I had to leave mid combat yeah, but I gave everyone a heads up that I couldn't stay too long, and even said I would and asked if that was okay. I don't feel I was rude for having to leave.
I would agree you were not rude as you didn't leave early. By my math you stayed 3 and 1/2 hours past the agreed upon time. The fact that the rest of them stayed later doesn't make you rude.
(As an aside, your character dying while you're not there is the worst. I game with close friends that I've know for over 15 years and they killed my character when I wasn't there. And I mean they killed my character. This was several years ago and it still comes up from time to time.)
That was a neat sidestep to the rest of my post.All analogies are inherently flawed.
This analogy is flawed,
I'm sorry. What did you say that others didn't say before you?
Very well, then...
This analogy is flawed, much like your others. Circumstances decide rudeness, not actions in and of themselves.
If you need to take you wife to the hospital and stand up your friend, you are not being rude. In any way, shape or form whatsoever.
Taking your wife to the hospital is not rude. Standing up your friend is rude. However, standing up your friend to take your wife to the hospital is not "unacceptable."
If you stand him up because you wanted to go watch a movie, you are being rude. And selfish. And probably aren't really the guy's friend.Both results are the same (the guy doesn't get to the airport). The circumstances are not. ONe is an emergency, the other is selfishness. Only one is rude.
Both results are the same because the action is the same. You broke a promise to a friend. One reason is certainly worse than the other but either way you broke your promise. It is generally considered rude to break a promise. (At least I thought so before all this discussion. Apparently I'm the only one that would consider myself rude for failing to live up to my word.)
If you kill a man in self-defense, you killed a man to save your own life. Not murder.If you straight up murder a guy, you have killed him for whatever personal (or impersonal) reason, and are a murderer.
The results are the same (a guy is dead) but the cirumstances are not. One is murder, one is defense. Only one is considered "unacceptable".
Here you've just repeated what I said. One is "acceptable." One is "unacceptable." The "act" is the same, you've killed a man. Now replace "killed a man" with rude, "self-defense" with cause, and "murder" with without cause.
Or delve deeper into the analogy to point out inherent flaws. If you murder someone you're probably going to jail. If you flip the table over, insult the DM's wife and cut a loud fart as you walk out you probably won't go to jail. So I guess it's not rude. I mean clearly that was what I meant. I certainly wasn't giving a very broad example to showcase my point.
I think the problem arising here is that Durngrun feels like people who are inconvenienced by someone is a result of rudeness. (or something like that). And that's not true in the general scheme of things. People are inconvenienced a great deal. If there's a traffic congestion due to construction, are the construction workers being rude?
I would have to say No. I would also have to say that about 75% of the time, rudeness is determine not by the actions that are carried out but by the manner in which they are carried out.
A person orders a burger and fries and hands the cashier the money = Not Rude.
A person orders a burger and fries and throws the money across the counter = Rude.
A person orders a burger and fries and carefully counts out the money as he hands it to the cashier = Polite (perhaps even Excessively)
----------
A person gets up from the gaming table and leaves = Not Rude.
A person gets up from the gaming table, punches someone or damages something in the process = Rude.
A person gets up from the gaming table, cordially makes his farewells, and offers a socially acceptable excuse for his early retirement. = Polite (perhaps even Excessively)
-----------
And just to go with the killing analogy (for whatever reason it was brought up)
A person kills someone else, whether murder or in self defense = Not Rude.
A person kills someone else, whether murder or in self defense and then mocks or defaces the body in some way = Rude.
A person kills someone else, whether murder or in self defense, apologizes excessively to the body, any family members, provides a financial benefit for the remaining family, and asks to attend the funeral = Polite.
Not at all, you have missed my point entirely. The rudeness is not the inconvenience, it is the breaking of a promise. If you agree to get together with a group of people for a shared activity and you have to leave abruptly (for whatever reason), then you have broken that social contract. You have failed to keep your word. You have lied to those people and that is rude. I understand there are certain events that can force your hand (emergency, intolerable behavior, etc.) and the person does not feel morally responsible, but it is still rude.
It does not in itself make you a "bad person."
It is not always "unacceptable."
It can not "quote some third person here!"
But it is still rude...
In the words of Machiavelli, "The promise given was a necessity of the past. The promise broken is a necessity of the present."
Personally, I do not think that breaking a promise is necessarily rude, so much as the manner in which it is broken. While politeness is part of the social contract, there are a great deal of actions which are not. And it is possible (indeed, even expected) that certain promises be broken. That there be alterations, reversals, and reschedules.
Now, that being said, there are ways in which promises are broken that account for being rude, and a whole scale of rudeness/politeness that can affect actions.
Let's say that a date is made. One of the people involved realizes a week before the date that he or she has to work the night of the date, he calls his or her date and explains the situation, and they agree to reschedule the date to a later time = Not Rude.
Same scenario. A date is made. One of the people involved gets a very bad stomach flu virus the day of the date. He calls his or her date and explains the situation, and they agree to reschedule to a later time = Still Not Rude.
Third scenario. A date is made. One of the people involved does not show up at all. The other person feels inconvenienced, and is upset by the absence of his or her date. The neglected date calls the no-show and finds that the other person forgot about it. The no-show asks if the date wants to try to do something that night or to reschedule. = Inconveniencing, but Not Rude.
Fourth scenario. A date is made. Again no-show, no-call. The neglected date cannot reach the no-show, and is feeling both inconvenienced and angry. The neglected date is not able to reach the no-show for several days, after which its determined that the no-show had a sudden family emergency to attend, and could not call for some reason. This is Inconveniencing and Angering, but again Not Rude. Its unlikely that another date will be made, but that could be determined by other factors not necessarily presented here.
Fifth scenario. A date is made. No-show, no-call. The neglected date is finally able to reach the no-show at the very end of the evening, and finds that the no-show is drunk or high or in some other experience of relaxed responsibility and just blew off the date. Over the phone, the no-show proceeds to make an A$$ of him/herself, and speaks crudely to the neglected date (or in an uncaring manner) = Rude.
In all situations, really Rudeness doesn't enter the factor until there is a breach of generally accepted social protocol. (Note that I used the phrase 'generally accepted'.) It is the greater social contract that determines rude behavior, not contracts with cliques. In most cases, rudeness qualifies a class of verbal/behavioral taboos that have little to do with direct actions and everything to do with the manner in which those actions are carried out.
Effectively, I feel like we're dealing with the difference between Prescriptive Norms, Proscriptive Norms, and Subjective Norms. There are few Prescriptive Norms for gaming communities, for the most part. There are however, several Subjective ones. General rudeness is part of society's proscriptive norms, or rules about what not to do in society. 'Don't leave a game before it's finished.' is not a proscriptive norm. But it may very well be a subjective one for certain groups or individuals.
Now, when playing a game, there are a certain list of proscriptive norms which define unsportsmanlike behavior. But it is entirely possible to be sportsmanlike and rude, or to be unsportsmanlike and polite, as one is a description of actions, and the other is a description of the social mannerisms, verbal and social protocol of the actions.
Refusing to play the game might be unsportsmanlike, but depending on the actions of the players who are refusing to play, can be considered rude, not rude, or polite.
When playing a game, there is a proscriptive norm "Don't leave a game before its complete.", but this is not a general societal norm, but one which helps to define unsportsmanlike behavior.
Both results are the same because the action is the same. You broke a promise to a friend. One reason is certainly worse than the other but either way you broke your promise. It is generally considered rude to break a promise.
Except it is not ACTIONS that make rudeness. It is INTENT and the WAY you carry out those actions that determines rudeness.
Farting, in and of itself, is not rude. It is a natural bodily function that everyone has to do once in a while.
Farting at the table at an important dinner is rude. It could have been held and by not doing so you have willfully worsened the lives of the people around you temporarily.
(At least I thought so before all this discussion. Apparently I'm the only one that would consider myself rude for failing to live up to my word.)
Yes, you are the only one that would feel a twinge of guilt for mildly inconveniencing your friend to SAVE YOUR WIFE'S LIFE.
That's not politeness, that's insanity.
You're quoting Machiavelli to prove something is not rude?
I guess if you don't consider lying to be rude, or you don't consider breaking your word to be lying, or you don't consider agreeing to something (not only agreeing, but showing up and then leaving) to be giving your word, then clearly you do not consider it to be rude.
I don't buy into the philosophy that nothing is wrong if you have the right reason. I am truly shocked so many people (5 I think) believe that actions have no meanings and only the intent is valid consideration. I hate being the old stick in the mud and I'm not pulling out the slippery slope argument. I just wanted people to think about their actions, separate from the justification.
Is leaving the game in the middle of combat, rude? Without any excuses, reasons, or caveats. Will anyone answer just that one question?
I think the main issue we're having here is that you seem to live in a black and white world, while most other people realize there are shades of gray.
Is leaving the game in the middle of combat, rude? Without any excuses, reasons, or caveats. Will anyone answer just that one question?
NO.
Because an action with no context IS NO ACTION. There is nothing on this earth that does not take place in SOME kind of scenario. Some scenarios it is acceptable. Others it is not.
IT DEPENDS.
Except it is not ACTIONS that make rudeness. It is INTENT and the WAY you carry out those actions that determines rudeness.
"We had to burn the village in order to save it.
"We had to burn the village in order to save it.
Except it is not ACTIONS that make rudeness. It is INTENT and the WAY you carry out those actions that determines rudeness.
Except that's not what is being suggested here. Most of the time burning the village is probably the last solution you want to take, and the last one you do. I'm not sure if it qualifies as rude, but its certainly far from the social norm. I'd consider that akin' to flipping the table and walking out. Highly emotional and usually not the best decision.
"We had to burn the village in order to save it.
Except it is not ACTIONS that make rudeness. It is INTENT and the WAY you carry out those actions that determines rudeness.
The village was the host of a disease that is extremely deadly and very contagious.
Burning the village prevents the spread of said disease across the country.
Like I said: CIRCUMSTANCES.
|
If you agree to get together with a group of people for a shared activity and you have to leave abruptly (for whatever reason), then you have broken that social contract.
This is why you're catching so much flak, Durngrun!
There is indeed a 'social contract' in this situation. Like any contract, breaking that contract is 'bad', and breaking a social contract is 'rude'.
However, when a contract is broken by one party, then the other party is no longer obligated to continue to fulfil their part of the contract.
In the situations described here, the social contract has already been broken by the DM (or whoever), so walking out in response to that contract-breaking behaviour is perfectly fine (not 'rude'), because at that point the social contract, already broken by the other party, no longer exists; there is no longer any social contract to break.
I'm just being rude ironically.
"We had to burn the village in order to save it.
Except it is not ACTIONS that make rudeness. It is INTENT and the WAY you carry out those actions that determines rudeness.
The village was the host of a disease that is extremely deadly and very contagious.
Burning the village prevents the spread of said disease across the country.
Like I said: CIRCUMSTANCES.
Do you know where that quote is from? Because you just kind of proved my point beautifully.
If you agree to get together with a group of people for a shared activity and you have to leave abruptly (for whatever reason), then you have broken that social contract.This is why you're catching so much flak, Durngrun!
There is indeed a 'social contract' in this situation. Like any contract, breaking that contract is 'bad', and breaking a social contract is 'rude'.
However, when a contract is broken by one party, then the other party is no longer obligated to continue to fulfil their part of the contract.
In the situations described here, the social contract has already been broken by the DM (or whoever), so walking out in response to that contract-breaking behaviour is perfectly fine (not 'rude'), because at that point the social contract, already broken by the other party, no longer exists; there is no longer any social contract to break.
This is actually a well made point. I still disagree but this is a much better argument then I have seen so far. I would say your point applies to the DM. You are still being rude to your fellow players (who are, in my experience, your friends).
Like I said: CIRCUMSTANCES.Do you know where that quote is from? Because you just kind of proved my point beautifully.
Your point was that circumstances change the situation greatly? That was a lot of peoples points. I thought your point was the action itself is automatically rude and we sometimes excuse it, which isn't what everyone agrees on. Rude is a word that creates a negative stigma, and we see it as wrong. If we accept leaving the table is always rude regardless of circumstances, then even in in the right situation its wrong. Polite being the opposite of rude, this is awkward in that you can leave a table politely...
Edit: I should add, burning down a village is hyperbole. Rude isn't the first word I'd use for burning down a village to save it.
Do you know where that quote is from? Because you just kind of proved my point beautifully.
I am aware. But it doesn't really prove your point at all.
I still disagree that actions are (in and of themselves) rude, except for certain behaviors which intentionally degrade or conflict with what society considers acceptable.
As I mentioned earlier, actions can be unsportsmanlike, but that does not necessarily make them rude. It does break a social contract, but it is not the overarching social contract of acceptable social behavior, but a smaller group of people who got together to perform an activity, namely gaming (or sportsmanship).
Another thing is that unsportsmanlike behavior in response to other unsportsmanlike behavior (As has been pointed out) seems to be the norm.
|
|
This is actually a well made point. I still disagree but this is a much better argument then I have seen so far. I would say your point applies to the DM. You are still being rude to your fellow players (who are, in my experience, your friends).If you agree to get together with a group of people for a shared activity and you have to leave abruptly (for whatever reason), then you have broken that social contract.This is why you're catching so much flak, Durngrun!
There is indeed a 'social contract' in this situation. Like any contract, breaking that contract is 'bad', and breaking a social contract is 'rude'.
However, when a contract is broken by one party, then the other party is no longer obligated to continue to fulfil their part of the contract.
In the situations described here, the social contract has already been broken by the DM (or whoever), so walking out in response to that contract-breaking behaviour is perfectly fine (not 'rude'), because at that point the social contract, already broken by the other party, no longer exists; there is no longer any social contract to break.
Part of the social construct that is 'game night' is that the DM will run his game fairly. If the DM treats even a single player so badly that the social contract is broken, then it is broken for the whole table.
The expectations of this social contract (a fair game) have been destroyed by the DM's behaviour, and even though that bad behaviour only targeted a single player, the 'fair game' no longer exists, and that is just as true for all the players, not just the victim.
|
What i see here as the main problem is that Durngrun uses the term 'Rude' much too loosely judging by the opinion of everyone else on the thread.
Standing up a friend to save the life of your spouse is not rude. If he got upset over it, it is he who would be considered rude.
Standing up a friend to go watch a movie is rude.
The main thing that determines the rudeness of an action is CIRCUMSTANCE. An action in on itself is not inherently rude.
Yes (weird, huh?).
If I left politely, would that mean I was being rude and polite at the same time?
It's a paradox. Rude means by definition "impolite". You cannot be politely impolite.
You are attaching an adjective to the phrase that is not a part of it's definition. The action of getting up and leaving the table cannot be considered in-and-of-itself rude if it can be done in a polite way ("My wife is in labor, I have to go") or in an unimportant way ("I need to go answer the door, it's probably the pizza guy"). The action is the same, the reasons and the end result are not.
No. I'm sorry, but no. You're only rude if you intend to be rude? Who intends to be rude?
I didn't ditch my friend because I'm selfish. That was my only chance to see that movie. Plus my coupon for the movie expired that day, and everybody knows how much I love Iron Man. I didn't intend to break my word when I promised to take him to the airport so I'm in the clear, right?
Who intends to be rude?
Angry people do sometimes. Its sort of a feeling you've been wronged so you take it out on others. Its immature, but entirely human. Also, some people get a real kick out of being rude to see peoples reactions, but I think that's a reason to leave when it happens to you more than a reason to leave to do to everyone else.
I've quit many games. It's never been over anything crazy or overly offensive, just a matter of "hey, this isn't for me/ I'm not having fun/personal schedule changing, can't come out anymore/etc." I've always finished out what was to be my last session, and in the cases of deciding to quit, I go home, think it over, and talk to the DM afterward.
BUT,
If I felt slighted enough, I would have no issues getting up in the middle of a game and walking out. Rude begets rude.
If something effected me drastically enough to make "get up and leave" an option that pops up in my head, that means whomever was present has already been rude to me in the first place. My rudeness in turn, is just an exchange and a show of my disapproval. I have sat through far too many awkward, unhealthy game sessions which in hindsight, I really feel like I should have gotten up and just left.
rude [rood]
adjective, rud·er, rud·est.
1.
discourteous or impolite, especially in a deliberate way: a rude reply.
2.
without culture, learning, or refinement: rude, illiterate peasants.
3.
rough in manners or behavior; unmannerly; uncouth.
4.
rough, harsh, or ungentle: rude hands.
5.
roughly wrought, built, or formed; of a crude construction or kind: a rude cottage.
rude [ru:d]
— adj
1. insulting or uncivil; discourteous; impolite: he was rude about her hairstyle
2. lacking refinement; coarse or uncouth
3. vulgar or obscene: a rude joke
4. unexpected and unpleasant: a rude awakening to the facts of economic life
5. roughly or crudely made: we made a rude shelter on the island
6. rough or harsh in sound, appearance, or behaviour
7. humble or lowly
8. ( prenominal ) robust or sturdy: in rude health
9. ( prenominal ) approximate or imprecise: a rude estimate
...This is the same DM that made us auto fail checks to have our gear stolen and put us in a no win scenario where we either kill the BBEG and our stolen stuff turns to stone, our we don't kill the BBEG and we die....
DM god complex/ entitled player/ this is why I took over as DM/ this is why I switched to Pathfinder/rant/thread
Just to nitpick, because I've been away for a while, but what does having a crappy, inconsistent DM have to do with switching to Pathfinder? There are plenty of sheisty DM's in Pathfinder too.
No. I'm sorry, but no. You're only rude if you intend to be rude? Who intends to be rude?
I didn't ditch my friend because I'm selfish. That was my only chance to see that movie. Plus my coupon for the movie expired that day, and everybody knows how much I love Iron Man. I didn't intend to break my word when I promised to take him to the airport so I'm in the clear, right?
If the person honestly forgot about his friend, then that is not rude behavior. If he knew about his friend at the time he went to see the movie (or at any time during the time when he should have left the movie to get his friend), and still remained to watch the movie, then that is selfish and rude (discourteous) behavior.
Rude has a certain implication of intention to it, as indicated in the definitions above.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
In a related note, I've just read six or seven different politeness guides that indicate that a person should (if in a conversation that annoys, insults, or makes him or her uncomfortable), excuse oneself from the conversation.
Just so everyone knows I'm not intentionally leaving out information to make an argument, the other two options are:
A) Politely Agree to Disagree and
B) Politely Debate.
Either of those could be effective as well, but Leaving is an acceptable option, especially if its difficult or impossible to do either of the above.
No. I'm sorry, but no. You're only rude if you intend to be rude? Who intends to be rude?
I didn't ditch my friend because I'm selfish. That was my only chance to see that movie. Plus my coupon for the movie expired that day, and everybody knows how much I love Iron Man. I didn't intend to break my word when I promised to take him to the airport so I'm in the clear, right?
By intent/reason, no one means intending to be rude. "Rude" is a designation someone else is giving you BECAUSE if your reasons.
If one decides to ditch his friend because he wanted to see Iron Man 3 and he did it, he probably thought it was a perfectly fine thing to do. The friend, however, will consider that rude.
There is no objective list of actions that are inherently rude (and by action, I mean along the lines of "leaving a table" or "laughing at someone"), it is the manner, intent, and circumstances that let someone subjectively label them rude.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have to say this discussion explains a lot of the outlandish behavior I have read about here. Clearly proper manners is no longer as important as when I was raised. I know this is the Internet so everyone here is an atheist and this won't mean anything to any of you but the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Everyone can continue on with your self justification, nothing anyone ever does is bad unless they mean it to be bad. I'll continue saying please and thank you and sir and mam. Now if y'all don't mind I have to go yell at some kids to get off my lawn.
No, I have never walked out on a DM in mid-combat.
the road to hell is paved with good intentions
So is the road to socialism, now that you mention it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have to say this discussion explains a lot of the outlandish behavior I have read about here.
Oh, this should be good.
Clearly proper manners is no longer as important as when I was raised.
From what you've posted here, "proper manners" is not what you were taught. Perhaps a sort of "Catholic guilt", but not manners.
I know this is the Internet so everyone here is an atheist
My eyes cannot roll any harder. While I'm sure a good portion of posters (including myself) are atheist, you cannot sincerely somehow believe you are the only religious person on the internet unless you're delusional.
and this won't mean anything to any of you but the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
And the road to Oz is paved with yellow bricks. Yes, you're right. This doesn't mean a damn thing to me because things are not black and white. Actions do not have morality associated with them. It is solely the circumstances of the action that decide such.
Hell, even the Bible agrees with me here.
"There is a time for everything,
and a season for every activity under the heavens:
2 a time to be born and a time to die,
a time to plant and a time to uproot,
3 a time to kill and a time to heal,
a time to tear down and a time to build,
4 a time to weep and a time to laugh,
a time to mourn and a time to dance,
5 a time to scatter stones and a time to gather them,
a time to embrace and a time to refrain from embracing,
6 a time to search and a time to give up,
a time to keep and a time to throw away,
7 a time to tear and a time to mend,
a time to be silent and a time to speak,
8 a time to love and a time to hate,
a time for war and a time for peace."
Ecclesiastes 3.
Everyone can continue on with your self justification, nothing anyone ever does is bad unless they mean it to be bad.
What you seem to fail to grasp is that things are only "bad" or "good" based on how they affect the people around them and the reasons they affect said people.
Burning down a village because you're bored is bad. It negatively affects the lives of everyone in that area for no adequate reason.
Burning down a village to save hundreds more is not bad. It indirectly affects the lives of EVERYONE ELSE in a positive way.
I'll continue saying please and thank you and sir and mam.
So what does this have to do with anything?
THAT is part of proper manners. What you have been arguing in the rest of this thread is not.
Now if y'all don't mind I have to go yell at some kids to get off my lawn.
That's quite rude, by the way.
I understand there are certain events that can force your hand (emergency, intolerable behavior, etc.) and the person does not feel morally responsible, but it is still rude.
It does not in itself make you a "bad person."
It is not always "unacceptable."
It can not "quote some third person here!"But it is still rude...
I'm not sure what "It cannot 'quote some third person here!'" means.
But the thought that there is some rudeness that is not always "unnacceptable" is an interesting concept, and perhaps at the heart of the disagreement people are having.
To me, any time you are thinking of "acceptable rudeness", I translate that to mean "not rude". To me (and, if I understand a lot of people's reactions here), rudeness is locked into a negative connotation. "Rude" almost translates directly into "wrong". Calling someone rude is almost equatable to calling someone a jerk.
To go back to the example of a sick spouse, when you say "The person who is leaving early to take his wife to the hospital is being rude, but it is forgivable because of circumstances", it translates to "the person leaving early to take his wife to the hospital is doing something wrong, but it is forgivable because of circumstances."
You can possibly see how that doesn't quite sit easy with me?
You say that doing something rude doesn't make you a bad person. I can get behind that 100%. I know I have done some "bad things", but I don't think that makes me a bad person. I don't think there are really that many "truly bad people" in the world.
But when you say rudeness is not always "unacceptable", it brings up a certain question. If rudeness is not always unnacceptable, then that must mean that some rudeness is acceptable.
If something is "acceptable", how is it rude? Acceptable behavior, almost by definition, isn't rude.
I'm a Christian, by the way (not that it should matter). One of my favorite beings in the entire universe was a rude table-flipper, too. Matthew 21: 12-13
I still think some classifications need to be made between 'rude' behavior and whatever Durngrun is referring to. Still haven't been able to find a good word for it.
By the definition of 'rude' (see above), I think Durngrun is going by the impolite or discourteous definition, while most other people are using the crass or coarse definition. Crass or coarse are adjectives that modify certain actions. Most everything crass or coarse is rude, but the actions themselves (without the additional coarseness or unpleasantness) are not.
Is it discourteous to leave a game when it is obvious that that person is uncomfortable in the situation, is being harassed, intimidated or insulted by the DM or another player, or otherwise made to be socially uncomfortable?. Based on the polite rules of conversation, it is not, as politely excusing oneself from these types of conversations is one of the acceptable things to do. The other acceptable things are to politely agree to disagree and change the subject, or politely debate the subject if it is a pleasant argument.
These are not arbitrary behaviors, but codified in Etiquette Guides for the past 300 years or so.
These are not arbitrary behaviors, but codified in Etiquette Guides for the past 300 years or so.
You make some excellent points, but again, I think it's important to note that those Etiquette Guides are not by any means universal.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Clearly proper manners is no longer as important as when I was raised. I know this is the Internet so everyone here is an atheist and this won't mean anything to any of you but the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Everyone can continue on with your self justification, nothing anyone ever does is bad unless they mean it to be bad. I'll continue saying please and thank you and sir and mam. Now if y'all don't mind I have to go yell at some kids to get off my lawn.
You are going to have to speak up, we atheists can't hear very well when you are way up on that high horse.
Me thinks this thread has run it's course
-MD
I'm not sure what "It cannot 'quote some third person here!'" means.
Just a joke. The comedic rule of three. The first two quotes were from other posts and the third one was to imply I was too lazy to go find another quote.
Just a joke. The comedic rule of three. The first two quotes were from other posts and the third one was to imply I was too lazy to go find another quote.
I'm not sure what "It cannot 'quote some third person here!'" means.
Ah. Okay. I get it now.
Sorry. I sometimes can't see the forest for the trees. :P
Carry on!
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It occurs that this whole 'rude/not rude' debate is one of mere semantics and definitions.
What this thread is about is walking out/what would trigger that response.
Durngrun, if a DM treated you as if you were scum, and cheated just to mess with your character, and swore and made inappropriate sexual comments, would you feel compelled to stay on the grounds of not wanting to be rude?
Not at all. I've said in several posts that certain situations can force you to leave.
If you are referring to the OP, I would say that is a slight exaggeration. As I read it, the player was upset at the DM for not allowing a feat from a splat book after prior approval and there was some other background history between the two. Having looked over my friends character sheets for them, I know how easy it is to overlook one feat. I would not consider that grounds to walk out on my friends in the middle of a game.
Let me also say, I never meant to imply I was some paragon of virtue. I have been rude in many situations, warranted and unwarranted. I'm sure you can verify that, Mr. Silverclaw.