Pendaran

Re: WWYCD: Fuel for the fire I dunno Meta, I think this guy had a pretty valid point about it being on the GM:

Re: WWYCD?: The blatant-ening. I do appreciate the irony of you verging on double digits now in a thread where you keep talking about how bad the over investment of the other person is. And how people should just ignore the things that bother them. Come on, you can make ten! Keep going on about unreasonability and being worked up and whatever! Good on you for at least starting to abandon the really badly stitched together pretense of not personally judging the other guy though, it's at least more honest and something you can build some consistency from. The "pointing out my being a hypocrite makes you unreasonable" thing is a bit hard to support, but it's a start.

Re: WWYCD?: The blatant-ening. You'd think if, shall we say, you didn't like it, you didn't have to read it. And, I don't know, maybe if enough people think they're terrible travesties and do the same thing, they'll dissapear. Some guy said that.. somewhere.. I mean, clearly you can't, and you've now reached "I'm not /that/ much of a hypocrite, I could have done even worse and made a whole thread, instead of coming onto yours, saying how badly done it was, and saying how you should just ignore things you don't like!", but still. And definitely that wasn't a value judging of "at least I didn't do what /you/ did", certainly. You don't do that! You take the high road and don't acknowledge the threads that bother you! I mean, aside from the part where you don't do that at all, but hey. And yes, you respond. And you keep responding. And you keep responding. All on a thread you claim to have no investment in and you find silly. I know, I know "you're bored", "it's fun", it's definitely /not/ about constant shot taking at view you don't like and those so posting them, because after all, you don't do that, your posts haven't kept doing that.. Oh, you wanted the contradictory part left in? I'd thought it mostly spoke for itself without the help. By the way, how many posts is this now from you on a thread where you said people should just ignore the things they dislike?

Re: WWYCD?: The blatant-ening. Let me quote you from your almost initial foray into complaining about the existance of this thread: How long have you been going at this now to talk about how it's all the other guy and his "bitching thread"? I mean, I myself don't stoop to a level of giving people advice I myself don't especially abide by, but that's me. I know, it's all good because "you're bored". And then you went on to talk about how silly and trivial it all is and say things like this: Not my fault your desire to have some platform to riff about how high minded you are compared to the poor ol soul who can't stop himself from complaining, and gosh let's pity him, affects your ability to be consistent.

Re: WWYCD: Fuel for the fire Statements like these always carry a spectacular amount of high minded moral weight when they come right after first going on at length to put forth the ol college try into point by point dismissal of things said against your viewpoint here. As opposed to the "you lose" button of you going on and on at length to establish that being principled means "realistically" nothing but dead innocent people? What situation? One you initially present as blatantly contrived and say nothing about "screwing up" or even hinting it, only saying things like "nothing is working", and the writing doing its level best to present how near hopeless things are? That you only modify it later in the face of notations of railroading to say "well, no, what I /really/ meant is that people screwed up a lot to get here". It's my fault you have thusly two different versions of this scenario of yours? But let's forget that for a moment, is it so hard to believe most people wouldn't be dumb enough /to douse both creature and hostages in gasoline/ around a guy with fire powers? Really? which are then immediately demonstrated as basically pointless, because doing so makes it your fault that everyone died, yes, I understand. And with all the statements of how people are then just expecting their GMs to shield them, and how "/my/ players had no problems with it" sure you are, and epically so. You've been judgy since the get go. And congrats on deciding you're going to take your curtain bows without still explaining why in the initial set of posts, the guy who agreed the innocent must die was basically left alone, and the two people disagreeing, had indepth hounding down to "so, you think your GM lets you deny reality?" Certainly doesn't make it look like he selected your correct option. Again, forgetting that your initial scenario is nothing but "you've been doing your best, not especially incompetently, but nothing works, and this is the only shot you're ever likely to get, do it! do it! do it!" There's, say, screwing up Then there's "gasoline+hostages+monster+fire=win!" they're on different levels. And this is entire thread hasn't been from you a thinly veiled attempt to raise the "interesting" point that people who take the option specifically, and frankly, since you as a GM gave it what you say are abominably low odds, /intentionally/ designed to fail are clearly people who expect GM coddling, to ignore consequences of their actions.. Still seems like that word valid isn't exactly being used here all that well.

Re: WWYCD?: The blatant-ening. I think that's my favourite part, people go round and round at length in response to someone saying they dislike something, on how much /they/ don't care, and how silly this all clearly is, and yet for all their affected easy going disinterest, they keep going on and on and on in order to protest their having such over and over, while still finding ways to stick in the original dismissive statements they made that are clearly having too much read into them. "I only keep responding because I'm bored, tee hee!" And yet you keep responding..

Re: WWYCD?: The blatant-ening. Yes, you exactly said that there's no reason to post my opinions on things I dislike and made some judgements on how clearly silly it was to do so, while trying to affect like not judging at all, I got it.

Re: WWYCD: Fuel for the fire And that's certainly nice for them. You on the other hand have basically turned around and said "and so, failing in their exact ways, and doing everything they do, you will /have/ to make this choice" Which as far as this? No, I think I'm doing great for uses of contrived. It's at that a Dark Champions game, but you regardless disingenuously go on at length about how "anyone should be able to answer that", and respond to answers not like what you clearly expect with on and on about how "you expect the GM to act unrealistically then" as you go to great length to stress how unlikely it is that anything but fragging innocent people will work. For which you punished the other players, yes, I know, you established this. "now that he's screwed up, you must act, or basically take ridiculously small odds that everyone won't die! aw, darn, you gambled in a way skewed for you to lose and lost. Well, clearly your fault for having principles instead of taking your chance to kill a bunch of innocent people." You keep going on and on about this, but say the scenario and how you present it, and how you say what options should basically fail, are yet somehow "valid" I'm pretty sure that word doesn't mean what you think it means either. Or again, the guy who says he'd kill the hostages, you say /nothing/ to. The responses otherwise to that point, those were the ones you went on at length about how that would involve perspectives taken into the metagame, and tossing in implications of maybe then they'd expect their gm to "fudge consequences" for them. Goodness, that last part sounds like a value judgement, as though not all ways to run or react to this situation, are, shall we say.. valid.

Re: WWYCD?: The blatant-ening. And apparently the right to basically tell them to stop posting them too.

Re: WWYCD?: The blatant-ening. to quote someone else:

Re: WWYCD: Fuel for the fire But basically either he was not allowed to think to do this before any of this happened, or if he did, none of it would be effective. If your players handled a situation badly, then everyone in this situation must be forced to make the exact same choice even if they say things like "if i'm superintelligent at using my powers, wouldn't I have figured out some kind of other strategy for attack that would have let things not get to this point?" "of course you wouldn't have, now answer the question." A valid choice you made clear to go on and on and on about how unlikely it would be to work. Your posts I guess thusly don't have much internal consistency for how you would like them to appear. You have literal comments like That read like nothing but "well, that should fail, but I guess your GM might be nice to you." Yes, that's what it is, the scenario itself is not gapingly flawed or anything. And your edits certainly don't read like "would you expect your GM to deny reality for you so you can escape the consequences of not taking a sure bet?" And hey, your initial presentation certainly says "now, my players apparently handled this badly, so my assumption is you should have screwed up to the point of reaching these events too. Even if you might not have." Definitely it doesn't instead just underscore how what looks like /nothing/ has been working, which it itself part of the essence of contrivance.

Re: WWYCD?: The blatant-ening. Because discussion forums are the wrong place for voicing an opinion on something.

Re: WWYCD: Fuel for the fire You set up a combat to specifically weigh it as almost overwhelmingly likely that if you don't kill everyone, even worse things are going to happen, and your own life hangs by a thread. Beyond even /that/, you've almost quite literally responded to statements of "well, I'd have some idea of how to use my powers" with "nuh uh!" and talking about "people getting off easy". Beyond even /that/ you decided that Stretchy Guy would /douse hostages in gasoline around a guy with fire powers/. No, that's plenty contrived. Then aside from that one of your players is something of a raging doofus, no, I'd say plenty can be put on you for setting them into a situation like that, then deciding to basically hose the fire wielding player for the other player's inanity, and talk about how "realistic" this all is, and nothing but actions having consequences. In fact, whoever made it such that any option not to light up innocent people is "an unlikely gamble", is certainly helping how contrived this thing is.

Re: WWYCD?: The blatant-ening. To note, my original answers were, when someone first posted this years ago in another forum in response to a lot of similar hypothetical ridiculousness like these WWYCD threads that had gone on in this forum were.. "I stab myself with the syringe. At least I get to be really, /really/ high on what is apparently Heaven's personal stash before I die." Or: "Clearly all of this occuring means that God is some kind of massive jerk. I take my anger at this out on his son by stabbing him with the syringe."

Re: WWYCD?: The blatant-ening. Yes, exactly.