|
Sprinkler Systems
Uhaul move
Lawn care
Roses and trees
Ford Parts
Chrysler Parts
Lake Powell
New IPod Touch Apps
New IPhone Apps
IPhone Apps
IPad Information
IPad Apps
Android APPS
Android Games APPS
Android Systems
Android Tablets APPS and Beyond
Smartphone Apps
Smartphone Games Apps Repair and Tools
Tablet PC
Car Sharing Car Leasing
Tabler Pc
Fly Fishing
Toyota Cars
Vacation Rentals
Stock market
NYSE
SSE Stock
Freight & Shipping News
Gluten
Lactose
Gout
My Coupon Life
Campgrounds Check
Outdoor
Kitchen Design and Redoo
Bath Remodeling
Palm Springs
Las Vegas Vacation Tipps
Lake Powell Boating
Homes for lease
Electric and green Car Blog
Pearls and diamonds
Whatsapp and forget SMS Blog, What is Whatsapp App
Solar Panel Solar Energie Sun Power Blog
|
Fantasy » alt.fan.dragons » Sentinel's Rants to LFS
| Sentinel's Rants to LFS [message #190900] |
Sa, 24 Dezember 2005 17:53 |
|
I've changed the subject and started a new thread so those that don't
want to read this can killfile it without losing the entire other thread.
On 24 Dec 2005, Sentinel was found to have scratched
news:tx6rf.7842$6K2.1953 [at] edtnps90 on a rock in alt.fan.dragons:
> Now on to sadder matters. I now take the floor under my right to
> Freedom of Speech. THIS is where you see the "Bumble" get MAD, and
> all for the entertainment of everyone HERE. Too bad I isn't a
> Bumble... here I stand, simply a Man. The time for playing childish
> games has long since past. :
Fine. You end your childish little games, and perhaps that might start
you back on the path to respect. That "perhaps" and that "might" are
extremely, extremely weak, though.
> Bad rubbish, eh, fs? Speaking of, is that YOU sharpening your knives
> to stick in my back, again, you sniveling fat COWARD? You know
> exactly what I think of anyone who does that! And there you are
> sporting a loooong wiiiiiiiide "yeller streak" right down the middle
> of your back! Now, who does this remind me of? You should know
> him... matter of fact, YOU didn't think much of him when he did it to
> you, as I recall. I guess that also makes you a HYPOCRITE, too. It's
> a long word, "Mr. 157 IQ", you might want to look it up so you know
> the full meaning of it.
Really? How am I a coward? Because I chose not to respond to your
goading?
> I now apologize to everyone in advance, and urge you NOT to continue
> reading. That is, you shouldn't continue unless you really want to
> know BOTH sides of the story, to glean the whole truth of the matter,
> and get to know Flame Stryke, the way I have come to know him.
Please, oh wise and all-knowing one, tell me all about myself. I already
know who I am. I'd be interested to hear your view of things. I would
have been interested to hear your view of things while we were speaking
to each other. Now who's the coward, eh?
> In case you haven't guessed by now, fs, I have been watching the
> boards, if only to see if Mole would ever return... I have been
> watching for a very very very long time... I have patience.
I don't really care how long you've been reading. This is an open forum,
and I never banned anyone, let alone someone I held nothing against. You
insulted me, I turned around and insulted you. Then I got over it.
Apparently that's something you still have to learn.
> So, here I come, like a freakin' subzero Polar Wind! Hold on to your
> "Holier than thou" gift set from the pope, flamy, cuz this... is
> really going to hurt.
Really? I read the whole thing, and all it made me do is laugh.
> I have held my tongue for long enough, and my patience is finally
> gone. As you can see, I am not the one committing the offense of
> "Character Assassination" on these boards... I choose to do so to your
> lying face, Flamy! (so to speak). Unlike YOU, fs, I am not one who
> would wait to make sure my opponent was gone so that I would have no
> fear of reprisal. I am NOT such a COWARD as "FS" has proven himself
> to be time, and time again on these boards! IMNSHO, fs does not
> deserve the honor of the title "Lord", and so I shall deliberately
> omit this in any future mention this... "Thing"
I didn't wait until you had left for good. I simply thought it didn't
need to be brought up. However, someone asked a question and I answered
it.
> Let's get things straight so that everyone HERE can understand what
> went on in REALITY, and not in the bald-faced lies that YOU, Flame
> Stryke, seem to favour:
Yes, and we all know that you, being all-knowing and all-seeing, can tell
everyone exactly what happened, with absolutely no personal bias.
> 1. It was a simple game, and no more. You, "Flame Stryke", were the
> one to really screw things over for everyone else... that would be two
> others besides you (Myself and one other... the DM deserves to have a
> little fun, too). YOU turned things into hash, not us.
If it was nothing more than a simple game, why did you take such offense
at what happened?
> 2. It was YOU, Flame Stryke, who abused the rules rather blatantly. A
> dire badger stronger than a freakin' red wyrm.... riiiiiiiight. Let
> me see, the rules you used to create your animal companion were solely
> for the use of making monster Player Characters, NOT Animal
> Companions, so who was the cheater there, eh? I did the calculations
> on that, too, btw. His strength was more than a few points off, even
> following those rules. How did you come by having a 36 strength for a
> 4' long rodent, anyway? Yes ladies and gents.. you heard correctly; a
> 4' long rodent. Oh, and, at the time, you seemed to have
> "Accidentally" left out this critter's stats when you showed me your
> character sheet. Nothing shady there, was there?
> No. No reason for me to lose respect for YOU there, eh?
Everything was there when you looked it over. I changed nothing after
you OKed the character, nor did I add anything or remove anything. If
you choose to ignore that fact in your truth about everything speech, I
have doubts about the validity of anything you say.
> 3. And I noticed that you conveniently left out your attempts at
> METAGAMING: "He's the DMs NPC, so he should know everything that you
> do, so we should have all the answers," says Flame Stryke.
> Speaking of losing respect, eh? Wow, you really worked to earn mine,
> there buddy.
Please, enlighten me. When did I say that? As far as I recollect, that
was, oh, um, never. The DM's NPC knows what the DM knows, the players'
PCs know what the players know. I accepted this from the beginning.
Apparently you didn't, and apparently you still don't.
> 4. It was YOU who refused to answer calls for the following weekends
> for game play, which you conveniently ignored both of them. Monte
> knew about them, and I know he informed you, since I asked him to do
> so. I guess you were too busy licking your wounds after being caught
> outright CHEATING, huh? Oh, and um, I never said anything about my
> groups disbanding in short order... I said the group may disband in
> short order because I didn't see myself running a game after two
> weeks. I wanted a break.
Both of them? You told Monte to tell me. What was the other one? And
do you know for a fact that Monte told me? He wasn't even involved in
this game, so why would he bother to relay a message about it to me?
Here's the /real/ truth on this point. I can't say for sure whether or
not you told Monte. I do know that Monte didn't tell me if you did. I
do know, however, that I received no attempt at contact. PErhaps the
rest of my family didn't relay the message if you called them. They've
done that before, but usually out of forgetfulness, not out of malice.
The only notice I received was that you decided to disband the group and
become a player in another campaign.
> But, he is right, I did call an end to the "group", he just left out
> the reasons as to why... and conveniently, too, don't you think? Gee,
> caught with your pudgy little fingers in the door, there, pal. That's
> gotta hurt!
Really? I see you conveniently left out the reasons, too.
> 5. Oh, and I must not forget... who was it that begged and pleaded
> for me to host that last campaign, even though I told him I didn't
> want to? Oh, yeah! Right! It was YOU! In addition, to make
> matters worse, from the word go, you pushed and pushed, and tried to
> tell ME how I had to run the game that I so graciously hosted for you,
> and not so gently I might add... AND IN MY OWN HOUSE!!!!!!!! How DARE
> you!!!!!!!!! "I don't like games with riddles that I have to solve,
> so don't ever run a game with one in it again, or I won't play. I
> just won't show up the following weekend," a direct quote from good
> ol' FS.
First, I did not beg or plead. I asked, since I think you're a good DM.
You agreed. If you didn't want to do it, you should have told me, rather
than start planning to run something.
Second, I never told you how to run any of your games. I've argued rules
before (based on the exact wording in the rule books) but I've never told
anyone how to run a game, since I, myself, don't know.
Third, I did say that I dislike riddles. I did not threaten you to get
you to get you to run something else, I simply stated a fact about myself
to you.
> Which brings me to:
> 6. There WAS NO GROUP. It was a two week deal that involved 3
> people; you, one other and myself., because YOU just HAD to play. I
> told you I had to think about running the game any further beyond that
> point. You knew this before we even started. Don't even try to deny
> it. I really didn't want to run a game in the first place, but you
> pushed.
> You recall I said running a game any longer than two weeks depended on
> certain factors... guess which factors weren't met.
As I recall, there was no time limit set. You agreed to run an
adventure, which you decided to cut short due to either your own
oversight or your decision to change your acceptance of my character.
> 7. It was not I who opened his big fat mouth and pissed off our last
> group, Oliver and the rest of the crew, over eMail. Who was it that
> blew a hissy fit, and blasted Oliver when he decided to add a special
> guest for a session or two, and in HIS own campaign? No. Wait... you
> guessed it... it was YOU.... AGAIN!
I asked a question based on a ruling our group made. I pointed out that
I had not been asked if another player could join, which was what we
agreed upon at the beginning of the group.
> There you were trying to tell someone ELSE what he could and couldn't
> do with his own venue. As a result, I was booted out along with you
> because I happened to be your friend at the time, and you also
> happened to be my ride. To this day Oliver still can't believe how
> many bridges you have burned all on your own.
Oh, and again you seem to have missed a point in your "truth" speech.
You agreed with me that said rule was broken. Now, conveniently, you
forget to mention that, and that you decided to leave with me yourself.
There were plenty of others who could have provided a ride, you didn't
need to go with me. Oh, wait, that's yet /another/ point you
conveniently forgot to mention.
> And don't even get me started with that other "ass". The one who
> completely ruined any continued interest in that other campaign simply
> because he took it upon himself to wreck the game so everyone else
> would be free to do what HE wanted. Refusing to accept a simple
> ruling from the DM who was RUNNING the campaign was as good a reason
> as any And where did that get him? Out of that group, and fast.
> Seems you learned a lot from him, including how to push my buttons.
> It's funny how you never quite got over doing that ever since then,
> either... to busy sucking up to that supervisor, huh?
Really? When was the last time I sucked up to anyone? I never have, and
I never will. At the time I agreed with his interpretation of the rules.
You might also recall that half of the support team from WotC agreed with
us as well. Yes, he was overly vociferous, and yes I got caught up in
it.
And as for "never quite got over doing that ever since then", I've always
argued my interpretation of the rules. Since I never DMed anything, I
always argued as a player. Most players who don't DM do the same thing.
> 8. And lets not forget the best, I saved it for last: Why is it, in
> every game you play, you absolutely MUST play a dragon character-type.
> Gee, the only completely unbalancing creature in the game, and you
> wonder why I won't let you screw things up, and destroy any kind of
> challenge for everyone else at the table. Must be because you crave
> the "Bubble" reputation... even if it is directly in front of the
> mouth of a cannon.
Uh, gee, I don't know. Why is it that I prefer playing dragons? Oh,
yes. Because I /love/ dragons, and I'm /good/ at playing them. I'm not
nearly as good at playing other characters, so I choose not to. Oh, yes,
and the line that you're just begging me to put in so you can try to use
it to tear me apart, which hasn't happened yet: because I /am/ one. Not
a D&D dragon, but still a dragon. I know how dragons think. I know how
dragons act. I don't know how elves act, nor do I know dwarves,
halflings, etc, etc. So I prefer not to play them. Is this such a
difficult thing to understand?
> You forgot to add one simple factor about our other player's
> character, and why I allowed that when I wouldn't allow yours; his
> character started out as a FIRST level character and had to EARN
> levels as the creature befre he could gain levels as anything else.
> What you wanted to play automatically started out as a, what, sixth
> level character when your fellow player started out at first? It was
> MY venue. Your host has worked long and hard to set up this little
> get-together. If he hasn't written his own adventures, he has spent a
> great deal of money so that you can sit around his table and enjoy for
> free. When will you get it through that empty skull of yours that it
> is the HOST's final say of what goes on in his campaign simply because
> of that fact. He has earned the right.
Actually, since the game's balanced by ECL and levels, and since we were
7th level characters, his 6 levels of race would equal out to my 5 levels
of ECL plus 1 level of character class.
And as I recall, this was a pre-published adventure that you already
owned. Had you purchased this adventure just for this campaign, your
argument on that score would be valid, however in light of more of the
truth you conveniently left out, it is completely irrelevant.
> And yet, here you are stamping your feet like a spoiled little brat
> because you didn't get your own way. OVER A GAME, for the love o'
> pete! Life sucks, buddy, get used to disappointment.
Really? I hold no malice toward you, yet you appear to hold a great deal
toward me. Therefore, who's stamping whose feet, and who's acting like a
spoiled little brat? And yet, your next statement is still true: "OVER
A GAME, for the love o' pete!".
And, yes, life does suck.
> As I said before, and I will stand by what I have said to you before;
> until such time as you decide to GROW UP and get some professional
> help, I want nothing to do with you. Your whole "dragon" issue is
> simply an excuse to promote your "My Shit Don't Stink, Holier Than
> Thou" attitude towards everyone, and provide you with an excuse for
> your own arrogance, and to treat everyone else who isn't your supposed
> equal like absolute crap! And why? Because you are such a complete
> and utter coward that you can't face reality like a MAN!
I know who and what I am. Nothing you say, nor any "professional help"
will ever change that. But if you've been keeping up with the group at
all times, you'd know that I have been prescribed medication for
obsessive-compulsive disorder, since my mental health therapist at the
time thought I was obsessed with the idea that I was a dragon. And you'd
also know that it /is/ working. My true personality has gotten stronger,
while my imagined one has gotten weaker. The only problem for you is
that you just don't know which one is which.
Oh, and Rai? If you're reading this, which I really do doubt you are,
remember our talk about "human-bashing" we had? Well, here's another
point in my favour.
> I am NOT the first person to tell you that you are an Arrogant s.o.b.,
> either. How many jobs have you been fired from in the time that I've
> known you? How many of those former employers have called you
> arrogant? Irresponsible? Every single one. No, you weren't fired
> because you were INCOMPETENT, no, not you. None of it was ever YOUR
> fault, was it? It wasn't your fault that you tore up the sides of
> very expensive transport vehicles... on TWO seperate occassions.
Really? What two transport vehicles were these? The truck? Well, since
I was /asleep/ in the /sleeper/ at the time, and my /codriver/ was in the
/driver's seat/ and /driving/ at the time, I really don't see how that's
my fault. Should I be blamed simply because I was in the truck? Well,
in that case, it's your fault because you were my friend at the time.
And the car? Well, since I was T-boned in an intersection that I had the
right-of-way in, I also fail to see how that was my fault. If you want
to know, I can clearly tell you what happened. Yes, I saw a red light.
My car was sent spinning. It went around at least 540 degrees. But I do
recall that my "don't walk" signal was flashing at the time. Since it
was still flashing, the light was still green. My only error that night
was telling the other driver not to worry in an attempt to console her,
and she apparently took it to mean that I was accepting responsibility
for the collision.
And if it wasn't those two incidents, I really have no clue what you're
talking about.
> You are very Naive if you think others don't see exactly who and what
> you are, yet tolerate you because they have some small hope that you
> might grow a conscience. The only one you're lying to is yourself.
I have a conscience, thank you very much. If I didn't, I would be
driving. In fact, I wouldn't even be working, because I would see that
everyone owed me for being me. Note that I /am/ working, and, in fact, I
/am/ driving.
> You have a knack for taking things and giving them a twist to reinvent
> yourself as a complete innocent, especially when every fool knows that
> it takes two to tango. Nothing is Ever YOUR fault, is it? When
> things go sour, like with your employment, or with your former friends
> (there are a lot of these, btw), you can just blame it all on them.
Really? I count 2. Is that a lot in your book?
> Never on yourself because you're
> little-innocent-guilty-going-to-hell-without-sin.
I really don't see where you're going here. I never said I was an angel.
If you thought I was, that's your own perceptions, not mine.
> Now, given all this, and I CAN back it all up, you've got to wonder
> what he's been saying behind YOUR backs when he's elsewhere.
> Especially all those he pretends to like, yet rips them apart behind
> their backs.
Really? And who have I ripped apart behind their back? Everyone you
might care to name I've told to their face what I think. Sometimes I
don't stop to couch my words in diplomacy. In fact, most of the time I
don't. But I do tend to speak my mind. And I speak it to whoever I'm
talking about.
>> If he ever does try to get my respect back, though, he'll have to do
>> something very, very spectacular to succeed.
> I have only one regret... all this hatred and anger over a Simple
> Stupid Game. You tossed a hard earned friendship over a simple stupid
> game. What does that say for your personal character... or mine.
I didn't toss the friendship, you did that yourself. You know what I'm
like, you know I don't consider my words when I get angry. Therefore you
also know that, while I meant what I said, had I not been angry at the
time, I would have put it a lot more diplomatically, and it might not
have hit you so hard.
> You are right. This is only ONE of TWO friendships I have ever lost
> over this stupid game. Both of them because I allowed myself to be
> goaded into anger.
> Again, I am guilty as charged; it is true that I turned my back on him
> in the local gaming store... it was too soon, and, quite obviously, I
> was still very angry with him. Yet he comes waltzing in with a smile
> on his face as though he's done nothing wrong at all, and expects to
> be welcomed back with open arms. In my place, wouldn't you have done
> the same thing? I wanted to dish up to him what he served to the rest
> of us. I guess he didn't like the taste of THAT much, either. He
> should have expected that reaction, though.
I expected you to be upset. I've told people that before. Ask any one
of our mutual friends. However, had you acknowledged my presence, as
you'll recall I acknowledged yours, unless you were too quick to sulk in
the corner, we wouldn't be having this conversation now. We would have
had it several months ago, in person, and dealt with it. However, when
you treated me as you did, I lost all respect I ever had for you, and
that's why I haven't contacted you sooner. Actually, if you hadn't
responded to this message, I still wouldn't have responded. However,
since you decided to at least talk about it, I feel that you're owed at
least a response, however ungracious it might be.
Also note that I'm not angry with you. Nor am I angry with myself.
However, you seem to be holding on to this anger. I would suggest you
let it out before it eats you up, but that's your choice to make, not
mine.
> For your info, fs, I did not "pretend" that you didn't exist... You
> just simply missed the symbolism of that act: a) I wanted to convey to
> you the simple idea that you would not be welcomed back into the fold
> by me like a loving puppy accepts his abusive master. I am NOT your
> "boy"; b) until you grow a conscience, accept your faults and
> downfalls, and take full responsibility for the offenses you committed
> then, and since, then I simply don't wish to see you; and, for a
> little added spice, c) "Dragons" just simply don't exist save for in
> my imagination.
a) I didn't expect to be "welcomed back into the fold". I said some
uncomplimentary and hurtful things, and you had every right to be angry.
However, what you did had nothing to do with anger, but childishness.
b) I always accept full responsibility for what I do -- if I know I'm
doing it. If I say something offhandedly, chances are I don't even know
I'm doing it. However, when people point it out, I accept responsibility
for it. Therefore, if you saw something about me you didn't like and
kept it to yourself, you're just as much at fault as I am.
c) Now you're getting into trouble. Does this mean that all the dragons
we've had on here in the past are solely figments of /your/ imagination?
Or did you mistype your thoughts and try to say /my/ imagination? Either
way, I don't assume responsibility for everything that's ever been posted
here, therefore dragons must exist somewhere else other than
imaginations.
> Translation: Grow up, drop the "dragon" non-sense and stop being such
> a frickin' coward, and treat your fellow Man with a great deal more
> respect than what has been shown here between the two of us. Maybe I
> will consider talking to you, again.
I'm as grown-up as I'll ever get, I've dropped the nonsense a long time
ago, and what's left is reality, even if you don't like it, and I treat
others with as much respect as I receive, since doing it the other way
meant I was giving and never getting. And if that's "all" that needs to
be done, well, I guess you'll either have to open your mind to see that
I'm speaking the truth, or live with never talking to me again. Either
way, the choice is yours, not mine. I've made my mind clear to you.
> How's THAT for "spectacular"?
Actually, not very. You didn't even make my mad, or cry, or anything.
> --
> Sentinel,
> still watching, still waiting...
Watch and wait all you want, I'm not going to change now that I know
you're watching. After all, there's nothing /to/ change.
Lord Flame Stryke
--
DC2.D~ Gm L120f60t180w W T Phawlt Sks Cbk,ere' Bfl A+++! Fr++ Nm M+ O H+
$ Fc~ R+++! Ac+++ J+ S++ U! I# V+++! Q Tc++ E++
Draco nigrum, oculi rubere, suppositus, magus.
http://www.geocities.com/flame_stryke/ |
http://www.geocities.com/flame_stryke/AFDList.html
Holder of the Scroll of Nobility from Lady Viriatha, Keeper of the Wand
of Sparklies in its case from Hex, Wielder of the Lady Viri Signature 4x8
from Ysable, Eater of the Mint Cheesecake from Whisper, Mate to Lady
Viriatha, Owner of Flame Stryke's Windex® Factory, Lord Balloonmaker,
Borrower of the Ebony Wood Fife from Luxatos, Accepter of the Small
Statue of a Green Dragon Covered in Ice Cream Toppings from Juniper,
Employer of a miniature Jester doll from SeaKing, Bearer of the Magic
Ever-Bill from SeaKing, Carrier of the gold piece from whisper: o,
Builder of Dragon Fyre Keep, First Dragon of Realism, Giver of the
Pickaxe of Icebreaking to Kalos
--
"That boy's about as sharp as a pound of wet liver" -- Foghorn Leghorn
|
|
|
| Re: Sentinel's Rants to LFS [message #190902 ] |
Sa, 24 Dezember 2005 19:32 |
|
Lord Flame Stryke wrote:
> > How's THAT for "spectacular"?
>
> Actually, not very. You didn't even make my mad, or cry, or anything.
Same. Spectacular crap maybe. I just keept noticing the locgical
fallacies on Sentinel's side. Lots and lots of Ad Hominem arguments,
several Red Herrings too, even Guilt by Association. Grow up Sentinel.
|
|
|
| Re: Sentinel's Rants to LFS [message #190904 ] |
Sa, 24 Dezember 2005 20:17 |
|
"Draco18s" <draco18s [at] gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1135449144.176887.197350 [at] g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Lord Flame Stryke wrote:
>
> > > How's THAT for "spectacular"?
> >
> > Actually, not very. You didn't even make my mad, or cry, or anything.
>
> Same. Spectacular crap maybe. I just keept noticing the locgical
> fallacies on Sentinel's side. Lots and lots of Ad Hominem arguments,
> several Red Herrings too, even Guilt by Association. Grow up Sentinel.
>
You know, sometimes you want to take a pair of friends and crack their silly
skulls together.
I haven't seen Sentinels post AT ALL despite not having him killfiled....
but to throw away a friendship over a game....and keep it up on both
sides....
*sighs, shrugs and goes in search of brownies....or girl guides if I can
find 'em.*
Arcaton Apathete.
|
|
|
| Re: Sentinel's Rants to LFS [message #190906 ] |
Sa, 24 Dezember 2005 20:30 |
|
On Sat, 24 Dec 2005 19:17:59 +0000, Arcaton wrote:
> but to throw away a friendship over a game....and keep it up on both
> sides....
Wars have been started for less.
> *sighs, shrugs and goes in search of brownies....or girl guides if I can
> find 'em.*
Couple brownies...to go.
> Arcaton Apathete.
|
|
|
| Re: Sentinel's Rants to LFS [message #190907 ] |
Sa, 24 Dezember 2005 20:31 |
|
Arcaton wrote:
> "Draco18s" <draco18s [at] gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1135449144.176887.197350 [at] g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
>>Lord Flame Stryke wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>How's THAT for "spectacular"?
>>>
>>>Actually, not very. You didn't even make my mad, or cry, or anything.
>>
>>Same. Spectacular crap maybe. I just keept noticing the locgical
>>fallacies on Sentinel's side. Lots and lots of Ad Hominem arguments,
>>several Red Herrings too, even Guilt by Association. Grow up Sentinel.
>>
>
> You know, sometimes you want to take a pair of friends and crack their silly
> skulls together.
> I haven't seen Sentinels post AT ALL despite not having him killfiled....
>
> but to throw away a friendship over a game....and keep it up on both
> sides....
>
> *sighs, shrugs and goes in search of brownies....or girl guides if I can
> find 'em.*
>
> Arcaton Apathete.
>
>
I'm not taking sides in this because I can't honestly say I care one
whit either way, but to me the whole thing sounds like a storyline from
"Something Positive"...
(http://www.somethingpositive.net/)
--
Good journeys,
Marrock Volsung
Bearer of one Ponder Point
"Fly with me," said the dragon, "live in the depths of the waters and
soar through the sky.
We are not toys for mortals, but spirits that ride the winds and blow
the clouds along." --Lu Kuei Meng
DC2.Dw Gm L42f W T25,000l Phvwalt Sks,wl
Cbk\gr-^,fgr--,ebk%,vgr--^>bk^,sgr-^,bgr--^&1bk^,wbk [at] gr-,cag^ Bac A++ Nm
O H $+ R+++! Ac+++ J S+++! U I++ V-- Q+++! Tc+ E---!#
|
|
|
| Re: Sentinel's Rants to LFS [message #190910 ] |
Sa, 24 Dezember 2005 20:58 |
|
"Marrock" <MarrockVolsung [at] optonline.net> wrote in message
news:Mmhrf.8955$Kp3.8901 [at] fe08.lga...
> Arcaton wrote:
> > "Draco18s" <draco18s [at] gmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:1135449144.176887.197350 [at] g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >
> >>Lord Flame Stryke wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>>How's THAT for "spectacular"?
> >>>
> >>>Actually, not very. You didn't even make my mad, or cry, or anything.
> >>
> >>Same. Spectacular crap maybe. I just keept noticing the locgical
> >>fallacies on Sentinel's side. Lots and lots of Ad Hominem arguments,
> >>several Red Herrings too, even Guilt by Association. Grow up Sentinel.
> >>
> >
> > You know, sometimes you want to take a pair of friends and crack their
silly
> > skulls together.
> > I haven't seen Sentinels post AT ALL despite not having him
killfiled....
> >
> > but to throw away a friendship over a game....and keep it up on both
> > sides....
> >
> > *sighs, shrugs and goes in search of brownies....or girl guides if I can
> > find 'em.*
> >
> > Arcaton Apathete.
> >
> >
>
> I'm not taking sides in this because I can't honestly say I care one
> whit either way, but to me the whole thing sounds like a storyline from
> "Something Positive"...
>
> (http://www.somethingpositive.net/)
Ar. good strip that.
Arcaton
>
> --
> Good journeys,
> Marrock Volsung
>
> Bearer of one Ponder Point
>
> "Fly with me," said the dragon, "live in the depths of the waters and
> soar through the sky.
> We are not toys for mortals, but spirits that ride the winds and blow
> the clouds along." --Lu Kuei Meng
>
> DC2.Dw Gm L42f W T25,000l Phvwalt Sks,wl
> Cbk\gr-^,fgr--,ebk%,vgr--^>bk^,sgr-^,bgr--^&1bk^,wbk [at] gr-,cag^ Bac A++ Nm
> O H $+ R+++! Ac+++ J S+++! U I++ V-- Q+++! Tc+ E---!#
|
|
|
| Re: Sentinel's Rants to LFS (addressing his backstabbing nature) [message #190914 ] |
So, 25 Dezember 2005 00:38 |
|
"Lord Flame Stryke" <FlameStryke [at] gmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9736648C52FB9DragonFyre [at] 64.59.135.159...
> I've changed the subject and started a new thread so those that don't
> want to read this can killfile it without losing the entire other thread.
>> Now on to sadder matters. I now take the floor under my right to
>> Freedom of Speech. THIS is where you see the "Bumble" get MAD, and
>> all for the entertainment of everyone HERE. Too bad I ain't a
>> Bumble... here I stand, simply a Man. The time for playing childish
>> games has long since past. :
>
> Fine. You end your childish little games, and perhaps that might start
> you back on the path to respect. That "perhaps" and that "might" are
> extremely, extremely weak, though.
Childish? HAHAHA! "You first!" I seem to remember children saying that in
the school yard, some time ago. Whose being childish, now? If you are
going to stop and actually grow some casabas, you should do so for your own
benefit, and no one else's. All a friend can do is tell you to stop because
you're making an ASS of yourself.
>> Bad rubbish, eh, fs? Speaking of, is that YOU sharpening your knives
>> to stick in my back, again, you sniveling fat COWARD? You know
>> exactly what I think of anyone who does that! And there you are
>> sporting a loooong wiiiiiiiide "yeller streak" right down the middle
>> of your back! Now, who does this remind me of? You should know
>> him... matter of fact, YOU didn't think much of him when he did it to
>> you, as I recall. I guess that also makes you a HYPOCRITE, too. It's
>> a long word, "Mr. 157 IQ", you might want to look it up so you know
>> the full meaning of it.
>
> Really? How am I a coward? Because I chose not to respond to your
> goading?
And yet, here you are, responding. But then, you didn't quite follow the
reason you are a coward. Here it is again: It has everything to do with
your Backstabbing people. Would it help if I talked slower for you,
"Genius"? It's not /that/ far beyond your comprehension, is it?
Q (from S.T. the N.G.)> "Oh, look! It doesn't understand... hahaha."
>> I now apologize to everyone in advance, and urge you NOT to continue
>> reading. That is, you shouldn't continue unless you really want to
>> know BOTH sides of the story, to glean the whole truth of the matter,
>> and get to know Flame Stryke, the way I have come to know him.
>
> Please, oh wise and all-knowing one, tell me all about myself. I already
> know who I am. I'd be interested to hear your view of things. I would
> have been interested to hear your view of things while we were speaking
> to each other. Now who's the coward, eh?
Is it cowardly to reproach you to your face? It was not for /your/ benifit.
It was for those who may be so overly willing to trust you. But there you
are, making things all the more personal. I never said I was all knowing,
just "as much as I ever wanted to know about /you/ and then some."
Ah, but therein lies the rub... I made the mistake of trusting you.
>> In case you haven't guessed by now, fs, I have been watching the
>> boards, if only to see if Mole would ever return... I have been
>> watching for a very very very long time... I have patience.
>
> I don't really care how long you've been reading. This is an open forum,
> and I never banned anyone, let alone someone I held nothing against. You
> insulted me, I turned around and insulted you. Then I got over it.
> Apparently that's something you still have to learn.
Got over it... .... ..... ....... HA! Sure you got over it:
------------------------------------------------------------ -------------
Quote by FS:
> He tried accusing me of cheating in our game, I pointed out that he OKed
> my character. He then disbanded the group and commented that all his
> groups disbanded rather quickly. I pointed out that the only common
> denominator of all his groups was him, and that that might be the
> problem. He took great offense to that. But that was what I had
> planned, since he offended me by not allowing me to play a certain type
> of character, but allowing another friend to play said kind of character.
>
> However, later on we happened to be in the same store, and he tried to
> pretend I didn't exist. His disbanding the group the way he did lost him
> my trust, trying to pretend I didn't exist lost him my respect. And in
> my 3 million years, nobody has ever managed to regain my respect back
> once lost. And in order for me to consider him a friend ever again, or
> to trust him ever again, he'd need to first get me to respect him. And
> he's not even trying, so I say good riddance to bad rubbish.
------------------------------------------------------------ ---------------
Oh yeah, it sounds like you really got over it, all right. Is /that/ why
you responded like this to Mole? That's why you said this to a kind kid and
his little sister, no less, and a mutual friend, just out of the blue... and
during the Christmas Season. A time for every kid to see the best in every
person, not think the worst of them. Yeah, sure.
What did you think you would accomplish by doing that? I'd hate to guess.
The implications are rather dastardly, don't you think? Like backstabbing
someone out of shear maliciousness... just in case he should come back he'd
have no one to call a friend.
SNAKE!
>> So, here I come, like a freakin' subzero Polar Wind! Hold on to your
>> "Holier than thou" gift set from the pope, flamy, cuz this... is
>> really going to hurt.
>
> Really? I read the whole thing, and all it made me do is laugh.
And this is why you chose to respond... because you're laughing. Looks more
like damage control to me. Don't forget to plug that gapping hole in the
side of the "Titanic", there.
>> I have held my tongue for long enough, and my patience is finally
>> gone. As you can see, I am not the one committing the offense of
>> "Character Assassination" on these boards... I choose to do so to your
>> lying face, Flamy! (so to speak). Unlike YOU, fs, I am not one who
>> would wait to make sure my opponent was gone so that I would have no
>> fear of reprisal. I am NOT such a COWARD as "FS" has proven himself
>> to be time, and time again on these boards! IMNSHO, fs does not
>> deserve the honor of the title "Lord", and so I shall deliberately
>> omit this in any future mention this... "Thing"
>
> I didn't wait until you had left for good. I simply thought it didn't
> need to be brought up. However, someone asked a question and I answered
> it.
Uh-huh... sure. So, instead of just telling Mole that these two old friends
just aren't seeing eye to eye right now, without getting into too much
detail, you what? You decided to embellish a little to make yourself look
like a freakin' saint, and me look like Satan, and for no good reason,
right? Very diplomatic of you.
"Not seeing eye-to-eye." Simple. Diplomatic, and I came up with that in,
what, 30 seconds. You've had how long to come up with a more diplomatic
answer?
Try again, SNAKE!
>> Let's get things straight so that everyone HERE can understand what
>> went on in REALITY, and not in the bald-faced lies that YOU, Flame
>> Stryke, seem to favour:
>
> Yes, and we all know that you, being all-knowing and all-seeing, can tell
> everyone exactly what happened, with absolutely no personal bias.
Did I say NO personal bias? I said "Both sides of the story" so that the
people you have been trying to dupe can glean the truth for themselves.
They've heard you. They've heard me.
What did I tell you before about that, which you failed to comprehend with
your selective hearing: "There is /your/ story, there is /my/ story, and
then there is the truth. It is up to those hearing /both/ sides to
determine what actually took place."
So you're Damned Right there's personal bias! Yours, /and/ mine. I never
dnied personal bias... it's human nature.
>> 1. It was a simple game, and no more. You, "Flame Stryke", were the
>> one to really screw things over for everyone else... that would be two
>> others besides you (Myself and one other... the DM deserves to have a
>> little fun, too). YOU turned things into hash, not us.
>
> If it was nothing more than a simple game, why did you take such offense
> at what happened?
Simply put, you betrayed my trust. I expected that you might have a little
more respect for me than that. I made the huge mistake of trusting you, so,
in that sense, it was 50% my fault. Rest assured, I will /never/ make that
mistake again, for /any/ reason.
>> 2. It was YOU, Flame Stryke, who abused the rules rather blatantly. A
>> dire badger stronger than a freakin' red wyrm.... riiiiiiiight. Let
>> me see, the rules you used to create your animal companion were solely
>> for the use of making monster Player Characters, NOT Animal
>> Companions, so who was the cheater there, eh? I did the calculations
>> on that, too, btw. His strength was more than a few points off, even
>> following those rules. How did you come by having a 36 strength for a
>> 4' long rodent, anyway? Yes ladies and gents.. you heard correctly; a
>> 4' long rodent. Oh, and, at the time, you seemed to have
>> "Accidentally" left out this critter's stats when you showed me your
>> character sheet. Nothing shady there, was there?
>> No. No reason for me to lose respect for YOU there, eh?
>
> Everything was there when you looked it over. I changed nothing after
> you OKed the character, nor did I add anything or remove anything. If
> you choose to ignore that fact in your truth about everything speech, I
> have doubts about the validity of anything you say.
Save for your Animal Companion's stats. Those weren't on /that/ page. They
were safely tucked away on another. All I knew is that you took a dire
badger for your druid. Perhaps I may have overlooked the /fine/ print, "See
Page Two"
>> 3. And I noticed that you conveniently left out your attempts at
>> METAGAMING: "He's the DMs NPC, so he should know everything that you
>> do, so we should have all the answers," says Flame Stryke.
>> Speaking of losing respect, eh? Wow, you really worked to earn mine,
>> there buddy.
>
> Please, enlighten me. When did I say that? As far as I recollect, that
> was, oh, um, never. The DM's NPC knows what the DM knows, the players'
> PCs know what the players know. I accepted this from the beginning.
> Apparently you didn't, and apparently you still don't.
METAGAMING: Using player knowledge as character knowledge. One should
always keep in mind that player knowledge is non-transferable to the
character. So you are dead wrong! Your PC does NOT necessarily know what
you, the Player, do. We had this discussion with Oliver's group, too.
Since you don't know that simple rule, which is written in black and white
right in the core player's rulebook, then what the HELL makes YOU qualified
to quote rules to your DM?!? If your interpretation was wrong about that,
what else were you wrong about, then, I wonder? Plus, also in black and
white in those rulebooks, "These rules are a guideline. Not hardset rules.
Your DM has the right to change any rules he does not agree with." Your
/DM/! Get it? NOT /you/! It goes on further to state, "It is the DM's
call on any discriminations in the rules, and his decision is /final/."
Simple and to the point.
Now, using /your/ logic, fs, then it should work both ways, then? So
everything your character knows you should know, right? So if you take a
Bard, for instance, who happens to know every language in the world, that
should mean that /you/ should be able to speak every language in the real
world, right? Why else would these characters require that you purchase
skills?
As you already knew before hand, I Loathe Metagamers.
Here's a BIG clue for the clueless about a successful DM: The NPCs/
Monsters of any given campaign world only know what the DM (as in the
Dungeon Master, the Host of the Show) /wishes them to/, and what he has
designed them to know. Otherwise, that little gobbo you've been
interrogating should know every nuance of every plot his master has ever
come up with, or currently /is/ formulating at that very moment. On the
other hand, if he can actually do that, this is the time your character
should start to worry. This is no normal Goblin.
I thnk you should quit gaming. Not only do you have no clear concept of the
rules, you don't even have a basic understanding of them.
I know exactly what is and what isn't. This is the primary difference
between a good DM and a bad one. As you've said in your own words, I'm a
good DM.
>> 4. It was YOU who refused to answer calls for the following weekends
>> for game play, which you conveniently ignored both of them. Monte
>> knew about them, and I know he informed you, since I asked him to do
>> so. I guess you were too busy licking your wounds after being caught
>> outright CHEATING, huh? Oh, and um, I never said anything about my
>> groups disbanding in short order... I said the group may disband in
>> short order because I didn't see myself running a game after two
>> weeks. I wanted a break.
>
> Both of them? You told Monte to tell me. What was the other one? And
> do you know for a fact that Monte told me? He wasn't even involved in
> this game, so why would he bother to relay a message about it to me?
>
> Here's the /real/ truth on this point. I can't say for sure whether or
> not you told Monte. I do know that Monte didn't tell me if you did. I
> do know, however, that I received no attempt at contact. PErhaps the
> rest of my family didn't relay the message if you called them. They've
> done that before, but usually out of forgetfulness, not out of malice.
> The only notice I received was that you decided to disband the group and
> become a player in another campaign.
Well that's funny. I called your house 2 weeks (on thursdays) in a row, got
the answering machine both times. I sent eMails as well because I know how
you are at returning calls. The second time (the actual truth) I even left
a message with Monte, whom you happened to be visiting at that exact time
that I called. He doesn't cover the mouthpiece very well. You might want
to tell him that... or keep your big trap shut when you are trying to avoid
people.
And don't tell me you don't get your messages because you obviously got the
eMail that informed you of my decision on that 3rd weekend. You even
replied back on it, and none too kindly, I might add. If you got that one,
you got the others.
>> But, he is right, I did call an end to the "group", he just left out
>> the reasons as to why... and conveniently, too, don't you think? Gee,
>> caught with your pudgy little fingers in the door, there, pal. That's
>> gotta hurt!
>
> Really? I see you conveniently left out the reasons, too.
And there's the Reinventive Twist to Sainthood. I left out nothing.
>> 5. Oh, and I must not forget... who was it that begged and pleaded
>> for me to host that last campaign, even though I told him I didn't
>> want to? Oh, yeah! Right! It was YOU! In addition, to make
>> matters worse, from the word go, you pushed and pushed, and tried to
>> tell ME how I had to run the game that I so graciously hosted for you,
>> and not so gently I might add... AND IN MY OWN HOUSE!!!!!!!! How DARE
>> you!!!!!!!!! "I don't like games with riddles that I have to solve,
>> so don't ever run a game with one in it again, or I won't play. I
>> just won't show up the following weekend," a direct quote from good
>> ol' FS.
>
> First, I did not beg or plead. I asked, since I think you're a good DM.
> You agreed. If you didn't want to do it, you should have told me, rather
> than start planning to run something.
No, just calling me every day asking the same question over and over, and
trying to convince me to run a game, repeatedly. You're right, you didn't
beg and plead... you "insisted", much like a cat insists you keep petting it
after you've stopped. Sorry, I got the two mixed up.
> Second, I never told you how to run any of your games. I've argued rules
> before (based on the exact wording in the rule books) but I've never told
> anyone how to run a game, since I, myself, don't know.
Then why did you argue rules? Did you ever stop to think that there was
more going on behind the screen than the rules in the book? For one, the
DM's Magic is a wonderful thing. It twists the fabric of so-called reality
and breaks a lot of rules all on its own.
No, you just don't know... or, rather, you don't want to know for that
specific reason. Why take on the headaches when you can just keep giving
them, right? No, wait. I'm wrong. I heard you /did/ try, once. And
failed horribly. Too much to handle for you?
> Third, I did say that I dislike riddles.
Yes. Repeatedly. Especially the ones you don't know the answers to,
already.
> I did not threaten you to get you to get you to run something else, I
> simply stated a fact about myself
> to you.
o.O Yeah, okay... are you forgetting the one other person who was there?
You remember him, don't you? Aka, The Witness. Or, are you going to call
/him/ a liar, too.
>> Which brings me to:
>> 6. There WAS NO GROUP. It was a two week deal that involved 3
>> people; you, one other and myself., because YOU just HAD to play. I
>> told you I had to think about running the game any further beyond that
>> point. You knew this before we even started. Don't even try to deny
>> it. I really didn't want to run a game in the first place, but you
>> pushed.
>> You recall I said running a game any longer than two weeks depended on
>> certain factors... guess which factors weren't met.
>
> As I recall, there was no time limit set. You agreed to run an
> adventure, which you decided to cut short due to either your own
> oversight or your decision to change your acceptance of my character.
o...kaaaaay. Apparently your selective hearing kicked in again. Apparently
what you heard was, "blah blah blah game, blah blah blah sundays, blah blah
blah.okay? blah blah blah"
Here's a heads-up. You know that little line you sign on an application
form for a job, the one that says to the effect of if you omit anything of a
criminal past, or other pre-existing condition (be it medical or otherwise)
that could have bearing on your job, you can lose your job when said
omissions are revealed? Well, that kind of works to weed out dishonest
people who piss off the management.
Same goes for my games, and anyone else's that I know, Chum! It kind of
goes without saying. Now, I told you my terms. You agreed to those terms.
Or else I would not have even bothered trying to come up with anything.
On the other hand, had you showed up the following session, there were other
alternatives. One of which was the Sons of Kyuss, look'em up. And critters
don't have a natural armour class on the interior... Gulp! One punch in the
critter's mouth and you would have had a 4' long rodent with a 36 strength
ripping his former companion a new ass. However, this would have also
punished the other player at the table, as well, because your own critter
wouldn't have stopped with just you. I could have also just made the Sons a
bit more powerful, too, with armour piercing worms. Our other player said I
should have done just that, and do it every time you took it upon yourself
to abuse the rules and my generosity.
>> 7. It was not I who opened his big fat mouth and pissed off our last
>> group, Oliver and the rest of the crew, over eMail. Who was it that
>> blew a hissy fit, and blasted Oliver when he decided to add a special
>> guest for a session or two, and in HIS own campaign? No. Wait... you
>> guessed it... it was YOU.... AGAIN!
>
> I asked a question based on a ruling our group made. I pointed out that
> I had not been asked if another player could join, which was what we
> agreed upon at the beginning of the group.
Asked a question?!? Some question! Gawd! I wish I still had that eMail. I
would post it here in full if I could. I wonder if Oly still has it... I'll
have to check.
Point is, since when does merely asking a question piss off /everybody/ at
the table.
>> There you were trying to tell someone ELSE what he could and couldn't
>> do with his own venue. As a result, I was booted out along with you
>> because I happened to be your friend at the time, and you also
>> happened to be my ride. To this day Oliver still can't believe how
>> many bridges you have burned all on your own.
>
> Oh, and again you seem to have missed a point in your "truth" speech.
> You agreed with me that said rule was broken. Now, conveniently, you
> forget to mention that, and that you decided to leave with me yourself.
> There were plenty of others who could have provided a ride, you didn't
> need to go with me. Oh, wait, that's yet /another/ point you
> conveniently forgot to mention.
Yes, I understood your reasons, but it didn't mean that /they/ would,
Commander Tactful. You did not "Ask", you "Demanded". And, it was Oliver's
show, not ours. He had a guest that was only staying for a couple of weeks,
and wanted to introduce everyone to the bloke. I wasn't the one who sent
that whithering eMail, either. That honor goes straight to you. I just
informed you of what was going on, I didn't "push you off the deep end", you
wheeled yourself over the brink all on your own.
>> And don't even get me started with that other "ass". The one who
>> completely ruined any continued interest in that other campaign simply
>> because he took it upon himself to wreck the game so everyone else
>> would be free to do what HE wanted. Refusing to accept a simple
>> ruling from the DM who was RUNNING the campaign was as good a reason
>> as any And where did that get him? Out of that group, and fast.
>> Seems you learned a lot from him, including how to push my buttons.
>> It's funny how you never quite got over doing that ever since then,
>> either... to busy sucking up to that supervisor, huh?
>
> Really? When was the last time I sucked up to anyone? I never have, and
> I never will. At the time I agreed with his interpretation of the rules.
> You might also recall that half of the support team from WotC agreed with
> us as well. Yes, he was overly vociferous, and yes I got caught up in
> it.
Voiciferous... to put it mildly, he was blatantly, and beligerently
arguementative. And the other half of the WotC support staff agreed with
/me/. The one thing they ALL agreed upon, however, was that it was the DM's
Call. It the DM's by right for just being willing to sit behind the screen
and take the shit and abuse.
> And as for "never quite got over doing that ever since then", I've always
> argued my interpretation of the rules. Since I never DMed anything, I
> always argued as a player. Most players who don't DM do the same thing.
As I recall, and so do a few others who sat at my table before the fact, you
never did. You sat quietly and asked /after/ the session. That was one
thing I liked about you. After the fact was a complete turn around,
however. You discovered something new you thought you could et away with...
you thought wrong.
>> 8. And lets not forget the best, I saved it for last: Why is it, in
>> every game you play, you absolutely MUST play a dragon character-type.
>> Gee, the only completely unbalancing creature in the game, and you
>> wonder why I won't let you screw things up, and destroy any kind of
>> challenge for everyone else at the table. Must be because you crave
>> the "Bubble" reputation... even if it is directly in front of the
>> mouth of a cannon.
>
> Uh, gee, I don't know. Why is it that I prefer playing dragons? Oh,
> yes. Because I /love/ dragons, and I'm /good/ at playing them. I'm not
> nearly as good at playing other characters, so I choose not to.
Bards... well, that really isn't a real comparison since every session you
played one you got blown away by doing something stupid. Like trying to go
into toe-to-toe combat with a Bard. As for why you didn't take a fighter...
well, fighters don't get all those bonus skills and they don't have the
ability to learn every language in the book for cheap. But those languages
really helped you out in combat. Especially those death scenes where you
could gurgle "AHHHHggghhhhh!" in several different languages. Infernal was
most interesting... sounded like water being thrown on a campfire.
Yes, you do play...intersting, if short lived characters.
> Oh, yes, and the line that you're just begging me to put in so you can
> try to use
> it to tear me apart, which hasn't happened yet: because I /am/ one.
I am? Begging? Really? How long have you been having these paranoid
dilusions? Your therapist might want to look into that. She might not be
giving you the right meds, chum.
> Not a D&D dragon, but still a dragon. I know how dragons think. I know
> how
> dragons act. I don't know how elves act, nor do I know dwarves,
> halflings, etc, etc. So I prefer not to play them. Is this such a
> difficult thing to understand?
But that all as an aside, what other terms did you agree to before we took
to the table? No dragons as PCs. No dragon sub-types, humanoids and so
forth. Why? Because they are all too unbalancing to the game in general,
and, quite frankly, I was getting sick to death of hearing about "Dragon
this", and "Dragon that." I believe I mentioned /this/, too.
Is it too hard for YOU to understand that most DMs, almost every one I've
ever met, hates dragon based player characters simply based on the fact that
they outbalance the whole bloody game! They were meant as a mostly solitary
monsterous challenge for players to overcome, not as a PC race. And it even
says so in the DMG.
>> You forgot to add one simple factor about our other player's
>> character, and why I allowed that when I wouldn't allow yours; his
>> character started out as a FIRST level character and had to EARN
>> levels as the creature befre he could gain levels as anything else.
>> What you wanted to play automatically started out as a, what, sixth
>> level character when your fellow player started out at first? It was
>> MY venue. Your host has worked long and hard to set up this little
>> get-together. If he hasn't written his own adventures, he has spent a
>> great deal of money so that you can sit around his table and enjoy for
>> free. When will you get it through that empty skull of yours that it
>> is the HOST's final say of what goes on in his campaign simply because
>> of that fact. He has earned the right.
>
> Actually, since the game's balanced by ECL and levels, and since we were
> 7th level characters, his 6 levels of race would equal out to my 5 levels
> of ECL plus 1 level of character class.
Again, a Draon-based character, and again the terms of my running that
campaign that you agreed to abide by.
> And as I recall, this was a pre-published adventure that you already
> owned. Had you purchased this adventure just for this campaign, your
> argument on that score would be valid, however in light of more of the
> truth you conveniently left out, it is completely irrelevant.
That was NOT a prepublished campaign. It was supplimental material provided
by a thrid party company, complete with the riddle and the challenge. It
was up to ME to fill in the details, convert it all over to D20 rules, and
to write in the missing pieces that they left out, being published for
generic use and all. Do you think that just magically happens over night?
That there is no effort on my part to do anything besides read a book? No
head aches involved with conversions to fit the D&D basic rules? What, so I
have little elves who cut out and rewrite incompatable parts along with
stitching up little leather shoes for me to sell the next day?
You said it, yourself, "You have no idea what happens beyond the screen, and
you don't want to know." Yet... you still quote the rules and assume that a
DM just reads a book.
Try it sometime, that way you might actually know what you're talking about.
You might also look into getting a glass bellybutton. That way, the next
time your head is stuck this far up your own butt, you can look out and see
what's really going on.
>> And yet, here you are stamping your feet like a spoiled little brat
>> because you didn't get your own way. OVER A GAME, for the love o'
>> pete! Life sucks, buddy, get used to disappointment.
>
> Really? I hold no malice toward you, yet you appear to hold a great deal
> toward me. Therefore, who's stamping whose feet, and who's acting like a
> spoiled little brat? And yet, your next statement is still true: "OVER
> A GAME, for the love o' pete!".
No malice?!?
------------------------------------------------------------ ---------------
Quote by FS:
> He tried accusing me of cheating in our game, I pointed out that he OKed
> my character. He then disbanded the group and commented that all his
> groups disbanded rather quickly. I pointed out that the only common
> denominator of all his groups was him, and that that might be the
> problem. He took great offense to that. But that was what I had
> planned, since he offended me by not allowing me to play a certain type
> of character, but allowing another friend to play said kind of character.
>
> However, later on we happened to be in the same store, and he tried to
> pretend I didn't exist. His disbanding the group the way he did lost him
> my trust, trying to pretend I didn't exist lost him my respect. And in
> my 3 million years, nobody has ever managed to regain my respect back
> once lost. And in order for me to consider him a friend ever again, or
> to trust him ever again, he'd need to first get me to respect him. And
> he's not even trying, so I say good riddance to bad rubbish.
------------------------------------------------------------ --------------
Gee, now how is one supposed to take being called "rubbish and a cheater"
after he has been so generous to run a game after being "insisted" to the
verge of his sanity to do so?
"Oh thank you, oh benevolent dragon, for giving me the uppity status of
Rubbish from that of pond scum. May I serve you well to continuously earn
your gracious attention..."
.... um, yeah... I'm thinking "NOT!!!" Get Stuffed!
> And, yes, life does suck.
Oh, look. Common ground. Too bad it's clearly a bog.
>> As I said before, and I will stand by what I have said to you before;
>> until such time as you decide to GROW UP and get some professional
>> help, I want nothing to do with you. Your whole "dragon" issue is
>> simply an excuse to promote your "My Shit Don't Stink, Holier Than
>> Thou" attitude towards everyone, and provide you with an excuse for
>> your own arrogance, and to treat everyone else who isn't your supposed
>> equal like absolute crap! And why? Because you are such a complete
>> and utter coward that you can't face reality like a MAN!
>
> I know who and what I am. Nothing you say, nor any "professional help"
> will ever change that. But if you've been keeping up with the group at
> all times, you'd know that I have been prescribed medication for
> obsessive-compulsive disorder, since my mental health therapist at the
> time thought I was obsessed with the idea that I was a dragon. And you'd
> also know that it /is/ working. My true personality has gotten stronger,
> while my imagined one has gotten weaker. The only problem for you is
> that you just don't know which one is which.
I know exactly which one is which. Sad to say, even on meds your self-image
is still scewed. I also noticed you have not revealed to this therapist
that you have a class one license, either. From what I understand, they
don't allow people with your particualr, erm, "malady" to operate
transports.
How is that coming, btw? Still driving for Highway 9?
> Oh, and Rai? If you're reading this, which I really do doubt you are,
> remember our talk about "human-bashing" we had? Well, here's another
> point in my favour.
Ah, yes. The Human Bashing defense. The one that you use to excuse your
abberant behaviour. And we're not talking about your obvious psychosis, but
your arrogance, prejudice, et al. The more "sociable" side of things.
Someone makes one commment and it's all, "Dragon Bashing! Dragon Bashing!"
It's just like a member of an ethnic minority who doesn't get the job he was
competing for, and sues said company for racial discrimination even though
said company hired someone else who was better qualified. Not all people of
an ethnic minority are that biased, it's just a very vocal biased few who
cry foul.
So what about this "Human-bashing", eh? I'm here talking about YOU... Just
YOU. No one else, just YOU.
Cry foul all you like. It's just one-on-one, chuckles. You and me, and no
one else in AFD.
I gather the people HERE are just as willing to sit this one out and let you
and I hash out our differences all on our own. As a matter of fact, I don't
doubt that each and every person here hasn't already killfiled this little
mess you've created.
I can't say as I blame them. I wouldn't want to read this disgusting trash
HERE, either. Unfortunately, I am also unwilling to unkillfile you from my
eMail.
So, if not HERE in AFD, this leaves us with only one option, and that is to
hash this out face-to-face, eye-to-eye.
>> I am NOT the first person to tell you that you are an Arrogant s.o.b.,
>> either. How many jobs have you been fired from in the time that I've
>> known you? How many of those former employers have called you
>> arrogant? Irresponsible? Every single one. No, you weren't fired
>> because you were INCOMPETENT, no, not you. None of it was ever YOUR
>> fault, was it? It wasn't your fault that you tore up the sides of
>> very expensive transport vehicles... on TWO seperate occassions.
>
> Really? What two transport vehicles were these? The truck? Well, since
> I was /asleep/ in the /sleeper/ at the time, and my /codriver/ was in the
> /driver's seat/ and /driving/ at the time, I really don't see how that's
> my fault. Should I be blamed simply because I was in the truck? Well,
> in that case, it's your fault because you were my friend at the time.
>
> And the car? Well, since I was T-boned in an intersection that I had the
> right-of-way in, I also fail to see how that was my fault. If you want
> to know, I can clearly tell you what happened. Yes, I saw a red light.
> My car was sent spinning. It went around at least 540 degrees. But I do
> recall that my "don't walk" signal was flashing at the time. Since it
> was still flashing, the light was still green. My only error that night
> was telling the other driver not to worry in an attempt to console her,
> and she apparently took it to mean that I was accepting responsibility
> for the collision.
>
> And if it wasn't those two incidents, I really have no clue what you're
> talking about.
Now, what was that trucking company you only worked one day for? The one a
mutual friend was working for at the time? Tore up the side of their
delivery truck, too. Two seperate companies, two identical accidents...
since we didn't hear the "other driver's" story, that just leads one to put
two and two together, doesn't it? And considering your previous record of
your penchant for twisting events to suit your own reality... weeeeeeell.
>> You are very Naive if you think others don't see exactly who and what
>> you are, yet tolerate you because they have some small hope that you
>> might grow a conscience. The only one you're lying to is yourself.
>
> I have a conscience, thank you very much. If I didn't, I would be
> driving. In fact, I wouldn't even be working, because I would see that
> everyone owed me for being me. Note that I /am/ working, and, in fact, I
> /am/ driving.
>
>> You have a knack for taking things and giving them a twist to reinvent
>> yourself as a complete innocent, especially when every fool knows that
>> it takes two to tango. Nothing is Ever YOUR fault, is it? When
>> things go sour, like with your employment, or with your former friends
>> (there are a lot of these, btw), you can just blame it all on them.
>
> Really? I count 2. Is that a lot in your book?
Again, there is your story, my story, and then there is the truth. Too bad
you're so biased that you'll never figure it out.
>> Never on yourself because you're
>> little-innocent-guilty-going-to-hell-without-sin.
>
> I really don't see where you're going here. I never said I was an angel.
> If you thought I was, that's your own perceptions, not mine.
Actions speak louder than words. You don't need to say a word, in fact,
it's the bad taste that you leave in everyone's mouth after they've met you
in person.
>> Now, given all this, and I CAN back it all up, you've got to wonder
>> what he's been saying behind YOUR backs when he's elsewhere.
>> Especially all those he pretends to like, yet rips them apart behind
>> their backs.
>
> Really? And who have I ripped apart behind their back?
Uh, me, for one. Do you think I'm deaf? Blind? No wait, I guess you think
I'm stupid.
And then there's Oly, and pretty much everyone else you don't agree with.
Others merely remain your friends just so long as they don't find out that
you're doing it to them, too.
> Everyone you might care to name I've told to their face what I think.
> Sometimes I
> don't stop to couch my words in diplomacy. In fact, most of the time I
> don't. But I do tend to speak my mind. And I speak it to whoever I'm
> talking about.
Perhaps you should consider couching your words. You might find that you
might have a few friends left. But then, there is that other thing you like
to do: Burn Bridges. Must be delightful to know you can never go back to
friends you've burned, eh? Well, I guess your monacre suits you, then,
Flame Stryke.
It's not what you do to their faces, it's what you do AFTER the fact.
>>> If he ever does try to get my respect back, though, he'll have to do
>>> something very, very spectacular to succeed.
>> I have only one regret... all this hatred and anger over a Simple
>> Stupid Game. You tossed a hard earned friendship over a simple stupid
>> game. What does that say for your personal character... or mine.
>
> I didn't toss the friendship, you did that yourself.
And there's the "Holier Than Thou" Shuffle.. The "Who? Me? I'm Innocent"
Tango. Speaking of the Tango... it was a two way street, pal. Did you call
me in the interim? Before this incident happened? NO!
> You know what I'm like, you know I don't consider my words when I get
> angry.
> Therefore you also know that, while I meant what I said, had I not been
> angry at the
> time, I would have put it a lot more diplomatically, and it might not
> have hit you so hard.
Ah, now the "shifting of the blame to make others responsible for what
you've become" segment of this discussion.
Now /I/ should be responsible for /YOUR/ lack of character?!? Unbelievable!
HA! So I should walk on eggshells around you because you can dish it out,
but you just can't take it, is that it? I have two words for you on that
subject... the first word begins with the 6th letter of the alphabet, and
ends with "Off". As I said, grow up and take responsibilty for the things
/you/ do, this includes errors in judgement based upon /your own/ lack of
character.
How can you honestly promote yourself as a saint and deny the accusations
tossed at you on this very subject, yet, in the same breath, try to make
everyone else responsible for /your/ actions and downfalls? Remember that
Saintly Twist to Reality of yours I was just talking about? Well, there it
is. Prime Example. Case Closed.
>> You are right. This is only ONE of TWO friendships I have ever lost
>> over this stupid game. Both of them because I allowed myself to be
>> goaded into anger.
>> Again, I am guilty as charged; it is true that I turned my back on him
>> in the local gaming store... it was too soon, and, quite obviously, I
>> was still very angry with him. Yet he comes waltzing in with a smile
>> on his face as though he's done nothing wrong at all, and expects to
>> be welcomed back with open arms. In my place, wouldn't you have done
>> the same thing? I wanted to dish up to him what he served to the rest
>> of us. I guess he didn't like the taste of THAT much, either. He
>> should have expected that reaction, though.
>
> I expected you to be upset. I've told people that before. Ask any one of
> our mutual friends.
Uh-huh. I know. I've heard how you've raked your nails on my back. Still
got a few of the hilts of the daggers still imbedded there. I've heard from
each and every one of them how you've been bad-mouthing me behind my back.
I guess our mutual friends aren't as trustworthy as you thought. I also
expect that you've heard the one or two items I have said about you, and our
recent past, in retaliation. I don't say anything to anyone that I don't
intend them to hear and relay. I am not that naive.
Now, again, tell me how you don't backstab? Again, how many others (even
here) have you done the same thing to, hmmmm? How many of /them/ do you
call "friend", Snake?
I also know that you did /indeed/ "expect me to be upset." But how well do
you know me beyond that? I think, not at all.
> However, had you acknowledged my presence, as
> you'll recall I acknowledged yours, unless you were too quick to sulk in
> the corner, we wouldn't be having this conversation now.
Sulk? In a corner? Hardly.
Oh, but then you claim to know me, so, by /your own standards/, "You know
what I'm like, you know I don't consider my words when I get angry.
Therefore you also know that, while I meant what I said, had I not been
angry at the time, I would have put it a lot more diplomatically, and it
might not have hit you so hard." These /are/ your words, right? And you've
had how long to make your response a diplomatic one, now?
lol... uh-huh. You know, I've never made that assumption about you. I
turned my back on you to send you a message. Apparently you got that
message, and "cleaned it up" to match your own "godly reality", yet again
just to hide your own hurt feelings. You were lying to yourself.
> We would have had it several months ago, in person, and dealt with it.
> However, when
> you treated me as you did, I lost all respect I ever had for you, and
> that's why I haven't contacted you sooner.
All respect? That's if you had any for me to begin with. Would you have
pulled that same dirty trick on anyone else you respected?
Well allow me to give you a suggestion that might build some respect, if you
think about it: "Did you ever consider the alternative to me turning my
back on you?"
What alternative, you ask? Well, it was better than losing teeth, wasn't
it? It was all I could do to keep from bashing you in the mouth right then
and there. So, do you still prefer I hashed it out with you then? Or do
you prefer my turning my back on you so you could continue to enjoy the good
health and the lack of hockey player smile as a good alternative?
Oh, but there's the Law, right? So I'd get a 500$ fine, a record I could
expunge after 7 years, and time served, big deal. You'd still be missing
your teeth, and you'd still have suffered the humility of getting your ass
handed to you in a public place... by a human.
I prefer my choice... when it comes down to it, you weren't worth the effort
of me bruising my knuckles.
> Actually, if you hadn't responded to this message, I still wouldn't have
> responded.
> However, since you decided to at least talk about it, I feel that you're
> owed at
> least a response, however ungracious it might be.
>
> Also note that I'm not angry with you. Nor am I angry with myself.
> However, you seem to be holding on to this anger. I would suggest you
> let it out before it eats you up, but that's your choice to make, not
> mine.
Not angry with me... riiiiight. Anyone else who has read this post and
believes that, raise your hand:
------------------------------------------------------------ ---------------
Quote by FS:
> He tried accusing me of cheating in our game, I pointed out that he OKed
> my character. He then disbanded the group and commented that all his
> groups disbanded rather quickly. I pointed out that the only common
> denominator of all his groups was him, and that that might be the
> problem. He took great offense to that. But that was what I had
> planned, since he offended me by not allowing me to play a certain type
> of character, but allowing another friend to play said kind of character.
>
> However, later on we happened to be in the same store, and he tried to
> pretend I didn't exist. His disbanding the group the way he did lost him
> my trust, trying to pretend I didn't exist lost him my respect. And in
> my 3 million years, nobody has ever managed to regain my respect back
> once lost. And in order for me to consider him a friend ever again, or
> to trust him ever again, he'd need to first get me to respect him. And
> he's not even trying, so I say good riddance to bad rubbish.
------------------------------------------------------------ -------------------
One.... yup, just one. No, wait. Let me recount that...yup, still one.
Okay, you can put your hand down now, flamy.
You see what I'm saying about your own version reality there, pal? Of
course you don't. 157 IQ and all.
>> For your info, fs, I did not "pretend" that you didn't exist... You
>> just simply missed the symbolism of that act: a) I wanted to convey to
>> you the simple idea that you would not be welcomed back into the fold
>> by me like a loving puppy accepts his abusive master. I am NOT your
>> "boy"; b) until you grow a conscience, accept your faults and
>> downfalls, and take full responsibility for the offenses you committed
>> then, and since, then I simply don't wish to see you; and, for a
>> little added spice, c) "Dragons" just simply don't exist save for in
>> my imagination.
>
> a) I didn't expect to be "welcomed back into the fold". I said some
> uncomplimentary and hurtful things, and you had every right to be angry.
> However, what you did had nothing to do with anger, but childishness.
But you just said you expected me to be angry... bah, never mind. I forgot
I'm dealing with someone whose mind is still stuck in his own twisted
reality.
Uh-huh... when /you/ do hurtful things it's out of anger, but when someone
else mirrors those same things back at you, it's childishness. Yeah, okay.
I can see the double standard there. yessir, oh "My Shit Don't Stink", sir.
I'll keep that in mind.
It just goes to show, "You can dish it out, but you just can't take it." It
also goes to show, "You reap what you sew, and anyone who isn't prepared for
that even is a complete fool."
> b) I always accept full responsibility for what I do -- if I know I'm
> doing it. If I say something offhandedly, chances are I don't even know
> I'm doing it. However, when people point it out, I accept responsibility
> for it.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! ... yeah, okay. Since when? There were your own
parents, Oliver and all of his crew, your former housemate whom you screwed
out of the mortgage, every frend you've ever had.... need I go on?
> Therefore, if you saw something about me you didn't like and kept it to
> yourself, you're just as much at fault as I am.
Kept it to myself.... um, you /do/ recall that last session, right? You
were still at the table when I blasted you for what you did, after all.
Otherwise, why would you bring this up at all?
Ah, but I forget. Selective hearing, yet again. Did you translate my words
as Primate Hooting, or something? I don't recall pounding my chest,
throwing leaves in the air, and chucking feces at you.
You can't be /that/ daft, can you? Your naivety is not exactly charming.
> c) Now you're getting into trouble. Does this mean that all the dragons
> we've had on here in the past are solely figments of /your/ imagination?
> Or did you mistype your thoughts and try to say /my/ imagination? Either
> way, I don't assume responsibility for everything that's ever been posted
> here, therefore dragons must exist somewhere else other than
> imaginations.
I'm sorry, I meant to say the collective overactive imaginations and
superstitions of a few cultures and those nations who have no culture of
their own so they borrow what they lack from others. Does that make things
clearer? I can't help it if there are always a few demented individuals
that take things a bit too far. /That's/ MY opinion. You don't like it,
too bad.
>> Translation: Grow up, drop the "dragon" non-sense and stop being such
>> a frickin' coward, and treat your fellow Man with a great deal more
>> respect than what has been shown here between the two of us. Maybe I
>> will consider talking to you, again.
>
> I'm as grown-up as I'll ever get, I've dropped the nonsense a long time
> ago, and what's left is reality, even if you don't like it, and I treat
> others with as much respect as I receive, since doing it the other way
> meant I was giving and never getting. And if that's "all" that needs to
> be done, well, I guess you'll either have to open your mind to see that
> I'm speaking the truth, or live with never talking to me again. Either
> way, the choice is yours, not mine. I've made my mind clear to you.
Clearly, you're a complete nutter.
>> How's THAT for "spectacular"?
>
> Actually, not very. You didn't even make my mad, or cry, or anything.
And /yeeeeeet/ you found it necessary to comment on it. Okay, sure.
--
Sentinel,
Still Watching, still waiting...
|
|
|
| Re: Sentinel's Rants to LFS [message #190915 ] |
So, 25 Dezember 2005 00:55 |
|
"Draco18s" <draco18s [at] gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1135449144.176887.197350 [at] g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Lord Flame Stryke wrote:
>
>> > How's THAT for "spectacular"?
>>
>> Actually, not very. You didn't even make my mad, or cry, or anything.
>
> Same. Spectacular crap maybe. I just keept noticing the locgical
> fallacies on Sentinel's side. Lots and lots of Ad Hominem arguments,
> several Red Herrings too, even Guilt by Association. Grow up Sentinel.
Someone who was so inclined to think with a more mature outlook would
understand that this is clearly an issue between fs and myself, refuse to
get in the middle of things, and keep his comments to himself. He would
realize that without his input this might resolve in a more favourable
outcome, rather than continue to fester in a very long, bandwidth-wasting
war.
Not to mention lose the shaky respect other already have for him. I have
already done that, as is readily apparent. Would you do the same? Whose
the more foolish? The fool, or the fool who follows him? Grow up yourself,
junior.
--
Sentinel,
Still Watching, Still Waiting...
|
|
|
| Re: Sentinel's Rants to LFS (addressing his backstabbing nature) [message #190917 ] |
So, 25 Dezember 2005 03:02 |
|
[pages of pointless bickering]
ok,, noticed this suddenly became crossposted. we already had to 'weed'
out the bad ones from there already recently....
--
Zarris
dragoncode: DC2.Dw Gm L- W T- Phvfwvl^t Sks Cbl+,bwh%,cbk,egy,vbk,wwh%
Bfl A- Fr++ Nm M- O H++ $+++ Fo-- R+++ Ac++ J+ S-- U-- I V-- Q Tc++[ntwk] E
journal: http://www.livejournal.com/userinfo.bml?user=zarris
|
|
|
| Re: Sentinel's Rants to LFS [message #190928 ] |
Mo, 26 Dezember 2005 02:28 |
|
In article <tdlrf.13874$m05.2881 [at] clgrps12>, SC [at] Sentinel.net says...
>
>"Draco18s" <draco18s [at] gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:1135449144.176887.197350 [at] g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> Lord Flame Stryke wrote:
>>
>>> > How's THAT for "spectacular"?
>>>
>>> Actually, not very. You didn't even make my mad, or cry, or anything.
>>
>> Same. Spectacular crap maybe. I just keept noticing the locgical
>> fallacies on Sentinel's side. Lots and lots of Ad Hominem arguments,
>> several Red Herrings too, even Guilt by Association. Grow up Sentinel.
>
>Someone who was so inclined to think with a more mature outlook would
>understand that this is clearly an issue between fs and myself, refuse to
>get in the middle of things, and keep his comments to himself.
I get not in the middle, but to the side, as a referee.
If such actions ostracize me then, well, deary me.
You accused FS of providing faulty information, yet you come bearing even
lower forms of trickery.
>He would
>realize that without his input this might resolve in a more favourable
>outcome, rather than continue to fester in a very long, bandwidth-wasting
>war.
Bandwith is cheap when dealing in text.
>Not to mention lose the shaky respect other already have for him. I have
>already done that, as is readily apparent. Would you do the same?
If I lose respect, then those who's respect I've lost can come forth and tell
me themselves.
> Whose
>the more foolish? The fool, or the fool who follows him? Grow up yourself,
>junior.
Are you going to Appeal to Fear and have me jump on the Bandwagon and hold my
tongue in defence of a friend? Two more Logical Fallacies hath thou
committed.
As for growing up, yes, I may have a bit to do, but that is not for YOU to
judge and has nothing to do with the matter at paw (another Red Herring?).
|
|
|
| Re: Sentinel's Rants to LFS (addressing his backstabbing nature) [message #190929 ] |
Mo, 26 Dezember 2005 03:18 |
|
In article <TZkrf.13872$m05.2751 [at] clgrps12>, SC [at] Sentinel.net says...
>But that all as an aside, what other terms did you agree to before we took
>to the table? No dragons as PCs. No dragon sub-types, humanoids and so
>forth. Why? Because they are all too unbalancing to the game in general
May I point out that the half-dragon character (has "dragon" as race as per
the rules, see WotC website, "character progression for half-dragon and
wererat") it under-damaging and under-hitting one of the other characters in
the party. A Illumian fighter 5/Shadow Sentinel 2 (levels I can find at the
moment), we're ECL 10 now, so he's a Shadow Sentinel 5.
What can he do? Oh, spend a shadow point, make his attacks touch, then power
attack for 8+........and swing 5 times while hasted and hit on at least four
of those. He's downded things due to Massive Damage (50+ damage in one
attack, Fort 10 vs. death) I've done it once. Things usually make the save,
but DIE from taking....*calculating*...127 points of damage. My half dragon
has managed 80 and he has a strength of 28 (26 natural and 2 granted by an
item) and that was when I was bane-ed for the right creature type and the
creature was chaotic. The shadow sentinel doesn't have a STR anywhere near
that (18?). Granted I have more armor than he does (26 vs. ~20 un-buffed),
but a good smack kills me, as I HAVE NO HP. ~50 to his ~90. The only reason
he's fallen unconscious more is because I have a reach weapon and he doesn't.
I don't even out damage our rogue when he gets a snake attack. I only do
better than the cleric, the sorcerer, artificer, and *maybe* the ranger,
although I doubt it. I only have a third attack when hasted, everyone else
has acquired that BAB +11 or are very close (and I have more EXP!). Oh, did I
mention that the Shadow Sentinel DIED once already too? And lost a level for
it too.
I plan on playing ANOTHER half dragon in a campaign with a different GM. And
I happen to be invoking the Sub-Race Rules (DMG page 170) to substitute Dex
instead of Str--playing a rogue instead of a fighter. Going to be interesting
as he has no skill points at level 3 (3 LA and no Class levels and a partial
hit die).
Or how about the end of term arena that I took four level four dragons
(leveled as per Dragon Magazine issues 332 and 320, June 2005) and got 2nd
place. Only because I didn't lose any characters, all four stayed alive 20
rounds of 5 way combat. Had I killed one more character, I would have had 1
more point, and someone else 1 less and I might have tied or better.
Why did I win? Because I picked off the stragglers, I could not afford to
enter full melee with Neanderthal and half-orc barbarians. Oh, most other
characters were larger than most of mine. I have 1 medium, 2 small, and a
tiny. Some managed to have large sized characters (raging barbarians I
think).
I think you need to rethink your stance on dragon characters. None of them
have been powerful. Try a werewolf warshaper monk (ECL 20). That killed a
ECL 30 red dragon.
Arrow demon (ECL 20) dual-wielding Might Composit Long Bows?
Two bards (ECL 4) singing otto's irresistible dance (with 2 orc paladins of
freedom for a party of four)? Otto's irresistible Dance DC: 30ft radius Will
Save 20.
I've seen some sick stuff, and none of them have been dragon types. The
closes I'll come are the two ECL 8 gestalt characters I will be making for
next terms end of term arena combat. And why will they be powerful? BECAUSE
THEY'RE GESTALT!.
Thank you.
|
|
|
| Re: Sentinel's Rants to LFS (addressing his backstabbing nature) [message #190930 ] |
Mo, 26 Dezember 2005 03:23 |
|
In article <TZkrf.13872$m05.2751 [at] clgrps12>, SC [at] Sentinel.net says...
>> Actually, if you hadn't responded to this message, I still wouldn't have
>> responded.
>> However, since you decided to at least talk about it, I feel that you're
>> owed at
>> least a response, however ungracious it might be.
>>
>> Also note that I'm not angry with you. Nor am I angry with myself.
>> However, you seem to be holding on to this anger. I would suggest you
>> let it out before it eats you up, but that's your choice to make, not
>> mine.
>
>Not angry with me... riiiiight. Anyone else who has read this post and
>believes that, raise your hand:
Well, ok.
*Raises the appropriate appendage, on the end of which might be a paw or a
hand, depending on how you care to count it.*
|
|
|
| Re: Sentinel's Rants to LFS [message #190932 ] |
Mo, 26 Dezember 2005 07:09 |
|
On 24 Dec 2005 10:32:24 -0800, "Draco18s" <draco18s [at] gmail.com>
pondered, and then scribbled:
>
>Lord Flame Stryke wrote:
>
>> > How's THAT for "spectacular"?
>>
>> Actually, not very. You didn't even make my mad, or cry, or anything.
>
>Same. Spectacular crap maybe. I just keept noticing the locgical
>fallacies on Sentinel's side. Lots and lots of Ad Hominem arguments,
>several Red Herrings too, even Guilt by Association. Grow up Sentinel.
<sighs>
Sentinel and Flame Stryke obviously need to clear the air between
them. And although they are doing it on a public forum, perhaps that
is because this is the only venue they feel comfortable communicating
with one another through.
But -- they are communicating. They are listening to one another (not
very nicely, but sometimes it takes a bit of flame to clear away the
debris).
Anyone getting in the middle of it usually has their own agenda
(perhaps they, too, feel the need to vent) - and should be aware of
it.
*tight huggles for all involved*
Quelonzia Stormdancer
--
' '
( ) "...And as full of wonder in this ancient age,
) ( As ever I was when I was but a child...
( ) Standing upon tiptoe, reaching for stars,
{ o o } And dreaming of wings with which to soar."
\)(/ --me
(oo) Home page: http://www.stormdancer.net
vv Pondering 3 Ponder Points - Lapsed ACL Member
DC2.D"Prism"GfA+++L20fFmR+++!J++S+++Fr+++!M+++!xxQ+++!
|
|
|
| Re: Sentinel's Rants to LFS [message #190938 ] |
Mo, 26 Dezember 2005 12:37 |
|
"Quelonzia Stormdancer" <see [at] reply.to> wrote in message
news:2OLrf.36408$BZ5.16142 [at] newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
> On 24 Dec 2005 10:32:24 -0800, "Draco18s" <draco18s [at] gmail.com>
> pondered, and then scribbled:
>
> >
> >Lord Flame Stryke wrote:
> >
> >> > How's THAT for "spectacular"?
> >>
> >> Actually, not very. You didn't even make my mad, or cry, or anything.
> >
> >Same. Spectacular crap maybe. I just keept noticing the locgical
> >fallacies on Sentinel's side. Lots and lots of Ad Hominem arguments,
> >several Red Herrings too, even Guilt by Association. Grow up Sentinel.
>
> <sighs>
>
> Sentinel and Flame Stryke obviously need to clear the air between
> them. And although they are doing it on a public forum, perhaps that
> is because this is the only venue they feel comfortable communicating
> with one another through.
>
> But -- they are communicating. They are listening to one another (not
> very nicely, but sometimes it takes a bit of flame to clear away the
> debris).
>
> Anyone getting in the middle of it usually has their own agenda
> (perhaps they, too, feel the need to vent) - and should be aware of
> it.
>
> *tight huggles for all involved*
Thanks Quel.
Got any spare huggles?
Until the heat dies down that is....
Arcaton
>
> Quelonzia Stormdancer
> --
> ' '
> ( ) "...And as full of wonder in this ancient age,
> ) ( As ever I was when I was but a child...
> ( ) Standing upon tiptoe, reaching for stars,
> { o o } And dreaming of wings with which to soar."
> \)(/ --me
> (oo) Home page: http://www.stormdancer.net
> vv Pondering 3 Ponder Points - Lapsed ACL Member
>
> DC2.D"Prism"GfA+++L20fFmR+++!J++S+++Fr+++!M+++!xxQ+++!
|
|
|
| Re: Sentinel's Rants to LFS [message #190939 ] |
Mo, 26 Dezember 2005 15:44 |
|
"Draco18s" <draco18s2 [at] _SPAM_hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1e1911323581fdd9989680 [at] news.teranews.com...
> I get not in the middle, but to the side, as a referee.
> If such actions ostracize me then, well, deary me.
> You accused FS of providing faulty information, yet you come bearing even
> lower forms of trickery.
You came to Judge and to add fuel to a fire that is already out of control.
/I/ didn't agree to appoint you as a referee... that is a decision based on
mutual agreement between ALL parties involved in contest, and I don't recall
agreeing to /you/ acting as such. Especially one who is so obviously biased
towards one side. Referees are Neutral by sheer definition.
What do I mean by biased? For one, you came into this conversation on the
attack against one side. Second, you really have no idea what a red herring
is, do you? But it sounds all "book-learny", doesn't it. Yet you try to
use that to accuse me of fallacy... why don't you just out with it, and call
me a Liar!
On that front, I have news for you. I'm not lying. The truth is, by far,
way too much fun as it is. Why cheapen it.
>>He would
>>realize that without his input this might resolve in a more favourable
>>outcome, rather than continue to fester in a very long, bandwidth-wasting
>>war.
>
> Bandwith is cheap when dealing in text.
So then you are more interested in fanning the fires, then? Causing more
trouble than this conversation is worth? Your true motivation. A right
good ref. you make, too.
>>Not to mention lose the shaky respect others already have for him. I have
>>already done that, as is readily apparent. Would you do the same?
>
> If I lose respect, then those who's respect I've lost can come forth and
> tell
> me themselves.
Why? Why would they need to? But then, again, there might be those who
might offer you advice to "stay out of it".
>> Whose the more foolish? The fool, or the fool who follows him? Grow up
>> yourself,
>>junior.
>
> Are you going to Appeal to Fear and have me jump on the Bandwagon and hold
> my
> tongue in defence of a friend? Two more Logical Fallacies hath thou
> committed.
Your "friend" can face me all on his own... unless, of course, you feel he
is incapable of doing so against one... little... human. I'm here all on
/my/ own, I have no misconceptions on that point, and I don't expect
/anyone/ here, at all, to come running to my defense or aid.
Will it be Two Dragins, then, against one mere little unarmed human? Wow,
two big, flaming, scaled dragons against one solitary, unarmoured, unarmed
Man. Look who's the underdog, now.
Ooooo, and I'm a big scary human, now, too! "Appeal to Fear"... Ha! I'm
sorry, did I scare you? What a misconception we have of the mighty, all
powerful, all knowing, "fearless" dragon, then. How sad. Somehow I was
expecting more... oh, I don't know... fire? Careful, don't let him chip a
nail on his keyboard.
That, and you still don't know the whole story, or you, like our other more
local mutual friends, would stay out of it.
> As for growing up, yes, I may have a bit to do, but that is not for YOU to
> judge and has nothing to do with the matter at paw (another Red Herring?).
LIKEWISE! What, then, gives YOU the right to judge ME? Yet another who
offers a double standard... a 'standard' amongst dragons, it would seem?
What /you/ would call a "red herring" I suppose. It would seem you are no
more qualified to speak on matters that are none of your concern, than I
would be in nuclear reactor repair.
Hypocrisy, look it up.
Again, stay out of this.
--
Sentinel,
Still watching, still waiting...
|
|
|
| Re: Sentinel's Rants to LFS (addressing his backstabbing nature) [message #190941 ] |
Mo, 26 Dezember 2005 16:50 |
|
"Draco18s" <draco18s2 [at] _SPAM_hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1e191ce67c218e57989681 [at] news.teranews.com...
> In article <TZkrf.13872$m05.2751 [at] clgrps12>, SC [at] Sentinel.net says...
>>But that all as an aside, what other terms did you agree to before we took
>>to the table? No dragons as PCs. No dragon sub-types, humanoids and so
>>forth. Why? Because they are all too unbalancing to the game in general
>
> May I point out that the half-dragon character (has "dragon" as race as
> per
> the rules, see WotC website, "character progression for half-dragon and
> wererat") it under-damaging and under-hitting one of the other characters
> in
> the party. A Illumian fighter 5/Shadow Sentinel 2 (levels I can find at
> the
> moment), we're ECL 10 now, so he's a Shadow Sentinel 5.
> What can he do? Oh, spend a shadow point, make his attacks touch, then
> power
> attack for 8+........and swing 5 times while hasted and hit on at least
> four
> of those. He's downded things due to Massive Damage (50+ damage in one
> attack, Fort 10 vs. death) I've done it once. Things usually make the
> save,
> but DIE from taking....*calculating*...127 points of damage. My half
> dragon
> has managed 80 and he has a strength of 28 (26 natural and 2 granted by an
> item) and that was when I was bane-ed for the right creature type and the
> creature was chaotic. The shadow sentinel doesn't have a STR anywhere
> near
> that (18?). Granted I have more armor than he does (26 vs. ~20
> un-buffed),
> but a good smack kills me, as I HAVE NO HP. ~50 to his ~90. The only
> reason
> he's fallen unconscious more is because I have a reach weapon and he
> doesn't.
> I don't even out damage our rogue when he gets a snake attack. I only do
> better than the cleric, the sorcerer, artificer, and *maybe* the ranger,
> although I doubt it. I only have a third attack when hasted, everyone
> else
> has acquired that BAB +11 or are very close (and I have more EXP!). Oh,
> did I
> mention that the Shadow Sentinel DIED once already too? And lost a level
> for
> it too.
>
> I plan on playing ANOTHER half dragon in a campaign with a different GM.
> And
> I happen to be invoking the Sub-Race Rules (DMG page 170) to substitute
> Dex
> instead of Str--playing a rogue instead of a fighter. Going to be
> interesting
> as he has no skill points at level 3 (3 LA and no Class levels and a
> partial
> hit die).
>
> Or how about the end of term arena that I took four level four dragons
> (leveled as per Dragon Magazine issues 332 and 320, June 2005) and got 2nd
> place. Only because I didn't lose any characters, all four stayed alive
> 20
> rounds of 5 way combat. Had I killed one more character, I would have had
> 1
> more point, and someone else 1 less and I might have tied or better.
> Why did I win? Because I picked off the stragglers, I could not afford to
> enter full melee with Neanderthal and half-orc barbarians. Oh, most other
> characters were larger than most of mine. I have 1 medium, 2 small, and a
> tiny. Some managed to have large sized characters (raging barbarians I
> think).
>
> I think you need to rethink your stance on dragon characters. None of
> them
> have been powerful. Try a werewolf warshaper monk (ECL 20). That killed
> a
> ECL 30 red dragon.
> Arrow demon (ECL 20) dual-wielding Might Composit Long Bows?
> Two bards (ECL 4) singing otto's irresistible dance (with 2 orc paladins
> of
> freedom for a party of four)? Otto's irresistible Dance DC: 30ft radius
> Will
> Save 20.
>
> I've seen some sick stuff, and none of them have been dragon types. The
> closes I'll come are the two ECL 8 gestalt characters I will be making for
> next terms end of term arena combat. And why will they be powerful?
> BECAUSE
> THEY'RE GESTALT!.
>
> Thank you.
<sigh> We were playing 3rd ed. Not version 3.5. Basic, no frills, core
rulebook 3rd.
Your above effort as an aside, as much time and effort as you obviously
spent putting into it (while I do appreciate it, sincerely), you've missed
one very important point: Since I had to be the DM, my terms were "No
Dragon PCs" for my agreeing to do so. He agreed to those terms. period.
end of story. Or it should have been, in any case.
You may have also missed the bit where I was "sick" of hearing about the
dragon issue? He brought it up at /every/ game session, practically whined
about it. "I wanna play a dragon. Why can't I play a dragon?" Day in...
day out... every game day (and then some) from the word go, and not with
just /this/ game but every previous game, session, or other venue, you name
it. Does your group have a player that does that (not necessarily about
dragons, but on /any/ subject)? I'm sure you're all sick of hearing it,
too, if you do. Everyone we ever gamed with was sick of it, and even after
only the first session of any game group we joined (that being not many, in
truth).
How about a rules lawyer? Imagine the two of those together in one package,
a whining rules lawyer, who is also deaf/ blind because he couldn't
understand the concept of "the DM has the right to impose any restrictions,
or change any rule he doesn't like. The 'rules' are not hardset." Any
changes I make, I apply to everyone, equally, including myself when it comes
to basic rules and grey area calls. No one else could play a dragon as a
PC, nor as an NPC... a monsterous encounter, however, should it have come
up, would have been just that. A preset encounter.
I was /that/ sick of the constant whining over it. He may not think he was
whining, and, to be fair, I can't say that this applied term is accurate,
but it's the closest I can come to a description... or, purhaps, Passive
Agressive, maybe? Insistant to the point of being very grating and
obnoxious? One of those types that bring up the subject so constantly as to
jump on one's last nerve hoping the DM would eventually give in to his
demands.
Now, you will take note, this particular incident, he did what he did out of
Malicious Intent because /he couldn't have his own way/... read his posts
carefully. He did it /Intentionally/. Sabotaged the effort, even though I
didn't want to run a game in the first place, and when /he/ was the one
"passive agressively" insisting on a game... this is called a proverbial "A
Kick in the Teeth". "Thanx for giving in to what I wanted, now can I shit
on your effort?" If it happened to you, you would not be as understanding,
I am sure. If I gave in to this demand, then I may as well have let him
run the whole game and call all the shots... A good DM doesn't let that
happen. A good DM maintains control of his own game. In other words, he
wanted the power to veto /any/ of my calls.
Incidentally, the other player's character was NOT a dragon, but something
else, entirely, and not destructive to game balance, either.
This was, and still is, apparently, a conflict between two souls who were
stubborn enough, thickheaded enough, not to budge or give quarter. Sad
thing is, only one of them set out to intentionally cause ruin, and, in the
process, ruin a friendship. He is intelligent enough to know that he could
not do one without harming the other, especially given the form of
battlefield he chose to do so.
Have I explained my point of view well enough? Can you understand, now, why
I was so angry? And why I'm angry still?
Draco, I want you to know that I'm not angry with you, but I am annoyed.
And I will get over it. But , please, in the meantime, try to understand
both points of view, and make your call from there. You've put yourself in
FS's shoes, and all I ask out of fairness is that you now put yourself in
mine. Ask yourself, honestly, how you would have felt and reacted in my
place.
--
Sentinel,
Still watching, still waiting...
|
|
|
| Re: Sentinel's Rants to LFS [message #190945 ] |
Mo, 26 Dezember 2005 20:16 |
|
Quelonzia Stormdancer wrote:
> <sighs>
>
> Sentinel and Flame Stryke obviously need to clear the air between
> them. And although they are doing it on a public forum, perhaps that
> is because this is the only venue they feel comfortable communicating
> with one another through.
Forums, plural.
(Dons welding goggles and shoves a pan of Jiffy-Pop under the nearest
pair of steaming nostrils)
--
The Saprophyte
--
|
|
|
| Re: Sentinel's Rants to LFS [message #190946 ] |
Mo, 26 Dezember 2005 20:37 |
|
In article <7lTrf.13945$m05.10740 [at] clgrps12>, SC [at] Sentinel.net says...
>
>"Draco18s" <draco18s2 [at] _SPAM_hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:MPG.1e1911323581fdd9989680 [at] news.teranews.com...
>
>> I get not in the middle, but to the side, as a referee.
>> If such actions ostracize me then, well, deary me.
>> You accused FS of providing faulty information, yet you come bearing even
>> lower forms of trickery.
>
>You came to Judge and to add fuel to a fire that is already out of control.
>/I/ didn't agree to appoint you as a referee... that is a decision based on
>mutual agreement between ALL parties involved in contest, and I don't recall
>agreeing to /you/ acting as such. Especially one who is so obviously biased
>towards one side. Referees are Neutral by sheer definition.
I can be quiet neutral, and I would be happy to pull apart FS's arguments as
well. If I find holes in them.
>What do I mean by biased? For one, you came into this conversation on the
>attack against one side. Second, you really have no idea what a red herring
>is, do you?
You brining up the case of Two Ruined Trucks when the argument is about a D&D
game.
>But it sounds all "book-learny", doesn't it. Yet you try to
>use that to accuse me of fallacy... why don't you just out with it, and call
>me a Liar!
I can't when I don't even know the details of your side of the story. You're
too busy insulting FS (and myself) to calmly describe the story in detail to
the extent that I can understand.
All I know is that something happened over some unspecified character's animal
companion of FS's. I have no detail except that which I've gotten from FS.
>On that front, I have news for you. I'm not lying. The truth is, by far,
>way too much fun as it is. Why cheapen it.
I never said you were lying, I just said you haven't been giving the whole
truth.
>>>He would
>>>realize that without his input this might resolve in a more favourable
>>>outcome, rather than continue to fester in a very long, bandwidth-wasting
>>>war.
>>
>> Bandwith is cheap when dealing in text.
>
>So then you are more interested in fanning the fires, then? Causing more
>trouble than this conversation is worth? Your true motivation. A right
>good ref. you make, too.
I have no interest in fanning flames, I would like to see this resolved.
>>>Not to mention lose the shaky respect others already have for him. I have
>>>already done that, as is readily apparent. Would you do the same?
>>
>> If I lose respect, then those who's respect I've lost can come forth and
>> tell
>> me themselves.
>
>Why? Why would they need to? But then, again, there might be those who
>might offer you advice to "stay out of it".
If they do, they may speak up.
>>> Whose the more foolish? The fool, or the fool who follows him? Grow up
>>> yourself,
>>>junior.
>>
>> Are you going to Appeal to Fear and have me jump on the Bandwagon and hold
>> my
>> tongue in defence of a friend? Two more Logical Fallacies hath thou
>> committed.
>
>Your "friend" can face me all on his own... unless, of course, you feel he
>is incapable of doing so against one... little... human. I'm here all on
>/my/ own, I have no misconceptions on that point, and I don't expect
>/anyone/ here, at all, to come running to my defense or aid.
At what point have I actually attacked you?
>Will it be Two Dragins, then, against one mere little unarmed human? Wow,
>two big, flaming, scaled dragons against one solitary, unarmoured, unarmed
>Man. Look who's the underdog, now.
>
>Ooooo, and I'm a big scary human, now, too! "Appeal to Fear"... Ha! I'm
>sorry, did I scare you?
"Appeal to Fear" is an argument that presents X as being false, because
defending X will ostracize the defenders. Which is exactly what you did. You
told me to leave FS on his own or I will lose the respect of the citizens of
AFD.
>What a misconception we have of the mighty, all
>powerful, all knowing, "fearless" dragon, then. How sad. Somehow I was
>expecting more... oh, I don't know... fire? Careful, don't let him chip a
>nail on his keyboard.
>
>That, and you still don't know the whole story, or you, like our other more
>local mutual friends, would stay out of it.
If you would tell me the whole story, then maybe I might understand.
|
|
|
| Re: Sentinel's Rants to LFS [message #190947 ] |
Mo, 26 Dezember 2005 20:40 |
|
In article <2OLrf.36408$BZ5.16142 [at] newssvr13.news.prodigy.com>, see [at] reply.to
says...
>On 24 Dec 2005 10:32:24 -0800, "Draco18s" <draco18s [at] gmail.com>
>pondered, and then scribbled:
>
>>
>>Lord Flame Stryke wrote:
>>
>>> > How's THAT for "spectacular"?
>>>
>>> Actually, not very. You didn't even make my mad, or cry, or anything.
>>
>>Same. Spectacular crap maybe. I just keept noticing the locgical
>>fallacies on Sentinel's side. Lots and lots of Ad Hominem arguments,
>>several Red Herrings too, even Guilt by Association. Grow up Sentinel.
>
><sighs>
>
>Sentinel and Flame Stryke obviously need to clear the air between
>them. And although they are doing it on a public forum, perhaps that
>is because this is the only venue they feel comfortable communicating
>with one another through.
>
>But -- they are communicating. They are listening to one another (not
>very nicely, but sometimes it takes a bit of flame to clear away the
>debris).
>
>Anyone getting in the middle of it usually has their own agenda
>(perhaps they, too, feel the need to vent) - and should be aware of
>it.
I seem to have a compulsion to moderate arguments. I got into trouble with an
English teacher once. He had not heard another student correctly and when I
(and several other students) tried to point this out, he verbally attacked me
(basically "shut up").
|
|
|
| Re: Sentinel's Rants to LFS (addressing his backstabbing nature) [message #190948 ] |
Mo, 26 Dezember 2005 21:28 |
|
In article <fjUrf.13948$m05.2474 [at] clgrps12>, SC [at] Sentinel.net says...
>Have I explained my point of view well enough? Can you understand, now, why
>I was so angry? And why I'm angry still?
You have to some extent. I understand, although I don't have the detail that
I wished.
><sigh> We were playing 3rd ed. Not version 3.5. Basic, no frills, core
>rulebook 3rd.
This is new. Had I known this, I might have written my post differently, or
not typed it at all. I don't know the rules regarding dragons in 3.0
>Your above effort as an aside, as much time and effort as you obviously
>spent putting into it (while I do appreciate it, sincerely), you've missed
>one very important point: Since I had to be the DM, my terms were "No
>Dragon PCs" for my agreeing to do so. He agreed to those terms. period.
>end of story. Or it should have been, in any case.
I understand.
>You may have also missed the bit where I was "sick" of hearing about the
>dragon issue? He brought it up at /every/ game session, practically whined
>about it. "I wanna play a dragon. Why can't I play a dragon?" Day in...
>day out... every game day (and then some) from the word go, and not with
>just /this/ game but every previous game, session, or other venue, you name
>it. Does your group have a player that does that (not necessarily about
>dragons, but on /any/ subject)? I'm sure you're all sick of hearing it,
>too, if you do. Everyone we ever gamed with was sick of it, and even after
>only the first session of any game group we joined (that being not many, in
>truth).
Not particularly, there are players who want something and the DM says, "I'll
look into it."
One was a warforged being able to wear a robe.
One was allowing one player to make up a new character using the new Incarnum
rules, this was disallowed because in the opening paragraph of the
introduction it says that it changes the rules (like psioncs) and is not
intended as additional rules to the core book. Jon whined for a bit (DM
wanted to read the book first), but when that was pointed out he quiet down
because he understands why we don't use the psionics book.
>How about a rules lawyer? Imagine the two of those together in one package,
>a whining rules lawyer, who is also deaf/ blind because he couldn't
>understand the concept of "the DM has the right to impose any restrictions,
>or change any rule he doesn't like. The 'rules' are not hardset." Any
>changes I make, I apply to everyone, equally, including myself when it comes
>to basic rules and grey area calls. No one else could play a dragon as a
>PC, nor as an NPC... a monsterous encounter, however, should it have come
>up, would have been just that. A preset encounter.
I've never meet a rules lawyer. The DM, I, and the player of the artificer
discuss rules all the time, but we generally email WotC and go by their
response.
Only time this hasn't helped is for enchanting Beast Claws (Savage Species
magic weapon) further. We agreed that based on the price (9k) that it is a +2
equivalent already.
>I was /that/ sick of the constant whining over it. He may not think he was
>whining, and, to be fair, I can't say that this applied term is accurate,
>but it's the closest I can come to a description... or, purhaps, Passive
>Agressive, maybe? Insistant to the point of being very grating and
>obnoxious? One of those types that bring up the subject so constantly as to
>jump on one's last nerve hoping the DM would eventually give in to his
>demands.
>
>Now, you will take note, this particular incident, he did what he did out of
>Malicious Intent because /he couldn't have his own way/... read his posts
>carefully. He did it /Intentionally/. Sabotaged the effort, even though I
>didn't want to run a game in the first place, and when /he/ was the one
>"passive agressively" insisting on a game... this is called a proverbial "A
>Kick in the Teeth". "Thanx for giving in to what I wanted, now can I shit
>on your effort?" If it happened to you, you would not be as understanding,
>I am sure. If I gave in to this demand, then I may as well have let him
>run the whole game and call all the shots... A good DM doesn't let that
>happen. A good DM maintains control of his own game. In other words, he
>wanted the power to veto /any/ of my calls.
I would like to hear FS's side to this first, before making any decisions.
>Incidentally, the other player's character was NOT a dragon, but something
>else, entirely, and not destructive to game balance, either.
I'd like to know what it was. AND what FS's character was that he said was
the same thing.
>This was, and still is, apparently, a conflict between two souls who were
>stubborn enough, thickheaded enough, not to budge or give quarter. Sad
>thing is, only one of them set out to intentionally cause ruin, and, in the
>process, ruin a friendship. He is intelligent enough to know that he could
>not do one without harming the other, especially given the form of
>battlefield he chose to do so.
>
>Draco, I want you to know that I'm not angry with you, but I am annoyed.
>And I will get over it. But , please, in the meantime, try to understand
>both points of view, and make your call from there. You've put yourself in
>FS's shoes, and all I ask out of fairness is that you now put yourself in
>mine. Ask yourself, honestly, how you would have felt and reacted in my
>place.
I have tried, but I haven't been able to follow your arguments closely enough
to understand your point of view (and I'm generally very good at seeing things
from a pseudo-omnisient point of view--that is understand both sides and leave
my own pre-conceptions behind. It's easier when it's physically happening
instead of posts where one side can digress on a point for pages with no input
from the other side through the whole thing).
I think that we need a post of one side (I say you go first Sentinel, although
FS may post first if he wishes) and describe the even without harping on FS's
past or character and then have FS respond in kind, providing detail when it's
left out as well as presenting his own side of the story. Even if I do not
read ANY of it, it will be a means by which you two can work this out, this
works very well iRL.
Basically, just start over including as much detail as you can muster and
being as neutral as you can; the referee isn't the only neutral in a debate.
|
|
|
| Re: Sentinel's Rants to LFS [message #190951 ] |
Mo, 26 Dezember 2005 21:52 |
|
"Draco18s" <draco18s2 [at] _SPAM_hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1e1a11481fcaad38989684 [at] news.teranews.com...
> I seem to have a compulsion to moderate arguments.
As do I, I can understand that, but there is a right way and a wrong way to
do so. You can tell when you've done something the wrong way when one, the
other, or both, turn their venom on /you/. It is at this point you might
consider backing off and waiting.
> I got into trouble with an English teacher once. He had not heard another
> student correctly and when I
> (and several other students) tried to point this out, he verbally attacked
> me
> (basically "shut up").
Your teacher, for instance. Did you take a moment, use a little patience,
and go about arguing for your friend in what some would call a respectful
manner, or did you just blurt out what you had to say without any
consideration as to the teacher's authority in the class (as in "scoffing"
at the teacher's mistake and embarrassing him in a "backtalking" manner)?
Judging solely upon the manner in which you came at me on this board (which
was very confrontational, btw), and let's face it, you did make some very
snide remarks, then I might say that there is a great possibility that you
came off the same way to your teacher.
Seriously, look at your original post to me, reverse the roles, and imagine
that it was /me/ saying that to /you/. I guarantee you won't be so happy
about it. Consider how you would have answered someone else doing that to
you.
If you want people to give you any validation as a Neutral, then /be/
Neutral. That means: no snide remarks, no derogatory statements to either
party, no taking sides (or even giving the appearance of doing so... i.e no
sticking up for friends... neutrals, as a rule, don't have friends or
enemies), and no confrontational attitudes. Otherwise, these things just add
to the ammunition available, and often times you get drawn into the conflict
and get blasted along with everyone else, with no end in sight. Then there
are more than just two people coming away from the situation with hurt
feelings, and nothing is accomplished besides making matters even worse.
Being a Neutral also means having patience and waiting for the explosions to
die down, and /then/ looking at what is left. Two very pissed off parties,
each firing off round after round. Often times it takes quite a while for
them to calm down and get down to what is really bothering them, and enough
to make some sense. It is like watching a slide show with the slides out of
order, the lens out of adjustment, and coming into the middle of the story.
Wait for things to come into better focus and come to some semblance of
order.
When in doubt, take a good look around at some of the cooler heads here, and
take their lead. Sometimes the correct thing to do is just nothing but
keeping your eyes open, your mouth closed, and let them get on with it until
they run out of ammo.
--
Sentinel,
Still watching, still waiting...
|
|
|
| Re: Sentinel's Rants to LFS [message #190952 ] |
Di, 27 Dezember 2005 00:26 |
|
"Draco18s" <draco18s2 [at] _SPAM_hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1e1a108d2d5d1556989683 [at] news.teranews.com...
> In article <7lTrf.13945$m05.10740 [at] clgrps12>, SC [at] Sentinel.net says...
>>
>>"Draco18s" <draco18s2 [at] _SPAM_hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>news:MPG.1e1911323581fdd9989680 [at] news.teranews.com...
> I can be quiet neutral, and I would be happy to pull apart FS's arguments
> as
> well. If I find holes in them.
Neutrals do NOT pull apart /anything/. Pulling apart statements made by
either party constitutes ridicule. This would be confrontational, and not
very productive to a resolution. Remember, both parties are already biased
and on the defensive... not a good time to be ridiculing anyone, don't you
think?
> You brining up the case of Two Ruined Trucks when the argument is about a
> D&D
> game.
Goes towards the character of the offending party. i.e. I was giving
evidence as to his "reinventive nature" by siting past offenses. They often
allow this kind of tactic in a court of law in order to verify the extent of
the credibility, if any, of the opposing party.
>>But it sounds all "book-learny", doesn't it. Yet you try to
>>use that to accuse me of fallacy... why don't you just out with it, and
>>call
>>me a Liar!
>
> I can't when I don't even know the details of your side of the story.
> You're
> too busy insulting FS (and myself) to calmly describe the story in detail
> to
> the extent that I can understand.
This is the time you should understand that things would be better served if
you backed off and waited until the fighting dies down, and we calm down.
There would be no need to "attack" you if you did not provide the ammunition
in the first place by making snide remarks. It's proven to be just about as
productive as throwing a full cylinder of propane on the top of a bonfire.
Not a good idea.
> All I know is that something happened over some unspecified character's
> animal
> companion of FS's. I have no detail except that which I've gotten from
> FS.
Exactly my point. And yet, you decided to get all confrontational, all the
same, and practically called me a liar in the process. You had only /one/
side of the story, NOT both, thus only HALF the story. This is known as
"Going off half cocked." Going off prematurely, as we all know, does no one
any good at all... ya tends ta miss the target, and shoots yerself in the
foot.
>>On that front, I have news for you. I'm not lying. The truth is, by far,
>>way too much fun as it is. Why cheapen it.
>
> I never said you were lying, I just said you haven't been giving the whole
> truth.
o.O Funny way of going about it... and not in a "haha" sort of manner.
> I have no interest in fanning flames, I would like to see this resolved.
Then, keep the snide remarks out of it. Nobody likes a smart ass.
>>Why? Why would they need to? But then, again, there might be those who
>>might offer you advice to "stay out of it".
>
> If they do, they may speak up.
They have. No doubt you've already seen them by now... I'm posting a little
bit behind for this response.
> At what point have I actually attacked you?
Your opening post. I've already posted this response to you (later?
earlier?), but for benifit of the doubt, I will repeat what I said: Take a
look at your opening post, reverse the roles and see how you would feel if I
said the same things to you. Again, nobody likes a smart ass.
> "Appeal to Fear" is an argument that presents X as being false, because
> defending X will ostracize the defenders. Which is exactly what you did.
> You
> told me to leave FS on his own or I will lose the respect of the citizens
> of
> AFD.
No, I said you will /risk/ losing the respect of others. It is a statement
of fact. Don't forget, I included myself in that fact in that I have
already quite possibly lost the respect of lots of people on the board,
myself.
> If you would tell me the whole story, then maybe I might understand.
I managed to calm down enough in another post, but maybe I can make things a
even clearer as a recap:
I, and others who FS and I both know (and whom will remain out of this),
were growing ever more weary of hearing the subject of "Dragon this," and
"Dragon that," to the high point of FS's greatest obsession, that even our
other player's patience was being tested (and this other player has a huge
amount more patience than I do). I was just getting sick of it, to tell you
the truth.
Then the issue of gaming came along, and guess who wanted to play nothing
but dragons/ -type characters? This was okay, to a point. When you tell
someone to drop the subject because these types of creatures were not meant
as player characters because they are too unbalancing to a well thought out
campaign and they tend to ruin things for the other players at the table,
then one should drop it, and not be so selfish.
Dragons in D&D tend to be a force, an entire party all on their own. They
do not work well to enhance the spirit of co-operation between players.
They are lone wolves. I was not about to make two seperate adventures to
satisfy both players' wishes (the other player is, in some ways, a greater
lone wolf than FS, and /he/ wasn't getting away with that, either). Forget
that noise. Plus there are a myriad of other problems associated with a
dragon-based character. It turns into a book keeping nightmare for not only
the player (I know he'd be more than happy with that), but it puts on extra
book keeping strain on the DM, as well. The DM has enough on his plate,
already, without the added headache. But I digress as this was not the real
issue, just an excuse for it.
FS did not drop it, he intensified his arguements. He was told five, six
hundred times, "No." I was not willing to screw up my games just so he
could get off on his greater sense of a power-high at the expense of the
others at the table (when we had others-plural). There are more involved
than just him, including the DM.
We had a dry spell of no gaming for about a month as the ripples from our
exit from the last group we were in were subsiding. As to why I left with
FS from that situation, well a) friends do that, in case he hadn't heard,
friends don't let friends stand alone, b) I did not entirely disagree with
him which made matters all the worse but I wouldn't have approached the
situation that way, either, and c) if FS thought for one minute that I would
have been exempt from the backlash of that eMail he sent to the group,
especially given Oliver's mood when we arrived, he's crazier than I thought.
Again, friends don't let friends stand alone.
Oliver was L-I-V-I-D. I am not entirely sure that Oliver wouldn't have had
my head on a pike in my friend's stead. As innocent as FS tried to make it
sound Here, it was anything but. How could every other player in the group
take offense to such an "innocent" eMail. Even I was surprised at the tone
of it. It didn't exactly say this, but it did have the tone of, "How dare
you do something in Our group without MY express permission." I'm not
kidding. I expected a little anger from him, but I did not expect the kind
of harsh response that he used. Just a little bit of a Selfish undertone,
there. Ever so sleight.
I have found FS's attitudes towards a lot of things to be exactly that,
completely self-centered. And I had been growning increasingly /really/
tired of this attitude. I mean, even here, his responses scream that
attitude, "I was sick of giving and never getting"?!?!? What kind of person
has no charity in his heart? You don't expect to /get/ just because you
give. You should expect nothing in return. Do things out of kindness. In
the end it all comes back to you in the graces that you have been blessed
with. And when you /do/ receive you should at least offer to reciprocate.
The hardest arithmatic to master is that which enables us to count our
blessings.
FS, you got plenty, at least from as far as from when I first knew you. You
got friends that would help you out, even a friend who helped you out when
you had no other place to go... this friend found you an apartment the next
day by sticking out his own neck at the place where he lived and worked,
vouching for you when you know they wouldn't have allowed you in, otherwise,
and based solely on your credit record. How did you repay that? I won't go
into details here as this would be crossing the line, and again, I digress.
The point is, FS /had/ friends, and not just two.... until he screwed that
up, himself.
Where were we? Ah, yes, the dry spell. We hadn't gamed in some time, and I
was beginning to enjoy not playing for a little while. FS was not content
to wait, however. Every time he called it was, "So when are you gonna start
a new group? When are we going to game again? Awe come on, I know you want
to run a new group." and so forth.
Eventually I relented, very reluctantly. But I made it clear that this was
not a permanent thing (only a couple of game session and no more if certain
criteria weren't met), as I did not exactly feel like running a new group so
soon. I wanted time off. There were terms that I wanted met, one of those,
as has been in long standing ever since we started gaming together, was, "No
Dragons/ -type PCs. Ix-nay on the agons-dray. Nil Dracus."
This following part is a heavily personally biased point of view, so bear
with me:
He didn't like that. But he agreed and went on to make a character. I told
him he could do the same thing as our other player if he wished, and make a
character in a similar fashion" ...but no dragons." I don't know where he
got off saying I was favouring the other player when I gave him the exact
same choices as his fellow player had. He just didn't like the fact that I
wanted "No dragons" (An example of the depths of his, from my point of view,
extremely self-centered nature.)
FS makes a character, a Druid. Gives him a Dire Badger, the most powerful
AC that he could have (min/ maxing) at that level. He asked if I would let
him make it according to the rules set out in the DMG. He was not specific
which rules those were, so I assumed he meant a standard AC. (This is where
I felt was where he started to be duplicitous. He wasn't specific, I found
out, until much later when I called him on it. ).
Little did I know that he had, by his own confession on these boards,
embarked on destroying this last game out of spite. You know most of the
details from that point.
What really made me angry, initially, was the fact that anyone would do that
to a friend. He cannot say he did not set out to deliberately destroy a
friendship based on the simple fact that he knew what happened to a certain
someone else (his former supervisor from a former job) when that person did
the same thing with great deliberation and spite. The sad thing is, is that
he chose to use a hobby that I really like. Talk about great deliberation
to make this as personal as possible.
He deliberately set out to betray the trust of friendship between us, and
out of simple, childish, self-absorbed spite. He even confessed to it right
in his own postings here recently. It was the most selfish, self-centered
thing I have ever witnessed. It was done without care, remorse, or
consideration for the other player sitting at the table. I'm actually glad
that I only had two players there, and minimized the damage.
Friends don't do that to each other, especially ones who are adults and
should know better. This struck me as nothing more than childish behaviour,
and here he accuses me of the same offense.
And then he accuses /me/ of ruining the friendship.
And then, increasing this childish behaviour, he re-ignites the fire a year
or so later, by his rather scathing accussations he presented to a mutual
favorite HERE in AFD, who merely asked where I was, and why I wasn't on AFD.
He could have said anything else, and in a more "diplomatic" fashion. After
all, he did have a great deal of time to come up with something nice-er to
say than that. But he did not. He had a lot of choices, so why did he
choose to do that? It's a Coward's tactic. Answer that, and you might
discover that I just might have just cause to feel the way I do.
Not only did I see this as a further betrayal, but also as being stabbed in
the back, and again out of sheer spite, since he undoubtedly figured I
either wouldn't be around so he'd get away with it, and further ruin my
reputation in a public forum, or that I might be around and he used it to
bait a confrontation, to, again, further diminish my rep while he came off
looking like a saint (still my biased opinion).
Is there any wonder why I called him, "Snake!"?
Given the story as completely as my foggy memory will allow, and as far as
my bias has allowed me to focus, how would you feel if someone did that to
any of you? IMO, there is nothing of kindness in a person like that. There
is only hate, spite and selfishness. He was never a friend to begin with,
but a User, even if that use was to have someone to verbally bash, yet not
feel alone.
Mind you, I am not entirely guiltless in this, either. I could have handled
things better. I acted like an ass, throughout, and even got sucked in by
his baiting. Hell, I could have even picked up on a few clues long before
this, and ended it then. I mean, I knew he was a user, and just from his
track record involving other mutual friends/ aquaintences. They would offer
and he would Take... but when it came time to reciprocate, forget it. (For
FS's benifit, I refer to the things I have seen, experienced first hand, and
learned of from Oliver even before that.)
--
Sentinel,
Still watching, still waiting... for the greatest warriors are patience and
time.
|
|
|
| Re: Sentinel's Rants to LFS [message #190953 ] |
Di, 27 Dezember 2005 00:51 |
|
"Draco18s" <draco18s2 [at] _SPAM_hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1e1a11481fcaad38989684 [at] news.teranews.com...
> In article <2OLrf.36408$BZ5.16142 [at] newssvr13.news.prodigy.com>,
see [at] reply.to
> says...
> >On 24 Dec 2005 10:32:24 -0800, "Draco18s" <draco18s [at] gmail.com>
> >pondered, and then scribbled:
> >
> >>
> >>Lord Flame Stryke wrote:
> >>
> >>> > How's THAT for "spectacular"?
> >>>
> >>> Actually, not very. You didn't even make my mad, or cry, or anything.
> >>
> >>Same. Spectacular crap maybe. I just keept noticing the locgical
> >>fallacies on Sentinel's side. Lots and lots of Ad Hominem arguments,
> >>several Red Herrings too, even Guilt by Association. Grow up Sentinel.
> >
> ><sighs>
> >
> >Sentinel and Flame Stryke obviously need to clear the air between
> >them. And although they are doing it on a public forum, perhaps that
> >is because this is the only venue they feel comfortable communicating
> >with one another through.
> >
> >But -- they are communicating. They are listening to one another (not
> >very nicely, but sometimes it takes a bit of flame to clear away the
> >debris).
> >
> >Anyone getting in the middle of it usually has their own agenda
> >(perhaps they, too, feel the need to vent) - and should be aware of
> >it.
>
> I seem to have a compulsion to moderate arguments. I got into trouble
with an
> English teacher once. He had not heard another student correctly and when
I
> (and several other students) tried to point this out, he verbally attacked
me
> (basically "shut up").
Blessed are the peacemakers (and purveyors of other dairy products)
But they normally end up getting flamed for trying to help!
Good on yer mate
Arcaton
|
|
|
| Hey Sentinal... [message #190955 ] |
Di, 27 Dezember 2005 01:27 |
|
*finishes skimming through the original two posts from Sentinal and
Lord Flame Stryke*
Oh... dear...
I am so sorry, Sentinal. I'm going to try really hard not to be mean,
but... I have to admit... I had a laughing fit over this.
I just find it rather, well, to put it bluntly... obnoxious that all
this is due to one little game of D&D...
Now, In my life, I have held only two major grudges. The only one that
still exists is against my mother because she basically made our home
impossible for my little brother and I to live in, and is now drinking
herself to death despite many attampts to reason with her. The other
was just a bit more petty, and did involve me being banned from a
role-playing game, but had it's origins in an argument over the very
real and serious subject of 9/11. When I finally confronted the GM who
had chased me off, it was a very careful, reasoinable conversation that
ended with both of us apologizing.
The other reason I find this debate amusing is that I'm afraid,
Sentinal, you are going about this completely wrong. You are trying to
prove your point to the public, but you're letting your--let's face
it--obsessive anger get the better of you. Constantly and needlessly
insulting Lord Flame Stryke, especially with insults that are so
exagerated, counteracts the point you're trying to make, and ultimately
turns the audience against you. The trick to arguing successfully is
to state all the facts in a calm and reasonable manner to creatre the
feeling that you are in control and know what you're talking about. A
bit of well-placed "big words" to strengthen your appearance of
intelegence help too.
Although I try to avoid conflict, when I do become involved in a
debate, I must admit that I enjoy it. That is why it pains me to see
you arguing so badly over something that is certainly not serious
enough to warrant involving everyone here.
--
Dreamseeker
Bearer of one Ponder Point from Scott L
DC2.D~ Gf L12f15t30w W- T Phfltvw Sks,wh Cau [at] gr- Bzz A- Fr- Na
Mr---Mv- H++ $ F+Fo R+++ Ac+ J++ S++ U- I V+[weather magic] Q+[empathy]
Tc E++
"If you go in for argument, take care of your temper. Your logic, if
you have any, will take care of itself." - Joseph Farrell
and just because it's such a funny quote:
"Never get into an argument with a schizophrenic person and say, "Who
do you think you are?" - Ray Combs
|
|
|
| Re: Sentinel's Rants to LFS [message #190956 ] |
Di, 27 Dezember 2005 02:06 |
|
Alright, (because, like Draco, I can't seem to stay out of it) I've
read everything now. In reference to what I said in my "Hey
Sential..." post, this is much better as far as staying calm goes. The
only real problem I see now is that many of your comments are
hypocritical, and your attack on Draco is very harsh. What he said was
rude, but in response to your original post, it was also true, as far
as I can see.
And I am sorry about writing that other post before reading everything
else, but I still hold true to the major points. All of this over a
game is too extreme and doesn't belong on a puplic forum, especially if
you're going to attack anyone else who tries to respond.
--
Dreamseeker
|
|
|
| Re: Sentinel's Rants to LFS [message #190957 ] |
Di, 27 Dezember 2005 02:06 |
|
In article <7%_rf.6668$km.2469 [at] edtnps89>, SC [at] Sentinel.net says...
>
>"Draco18s" <draco18s2 [at] _SPAM_hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:MPG.1e1a108d2d5d1556989683 [at] news.teranews.com...
>> In article <7lTrf.13945$m05.10740 [at] clgrps12>, SC [at] Sentinel.net says...
>>>
>>>"Draco18s" <draco18s2 [at] _SPAM_hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>news:MPG.1e1911323581fdd9989680 [at] news.teranews.com...
>
>> I can be quiet neutral, and I would be happy to pull apart FS's arguments
>> as
>> well. If I find holes in them.
>
>Neutrals do NOT pull apart /anything/. Pulling apart statements made by
>either party constitutes ridicule.
What I meant was pointing out logical fallacies.
>This would be confrontational, and not
>very productive to a resolution. Remember, both parties are already biased
>and on the defensive... not a good time to be ridiculing anyone, don't you
>think?
>
>> You brining up the case of Two Ruined Trucks when the argument is about a
>> D&D
>> game.
>
>Goes towards the character of the offending party. i.e. I was giving
>evidence as to his "reinventive nature" by siting past offenses. They often
>allow this kind of tactic in a court of law in order to verify the extent of
>the credibility, if any, of the opposing party.
That constitutes the logical fallacy Ad Hominem.
An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument
is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the
person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two
steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her
circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or
actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be
evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or
presenting). This type of "argument" has the following form:
1. Person A makes claim X.
2. Person B makes an attack on person A.
3. Therefore A's claim is false.
The reason why an Ad Hominem (of any kind) is a fallacy is that the character,
circumstances, or actions of a person do not (in most cases) have a bearing on
the truth or falsity of the claim being made (or the quality of the argument
being made).
>> All I know is that something happened over some unspecified character's
>> animal
>> companion of FS's. I have no detail except that which I've gotten from
>> FS.
>
>Exactly my point. And yet, you decided to get all confrontational, all the
>same, and practically called me a liar in the process. You had only /one/
>side of the story, NOT both, thus only HALF the story. This is known as
>"Going off half cocked." Going off prematurely, as we all know, does no one
>any good at all... ya tends ta miss the target, and shoots yerself in the
>foot.
I did not mean that I had one side. I meant that nether side has gone into
enough detail for me to understand.
>> I have no interest in fanning flames, I would like to see this resolved.
>
>Then, keep the snide remarks out of it. Nobody likes a smart ass.
>
>>>Why? Why would they need to? But then, again, there might be those who
>>>might offer you advice to "stay out of it".
>>
>> If they do, they may speak up.
>
>They have. No doubt you've already seen them by now... I'm posting a little
>bit behind for this response.
I've seen one. It was specific to me, and it didn't say not to do it, just to
be aware that doing so means that the one doing it has a reason for it.
>> At what point have I actually attacked you?
>
>Your opening post. I've already posted this response to you (later?
>earlier?), but for benifit of the doubt, I will repeat what I said: Take a
>look at your opening post, reverse the roles and see how you would feel if I
>said the same things to you. Again, nobody likes a smart ass.
In which case I am sorry, and I took on (admittedly, self appointed) role of
referee afterwards.
>> "Appeal to Fear" is an argument that presents X as being false, because
>> defending X will ostracize the defenders. Which is exactly what you did.
>> You
>> told me to leave FS on his own or I will lose the respect of the citizens
>> of
>> AFD.
>
>No, I said you will /risk/ losing the respect of others. It is a statement
>of fact. Don't forget, I included myself in that fact in that I have
>already quite possibly lost the respect of lots of people on the board,
>myself.
That's exactly what Appeal to Fear or Bandwagoning is.
1. Y is presented (a claim that is intended to produce fear). [doing this
risks your respect]
2. Therefore claim X is true (a claim that is generally, but need not be,
related to Y in some manner).
>> If you would tell me the whole story, then maybe I might understand.
As I can't quote the whole thing, and have no specific responses, I'll hold my
tongue until I hear the OTHER side of the story presented in detail.
BTW, I haven't yet heard any detail as to the email that FS sent other than it
caused offence.
|
|
|
| Re: Sentinel's Rants to LFS [message #190958 ] |
Di, 27 Dezember 2005 02:13 |
|
In article <5KYrf.12675$AP5.11556 [at] edtnps84>, SC [at] Sentinel.net says...
>
>"Draco18s" <draco18s2 [at] _SPAM_hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:MPG.1e1a11481fcaad38989684 [at] news.teranews.com...
>
>> I seem to have a compulsion to moderate arguments.
>
>As do I, I can understand that, but there is a right way and a wrong way to
>do so. You can tell when you've done something the wrong way when one, the
>other, or both, turn their venom on /you/. It is at this point you might
>consider backing off and waiting.
>
>> I got into trouble with an English teacher once. He had not heard another
>> student correctly and when I
>> (and several other students) tried to point this out, he verbally attacked
>> me
>> (basically "shut up").
>
>Your teacher, for instance. Did you take a moment, use a little patience,
>and go about arguing for your friend in what some would call a respectful
>manner, or did you just blurt out what you had to say without any
>consideration as to the teacher's authority in the class (as in "scoffing"
>at the teacher's mistake and embarrassing him in a "backtalking" manner)?
>Judging solely upon the manner in which you came at me on this board (which
>was very confrontational, btw), and let's face it, you did make some very
>snide remarks, then I might say that there is a great possibility that you
>came off the same way to your teacher.
If you care for detail, then into detail I shall go.
The student answered a question, the teacher didn't hear him so said, "What?"
Funny thing is that the teacher asked the same question (with the same body
language) when you got an obvious answer wrong.
Student answers the question again, albeit hesitantly (in print the sentence
would end in a question mark).
Teacher said, "Are you telling me or asking me?"
Student is horribly confused, "I did tell you."
Teacher, leaning on the desk of the student, looking right in his face, "No,
you didn't, you asked me."
Me, and at least two others (I was in the front of the group), "Excuse me, but
he did tell you."
Now he's in MY face yelling about how I interrupted his discipliningg of a
student.
I back off and try to talk to him after class, this does nothing, he's
convinced that he's in the right.
So, I go higher up.
|
|
|
| Re: Sentinel's Rants to LFS (addressing his backstabbing nature) [message #190959 ] |
Di, 27 Dezember 2005 02:43 |
|
"Draco18s" <draco18s2 [at] _SPAM_hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1e1a1c697824bb54989685 [at] news.teranews.com...
> In article <fjUrf.13948$m05.2474 [at] clgrps12>, SC [at] Sentinel.net says...
>
>>Have I explained my point of view well enough? Can you understand, now,
>>why
>>I was so angry? And why I'm angry still?
>
> You have to some extent. I understand, although I don't have the detail
> that
> I wished.
I posted more... but not this posting.
>><sigh> We were playing 3rd ed. Not version 3.5. Basic, no frills, core
>>rulebook 3rd.
>
> This is new. Had I known this, I might have written my post differently,
> or
> not typed it at all. I don't know the rules regarding dragons in 3.0
v3.5 took a bit of a change to these, as a lot of players wanted to play
dragons just for high level, high power camaigns.
>>Your above effort as an aside, as much time and effort as you obviously
>>spent putting into it (while I do appreciate it, sincerely), you've missed
>>one very important point: Since I had to be the DM, my terms were "No
>>Dragon PCs" for my agreeing to do so. He agreed to those terms. period.
>>end of story. Or it should have been, in any case.
>
> I understand.
Thank you.
>>You may have also missed the bit where I was "sick" of hearing about the
>>dragon issue? He brought it up at /every/ game session, practically
>>whined
>>about it. "I wanna play a dragon. Why can't I play a dragon?" Day in...
>>day out... every game day (and then some) from the word go, and not with
>>just /this/ game but every previous game, session, or other venue, you
>>name
>>it. Does your group have a player that does that (not necessarily about
>>dragons, but on /any/ subject)? I'm sure you're all sick of hearing it,
>>too, if you do. Everyone we ever gamed with was sick of it, and even
>>after
>>only the first session of any game group we joined (that being not many,
>>in
>>truth).
>
> Not particularly, there are players who want something and the DM says,
> "I'll
> look into it."
> One was a warforged being able to wear a robe.
um.... er.... hmmm... I don't know. There is a picture of a warforged on
page 112 of the Eberron Campaign Setting sourcebook, wearing something
robe-ish, I suppose, but I expect you're talking of something magical in the
armour department. I don't see why not, as long as it was specially made
for him or a large-size humanoid... but then again, there are other
enhancements that one can get built right in without fear of losing it.
They're feats, aren't they, so he can get them for nothing... at least at
character creation. I haven't really looked into the whole thing, yet. I
just got the book. Seems cool, though.
> One was allowing one player to make up a new character using the new
> Incarnum
> rules, this was disallowed because in the opening paragraph of the
> introduction it says that it changes the rules (like psioncs) and is not
> intended as additional rules to the core book. Jon whined for a bit (DM
> wanted to read the book first), but when that was pointed out he quiet
> down
> because he understands why we don't use the psionics book.
Never heard of the Incarnum rules... shows how far behind I am on 3.5
>>How about a rules lawyer? Imagine the two of those together in one
>>package,
>>a whining rules lawyer, who is also deaf/ blind because he couldn't
>>understand the concept of "the DM has the right to impose any
>>restrictions,
>>or change any rule he doesn't like. The 'rules' are not hardset." Any
>>changes I make, I apply to everyone, equally, including myself when it
>>comes
>>to basic rules and grey area calls. No one else could play a dragon as a
>>PC, nor as an NPC... a monsterous encounter, however, should it have come
>>up, would have been just that. A preset encounter.
>
> I've never meet a rules lawyer. The DM, I, and the player of the
> artificer
> discuss rules all the time, but we generally email WotC and go by their
> response.
Pray you never do. This is the type of player, who, in the middle of the
action, likes to pull things to a grinding halt because he has a
disagreement with the DM's interpretation of some rule or other (often
petty), and will sit and argue until the DM sees it /his/ way. The
ruleslawyer will often resort to pulling out his PHB to quote from the rules
there, or, failing that, dip into the DMG right at the table (a big no-no at
my table) to prove his interpretaion the more valid one. The difference
between a simple valid disruption (as we've all had them) and a bonafide
rules lawyer, is that the rules lawyer comes up with something new every
five minutes, or will try to rehash his interpretation over and over and
over and over..... ad infinitum, ad nausium. He will even bring it up
outside the game repeatedly just to be obnoxious until the DM caves in.
> Only time this hasn't helped is for enchanting Beast Claws (Savage Species
> magic weapon) further. We agreed that based on the price (9k) that it is
> a +2
> equivalent already.
Don't have Savage Species, but that sounds about right. That's the way they
suggest to do just that in the 3rd ed. DMG, too.
>>I was /that/ sick of the constant whining over it. He may not think he
>>was
>>whining, and, to be fair, I can't say that this applied term is accurate,
>>but it's the closest I can come to a description... or, purhaps, Passive
>>Agressive, maybe? Insistant to the point of being very grating and
>>obnoxious? One of those types that bring up the subject so constantly as
>>to
>>jump on one's last nerve hoping the DM would eventually give in to his
>>demands.
>>
>>Now, you will take note, this particular incident, he did what he did out
>>of
>>Malicious Intent because /he couldn't have his own way/... read his posts
>>carefully. He did it /Intentionally/. Sabotaged the effort, even though
>>I
>>didn't want to run a game in the first place, and when /he/ was the one
>>"passive agressively" insisting on a game... this is called a proverbial
>>"A
>>Kick in the Teeth". "Thanx for giving in to what I wanted, now can I shit
>>on your effort?" If it happened to you, you would not be as
>>understanding,
>>I am sure. If I gave in to this demand, then I may as well have let him
>>run the whole game and call all the shots... A good DM doesn't let that
>>happen. A good DM maintains control of his own game. In other words, he
>>wanted the power to veto /any/ of my calls.
>
> I would like to hear FS's side to this first, before making any decisions.
o.O <sigh> Well, you're learning. As for the intentional sabotage
confession portion, I can help you out there. This was in his first post in
answer to Moles query of my whereabouts:
------------------------------------------------------------ ---------------
Quote by FS:
> He took great offense to that. /But that was what I had
> planned/, since he offended me by not allowing me to play a certain type
> of character, but allowing another friend to play said kind of character.
------------------------------------------------------------ ----------------
A confession (I italicized it... er... sort of), compounded by a lie.
"Offended /me/ by not allowing /me/ to play a certain type of character..."
No one else let him, either. And not a bit self-centered, at all. /I/
offended /him/, Fah!. Just who the hell--!
Sorry... Never mind. Temper...
>>Incidentally, the other player's character was NOT a dragon, but something
>>else, entirely, and not destructive to game balance, either.
>
> I'd like to know what it was. AND what FS's character was that he said
> was
> the same thing.
FS's PC was an ECL template... can you not guess what it was? You bet, a
Half-Dragon. The kind I said "no" to. What FS is also so quick to forget
is that I also said no to ALL ECL character types, along with dragon-types.
Otherwise the other player would have played his all time favourite, a Drow.
The ultimate lone wolf of humanoids. Biggest bloody headache for book
keeping...
He got the same answer I gave FS. I said, "No." He was disapppointed, but
he didn't take it personally. He found a better solution. A solution that
FS refused to even consider, and that is what differentiates a good player
from a bad one.
Instead, the other player used a race from Monte Cook's Arcana Unearthed
book. It was a Subaccai (sp?), a kind of a humanoid wolf... like an
Anubite (as close as I can get ot a description, but you get the idea). If
you are familiar with MC's AU book, the rules are that the given race starts
off as a first level creature, and from there he can gain levels as the
creature's race, or forgo those in favour of a PC class, instead. The
creature would have to gain levels as the race if he wanted any of the
special abilities. Again, the option of the racial levels meant that you
had to /sacrifice/ levels as a class in favor of race, or vice versa. In
effect, multi-classing him. Some of those abilities were pretty mundane,
too. You didn't get any really good ones until you took the final racial
level. I read the section in the book, I liked what I saw at the time. It
was very well thought out and nicely balanced. Nothing over-powering
(unlike template characters). In general, a very nice set of mechanics.
Basically, where MC's version diverges is that you actually had to /earn/
your abilities, and some aspects were completely random. It was a sort of
"expanded" character building method, rather than the ECL template method.
I never liked ECL version characters because everyting was handed to you in
a package /in addition to your class/, you never had to earn it, you never
had to sacrifice anything important or give up anything in favour of it, it
was just there. No random chances, no hard choices. And you always started
off as the ECL level, plus 1 level of class. Never started as a true first
level character. Granted you have fewer hit points, but the special
abilities more than made up for that, and more... thus the ECL conditions on
it.
I gave FS the same option, but he flat out refused. How is that favouring
one over another?
> I have tried, but I haven't been able to follow your arguments closely
> enough
> to understand your point of view (and I'm generally very good at seeing
> things
> from a pseudo-omnisient point of view--that is understand both sides and
> leave
> my own pre-conceptions behind. It's easier when it's physically happening
> instead of posts where one side can digress on a point for pages with no
> input
> from the other side through the whole thing).
>
> I think that we need a post of one side (I say you go first Sentinel,
> although
> FS may post first if he wishes) and describe the even without harping on
> FS's
> past or character and then have FS respond in kind, providing detail when
> it's
> left out as well as presenting his own side of the story. Even if I do
> not
> read ANY of it, it will be a means by which you two can work this out,
> this
> works very well iRL.
> Basically, just start over including as much detail as you can muster and
> being as neutral as you can; the referee isn't the only neutral in a
> debate.
Nice idea, I've put out as much as I can remember, already, adding details
where I can, but personal bias is always going to be a factor. It's not so
easy to separate yourself from issues that concern one so directly. I can
to a certain extent, but only so far, as there are still issues that really
burn my ass. I wish I could say the same for FS, but this has already
proven difficult in the past. This is the reason why we have come to such
an impasse.
In short, as to what conclusion I can only come to is that we have both
become tired of each other. I had hoped that we could have at least become
amicable...
You know, I was ready to "bury the hatchet" and try to reconcile prior to
his post to Mole. Instead, FS's "backstab" post just got that proverbial
hatchet buried right in his ass. I had begun to finally let it all go, too.
Sadly ironic, isn't it?
FS, as for the issue of my temper, I let it get the better of me. There was
always a better way to handle things, but instead I blew it and let it boil
over... I'm sorry.
--
Sentinel
|
|
|
| Re: Sentinel's Rants to LFS [message #190960 ] |
Di, 27 Dezember 2005 02:59 |
|
"Draco18s" <draco18s2 [at] _SPAM_hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1e1a5f64d5c02d62989689 [at] news.teranews.com...
> If you care for detail, then into detail I shall go.
>
> The student answered a question, the teacher didn't hear him so said,
> "What?"
> Funny thing is that the teacher asked the same question (with the same
> body
> language) when you got an obvious answer wrong.
>
> Student answers the question again, albeit hesitantly (in print the
> sentence
> would end in a question mark).
>
> Teacher said, "Are you telling me or asking me?"
>
> Student is horribly confused, "I did tell you."
>
> Teacher, leaning on the desk of the student, looking right in his face,
> "No,
> you didn't, you asked me."
>
> Me, and at least two others (I was in the front of the group), "Excuse me,
> but
> he did tell you."
>
> Now he's in MY face yelling about how I interrupted his discipliningg of a
> student.
>
> I back off and try to talk to him after class, this does nothing, he's
> convinced that he's in the right.
>
> So, I go higher up.
So the teacher, then, was having a bad day, and taking it out on you lot.
He was being a right prick. I take it that you were not his first class of
the day?
In any case, he was in the wrong on that score. Escalating it, on the other
hand, was not exactly earning you any points, either.
Two wrongs don't make a--
.... awe, shit!
.... shitshitshitshitshitshitshitshit!
............. o.o .............
<Take a look in the mirror, and follow your own advice, old fool.>
FS (and AFD as a whole.) My apologies for my recent ill tempered behaviour.
--
Sentinel
|
|
|
| Re: Sentinel's Rants to LFS (addressing his backstabbing nature) [message #190964 ] |
Di, 27 Dezember 2005 09:11 |
|
"Sentinel" <SC [at] Sentinel.net> writes:
> Don't have Savage Species, but that sounds about right. That's the way they
> suggest to do just that in the 3rd ed. DMG, too.
<chomp>
> the rules are that the given race starts
> off as a first level creature, and from there he can gain levels as the
> creature's race, or forgo those in favour of a PC class, instead. The
> creature would have to gain levels as the race if he wanted any of the
> special abilities. Again, the option of the racial levels meant that you
> had to /sacrifice/ levels as a class in favor of race, or vice versa. In
> effect, multi-classing him.
Interesting. This is a variant method for allowing *any* creature race
in Savage Species; the DM builds a class out of it with the creature's
natural HD + 2 levels. I've used these rules to great effect for all
player that insisted on playing out of the MM. Within reason, I even
allow people to create their own races.
It's a very effective method that gets the whiny munchkins to shut up:
"Sure, you can be a (insert way too bloody powerful thing), here's
the 28 level progression. Of course, you can only take 20 levels
before you have to go epic, and you aren't proficient with any
weapons..."
And people who want to play something reasonable can still have their
wishes, at the cost of levels. Then, of course, they still have the
social stigmas to deal with: "Ack a displacer beast!" townspeople run,
adventurers draw their weapons...
I imagine that variant in Savage Species was drawn from MC's book, since
they're so similar.
Ahh... I miss D&D...
--
darkside
DC2.D Gm L W-- T- Pvw Sks,wl Cwh- Bwa A(r-v++) Fr^++"pomegranate" Nw M +++!
H++ $- Fv+++! R++ Ac~ J++ S U I--# V++ Q+ Tc++ E++
Homepage: http://silenceisdefeat.org/~darkside
Email: darksidex at charter dot net
|
|
|
| Re: Sentinel's Rants to LFS [message #190965 ] |
Di, 27 Dezember 2005 09:58 |
|
I promised Rai I wouldn't do this, but asking a question that needs to be
answered will be as far as I get.
On 26 Dec 2005, Sentinel was found to have scratched
news:ve1sf.12705$AP5.5855 [at] edtnps84 on a rock in alt.fan.dragons:
> FS (and AFD as a whole.) My apologies for my recent ill tempered
> behaviour.
So, aside from your vulgarities in a PG forum, are you ready to talk
instead of rant? Either way, I won't do it here. The both of us have
scared Mole away, and I won't lose anyone else like that. My e-mail is
in my headers. Feel free to use it. If you choose not to, then this
will most likely not get resolved, since I refuse to escalate this again
on the newsgroup, and I can practically guarantee that this will escalate
again, and again, and again.
Lord Flame Stryke
--
DC2.D~ Gm L120f60t180w W T Phawlt Sks Cbk,ere' Bfl A+++! Fr++ Nm M+ O H+
$ Fc~ R+++! Ac+++ J+ S++ U! I# V+++! Q Tc++ E++
Draco nigrum, oculi rubere, suppositus, magus.
http://www.geocities.com/flame_stryke/ |
http://www.geocities.com/flame_stryke/AFDList.html
Holder of the Scroll of Nobility from Lady Viriatha, Keeper of the Wand
of Sparklies in its case from Hex, Wielder of the Lady Viri Signature 4x8
from Ysable, Eater of the Mint Cheesecake from Whisper, Mate to Lady
Viriatha, Owner of Flame Stryke's Windex® Factory, Lord Balloonmaker,
Borrower of the Ebony Wood Fife from Luxatos, Accepter of the Small
Statue of a Green Dragon Covered in Ice Cream Toppings from Juniper,
Employer of a miniature Jester doll from SeaKing, Bearer of the Magic
Ever-Bill from SeaKing, Carrier of the gold piece from whisper: o,
Builder of Dragon Fyre Keep, First Dragon of Realism, Giver of the
Pickaxe of Icebreaking to Kalos
--
"Things will get better despite our efforts to improve them." -- Will
Rogers
|
|
|
| Re: Sentinel's Rants to LFS [message #190967 ] |
Di, 27 Dezember 2005 11:37 |
|
"Dreamseeker" <LadyAmberEvylyn [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1135645579.491532.116870 [at] g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Alright, (because, like Draco, I can't seem to stay out of it) I've
> read everything now. In reference to what I said in my "Hey
> Sential..." post, this is much better as far as staying calm goes. The
> only real problem I see now is that many of your comments are
> hypocritical, and your attack on Draco is very harsh. What he said was
> rude, but in response to your original post, it was also true, as far
> as I can see.
I do not remember if I have met you before, Dreamseeker, therefore I will
endevour to remain as inoffensive as I possibly can towards you.
I've already heard from Draco on this subject, and I hope we have resolved
this issue between us. I would also continue to hope that he will reamain
neutral.
> And I am sorry about writing that other post before reading everything
> else, but I still hold true to the major points. All of this over a
> game is too extreme and doesn't belong on a puplic forum, especially if
> you're going to attack anyone else who tries to respond.
FS /did/ warn everyone in his first post in this particular thread about the
content. Quel also commented that this may be the only forum we have, and
she was quite correct. Please do not begrudge us this opportunity.
This thread was meant for the only two people concerned in this conflict.
This conflict was not entirely caused by the game, but by more deep seated
issues that I have yet to identify. The game was just a catalyst.
Also, a tactical error early on cost me my chance at an early peaceable
resolution, though I was prepared for a hot reception, in any case. I'd
hoped he'd face me on his own, though I knew that he could not because I
knew that there are factions here that would instantly jump to his defense
despite their better judgment.
I also felt that it would be useless to appeal to these factions to stay out
of it, and stay clear. Harsher measures were prepared in order to divert
unwanted interference. Thankfully I have not had as much adversity as I had
originally expected... yet.
Since aggressive confrontation vs. unwarranted intrusion initially met with
difficulties, I will try a different approach. A more direct one:
--
I now make a general request that all those not directly concerned with this
conflict to please stay out of this and stay clear. It would be greatly
appreciated. I don't mind observers, but I would much rather this conflict
be resolved between fs and myself, and not create any further new ones in
the process.
For the most part, the arguments presented here /Cannot/ be made clear
enough, point for point, for a complete understanding of the situation by
those who are not directly involved, though I have tried my best to explain
what I can from my own point of view. All said and done, however, our
arguments and obscure references will not intentionally be worded in a way
to make sense to the casual reader, as this thread is not really meant for
the amusement of others. It is enough that they make sense to us.
I will endevour to keep my comments relegated to the pertinent, in the
future, and not provide a "show" for the casual reader.
If you absolutely must supply input, please try not to make rude comments,
accusing observations, or snide remarks for or against either side, as I
cannot guarantee that my response will be a civil one. I can't even
guarantee that I can continue to be calm with my opponent. It entirely
depends upon his approach once he decides to make any future appearances.
--
I hope no one will find offense in this approach, as none has been intended.
--
Sentinel
|
|
|
| Re: Sentinel's Rants to LFS [message #190968 ] |
Di, 27 Dezember 2005 12:08 |
|
"Lord Flame Stryke" <FlameStryke [at] gmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns973913FF91AC3DragonFyre [at] 64.59.135.159...
>I promised Rai I wouldn't do this, but asking a question that needs to be
> answered will be as far as I get.
>
> On 26 Dec 2005, Sentinel was found to have scratched
> news:ve1sf.12705$AP5.5855 [at] edtnps84 on a rock in alt.fan.dragons:
>
>> FS (and AFD as a whole.) My apologies for my recent ill tempered
>> behaviour.
>
> So, aside from your vulgarities in a PG forum, are you ready to talk
> instead of rant? Either way, I won't do it here. The both of us have
> scared Mole away, and I won't lose anyone else like that. My e-mail is
> in my headers. Feel free to use it. If you choose not to, then this
> will most likely not get resolved, since I refuse to escalate this again
> on the newsgroup, and I can practically guarantee that this will escalate
> again, and again, and again.
Agreed.
--
Sentinel
|
|
|
| Re: Sentinel's Rants to LFS [message #190969 ] |
Di, 27 Dezember 2005 15:58 |
|
|
So, why is this being crossposted to AFF?
|
|
|
| Re: Sentinel's Rants to LFS [message #190970 ] |
Di, 27 Dezember 2005 16:39 |
|
On Tue, 27 Dec 2005 14:58:24 +0000, Kory Anders wrote:
> So, why is this being crossposted to AFF?
Trying to keep AFF warm during the winter.
|
|
|
| Re: Hey Sentinal... [message #190971 ] |
Di, 27 Dezember 2005 16:57 |
|
Dreamseeker wrote:
> *finishes skimming through the original two posts from Sentinal and
> Lord Flame Stryke*
>
> Oh... dear...
> I am so sorry, Sentinal. I'm going to try really hard not to be mean,
> but... I have to admit... I had a laughing fit over this.
> I just find it rather, well, to put it bluntly... obnoxious that all
> this is due to one little game of D&D...
> Now, In my life, I have held only two major grudges. The only one that
> still exists is against my mother because she basically made our home
> impossible for my little brother and I to live in, and is now drinking
> herself to death despite many attampts to reason with her. The other
> was just a bit more petty, and did involve me being banned from a
> role-playing game, but had it's origins in an argument over the very
> real and serious subject of 9/11. When I finally confronted the GM who
> had chased me off, it was a very careful, reasoinable conversation that
> ended with both of us apologizing.
>
> The other reason I find this debate amusing is that I'm afraid,
> Sentinal, you are going about this completely wrong. You are trying to
> prove your point to the public, but you're letting your--let's face
> it--obsessive anger get the better of you. Constantly and needlessly
> insulting Lord Flame Stryke, especially with insults that are so
> exagerated, counteracts the point you're trying to make, and ultimately
> turns the audience against you. The trick to arguing successfully is
> to state all the facts in a calm and reasonable manner to creatre the
> feeling that you are in control and know what you're talking about. A
> bit of well-placed "big words" to strengthen your appearance of
> intelegence help too.
>
> Although I try to avoid conflict, when I do become involved in a
> debate, I must admit that I enjoy it. That is why it pains me to see
> you arguing so badly over something that is certainly not serious
> enough to warrant involving everyone here.
the only thing i wish to add/say to this is: Please Stop The
Crossposting! i dont believe the poeple at alt.fan.furry are wanting
this seen either, and some have kindly hinted at this too...
>
> --
> Dreamseeker
>
> Bearer of one Ponder Point from Scott L
>
> DC2.D~ Gf L12f15t30w W- T Phfltvw Sks,wh Cau [at] gr- Bzz A- Fr- Na
> Mr---Mv- H++ $ F+Fo R+++ Ac+ J++ S++ U- I V+[weather magic] Q+[empathy]
> Tc E++
>
> "If you go in for argument, take care of your temper. Your logic, if
> you have any, will take care of itself." - Joseph Farrell
>
> and just because it's such a funny quote:
>
> "Never get into an argument with a schizophrenic person and say, "Who
> do you think you are?" - Ray Combs
>
--
Zarris
dragoncode: DC2.Dw Gm L- W T- Phvfwvl^t Sks Cbl+,bwh%,cbk,egy,vbk,wwh%
Bfl A- Fr++ Nm M- O H++ $+++ Fo-- R+++ Ac++ J+ S-- U-- I V-- Q Tc++[ntwk] E
journal: http://www.livejournal.com/userinfo.bml?user=zarris
|
|
|
| Re: Sentinel's Rants to LFS (addressing his backstabbing nature) [message #190972 ] |
Di, 27 Dezember 2005 18:12 |
|
"darkside" <darkside [at] no.spam.see.sig> wrote in message
news:87vexbx8m0.fsf [at] no.spam.see.sig...
> Interesting. This is a variant method for allowing *any* creature race
> in Savage Species; the DM builds a class out of it with the creature's
> natural HD + 2 levels. I've used these rules to great effect for all
> player that insisted on playing out of the MM. Within reason, I even
> allow people to create their own races.
>
> It's a very effective method that gets the whiny munchkins to shut up:
> "Sure, you can be a (insert way too bloody powerful thing), here's
> the 28 level progression. Of course, you can only take 20 levels
> before you have to go epic, and you aren't proficient with any
> weapons..."
>
> And people who want to play something reasonable can still have their
> wishes, at the cost of levels. Then, of course, they still have the
> social stigmas to deal with: "Ack a displacer beast!" townspeople run,
> adventurers draw their weapons...
>
> I imagine that variant in Savage Species was drawn from MC's book, since
> they're so similar.
>
> Ahh... I miss D&D...
See, now I'm going to have to see if I can find a second hand copy of SS.
I'd like to see how they did that, myself.
--
Sentinel
|
|
|
| Re: Hey Sentinal... [message #190973 ] |
Di, 27 Dezember 2005 18:14 |
|
"Zarris" <WaterfallFinder [at] aol.com> wrote in message
news:tJOdnTspTvjw-SzenZ2dnUVZ_tKdnZ2d [at] comcast.com...
>
> the only thing i wish to add/say to this is: Please Stop The Crossposting!
> i dont believe the poeple at alt.fan.furry are wanting this seen either,
> and some have kindly hinted at this too...
Sorry, I hadn't realized that this was being crossposted.
--
Sentinel
|
|
|
| Re: Sentinel's Rants to LFS (addressing his backstabbing nature) [message #190975 ] |
Di, 27 Dezember 2005 19:04 |
|
Sentinel wrote:
> "darkside" <darkside [at] no.spam.see.sig> wrote in message
> news:87vexbx8m0.fsf [at] no.spam.see.sig...
>
>
>>Interesting. This is a variant method for allowing *any* creature race
>>in Savage Species; the DM builds a class out of it with the creature's
>>natural HD + 2 levels. I've used these rules to great effect for all
>>player that insisted on playing out of the MM. Within reason, I even
>>allow people to create their own races.
>>
>>It's a very effective method that gets the whiny munchkins to shut up:
>>"Sure, you can be a (insert way too bloody powerful thing), here's
>>the 28 level progression. Of course, you can only take 20 levels
>>before you have to go epic, and you aren't proficient with any
>>weapons..."
>>
>>And people who want to play something reasonable can still have their
>>wishes, at the cost of levels. Then, of course, they still have the
>>social stigmas to deal with: "Ack a displacer beast!" townspeople run,
>>adventurers draw their weapons...
>>
>>I imagine that variant in Savage Species was drawn from MC's book, since
>>they're so similar.
>>
>>Ahh... I miss D&D...
>
>
> See, now I'm going to have to see if I can find a second hand copy of SS.
> I'd like to see how they did that, myself.
>
> --
> Sentinel
>
>
|
|
|
| [OT] D&D (was Re: Sentinel's Rants to LFS) [message #190976 ] |
Di, 27 Dezember 2005 19:31 |
|
"Sentinel" <SC [at] Sentinel.net> writes:
> "darkside" <darkside [at] no.spam.see.sig> wrote in message
> news:87vexbx8m0.fsf [at] no.spam.see.sig...
>
>> Interesting. This is a variant method for allowing *any* creature race
>> in Savage Species; the DM builds a class out of it with the creature's
>> natural HD + 2 levels. I've used these rules to great effect for all
>> player that insisted on playing out of the MM. Within reason, I even
>> allow people to create their own races.
>
> See, now I'm going to have to see if I can find a second hand copy of SS.
> I'd like to see how they did that, myself.
IIRC, it's just one idea they present, along with others. But it's by
far more coherent than the ECL system, even if the building of the class
is left up to the DM. I've used it to allow custom fairy races,
succubi, half-ogres, trolls, even a mind flayer once. All were
appropriately powered for the level the game was played at, so the
system seems to balance pretty well. Just keep in mind what a core
class of equivalent level would have, and judge when to give them their
abilities on that.
*** BEGIN SHAMELESS PLUG ***
While we're on the subject of D&D, I feel that I simply must plug my pet
project: http://sourceforge.net/projects/d20battle.
Designed for DMs to use during the game (best from a laptop, I
suppose). Allows for the easy maintenence/upkeep of info during battle,
also player HP across battles. It needs Linux, gtkmm, and
libxmlpp. There are some bugs in the current release, but I'm working
on them. (0.1.5-3 should fix the keyboard shortcut bug)
*** END SHAMELESS PLUG ***
--
darkside (now with less cross-posting!)
DC2.D Gm L W-- T- Pvw Sks,wl Cwh- Bwa A(r-v++) Fr^++"pomegranate" Nw M +++!
H++ $- Fv+++! R++ Ac~ J++ S U I--# V++ Q+ Tc++ E++
Homepage: http://silenceisdefeat.org/~darkside
Email: darksidex at charter dot net
|
|
|
Gehe zu:
aktuelle Zeit: Do Mai 24 15:17:39 CEST 2012
Insgesamt benötigte Zeit, um die Seite zu erzeugen: 0,09270 Sekunden |
