered fudging and cheating synonymous, much less the intensity to which they would tell me how wrong and bad of a person I am for fudging a little here and there.
I feel like I could better accept the non-fudging stance if those defending it weren't being so illogical about what they're saying - that basically to fudge is to rip the rulebook up because you're "clearly" not worried about what you're supposed to do. I've heard a few times that if you're going to ignore the die roll result, then don't even roll. Isn't that doing exactly what you consider fudging to be: going against the rules; the difference here is that the fudging GM might actually take the roll, in the event it suits the story well enough?
Fudging can be bad without being this monstrosity of an act. Honestly, I think that refusing on any grounds to fudge is a poor decision, leading to more restrictive gameplay (see Wrex's example above), but I'm not shoving "UR DOIN IT WRONG" down anyone's throat.
Now, for those who are being a bit more reasonable, I still say fudging is not cheating. Maybe the reason you think that is that it's hard to define cheating and fudging at the same time separately.
|
|
I honestly thought you were playing both sides in this thread, as devils advocate.
I was under the impression that you, Kirth, and the other Texans were firmly entrenched in the camp of 'let the dice fall where they may'.
I've no intention of baiting you, so if anything I've said has offended you, I apologise.
To tell the truth, I kind of lost track of where I was on the it. Too many threads at once, I think.
Apology accepted, and offered in turn. The cursing was mean for emphasis, not insult.
I argue a lot of different viewpoints. Whichever one happens to seize my fancy at the time. Often, I do play the devil's advocate. It's fun to try using arguments I don't agree with.
In this case, I'm both for and against it. I can play in Kirth's game with little problem, even when the dice decide an outcome that saddens me, because I love stories where the heroes win. What my position has been the entire time is, whichever side you choose, be consistent in it, and do not degrade the other. If your group has the rule 'no fudging' then let there be no fudging. If the rule is 'the DM may fudge' then by all means use it. If you take issue with your groups rules, bring it up for discussion.
But don't call them horrible people because of it.
I am an accomplished liar. I've done it since I was in grade school. Once I got old enough to understand it, I certainly felt the conflict that james has harped on in his arguments. I've been working through it for quite some time.
I know what I am. And it infuriates me when people tell me otherwise.
|
|
That said, if it is that common it is a serious turn-off for me and I'll probably be seriously reconsidering PFS play, though maybe if I can find a group where it is understood no such thing will take place it won't matter for me.
Where are you based?
I can't speak for other countries, but I don't think the UK PFS GMs have any qualms killing PCs.I've had two scenarios where I bled out to 1hp above death, and I've forfeited my wages at least twice to raise another PC.
In 'The Grand Melee', we had a level 3(?) PC nailed from full hp to dead in the first shot of the first encounter, five minutes into the session.
'The Dalsine Affair' saw a different level 3(?) PC dropped from full hp to KO from a sneak attack, twice, in the first round of two successive battles in the same session. Just wrong place at the wrong time. The GM was very apologetic about it, but explained his reasons for targetting him, and threw the dice out in the open (the number of dice alone was enough to worry him).
We did still have a laugh about it, including the poor sap that got nobbled.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I know what I am. And it infuriates me when people tell me otherwise.
After the memorial, I called his widow to work out some things, among which was something about his X-box system. Somehow his son had gotten the idea that daddy had one and he was going to get it. I tried to explain that he had never had one that we knew of, and everything of his had been turned over to the casualty assistance officer.
For pretty much the entire phone conversation, she insinuated that I had stolen my friend's X-box.
My wife said it was the only time she has ever seen me come close to losing my temper.
So yeah, I don't like being wrongfully accused.
