Excellent. I think we all agree that this whole tangent has become an immensely boring waste of time.Rich H wrote:That's not a view I agree with looking at your comments/posts. It appears that people didn't agree with you and for the most part were polite in pointing out why. The first negative comment you made was as follows:Insect King wrote:I am polite and friendly, and I was so until some of you decided to wave-away the questioning newbie as a nuisance.
No, TOR has rules that are bizarre and fill up pages -- I'm looking at Travel rules for one.Insect King wrote:Don't worry about it too much, it's just another of TOR's bizarre rules that have no real purpose other than fill pages.
Rich H wrote:Which can only antagonise fans of the game; even ones that discuss rule additions and alterations. You then moved on to make other comments such as the following:Yes, someone created a whole new version of my argument and then attacked that.Insect King wrote:Awww, what a nice straw man and you made it all for me. Thanks.
And they are. If you create a magic item for a character, just give it to them in game and don't make them roll for it.Insect King wrote:I think the magic item rules are ridiculous. Just make magic items you think are appropriate to the game, let the PCs find them as part of their adventures. Don't make them roll dice to see if they find it. It's so arbitrary and useless.
The rules are not sacred, they are a means to entertainment. When the rules get in the way of my game they go.Insect King wrote:You can still keep playing your game any boring, frustrating and arse-backwards way you want, but I'm still going to run games where players aren't relentlessly punished or taxed just to play the game's story. I prefer they have fun.
This is from me trying to get a cogent answer from someone who patronises and derides others. If anyone doesn't want to answer my question, just don't answer.Insect King wrote:Thank you for not allowing me to play The One Ring by the gracious refusal you disdainfully uttered from your position of self-appointed magnanimity.
You can cherry pick all you like but I was courteous when I started posting here but if people deliberately talk down to me, I react to that.Insect King wrote:None of these were in response to anything of equal rudeness or nastiness, and for the most part they were in response to pretty constructive comments. Othertimes you just made the statements in general - ie, no response to anyone in particular and/or as a first post in a thread.
I do notice that the people engaged in these discussions were quick to hit the report button numerous time but haven't opined their own views of the problem. You engaged but no one else.
I was patient but I don't abide petulance. Don't act like a dick and you don't get treated like one.Rich H wrote:Personally, I think the vast majority of the posts here in response to you have been exceptionally pleasant and polite and when you've been nasty they have asked you to tone it down, my post included. Othertimes, with perhaps one or two exceptions (pithy one liners that others have made) they've also been incredibly patient; beyond what I think your above (quoted) posts deserve. Granted we all have to read posts in the best possible tone as communicating online is difficult, that old "talking through a keyhole" metaphor, but some of your above posts are simply blatant attacks, unwarrated by what others stated. Quite frankly, grouping them up into the above list made them really look bad and, for me, showed a continued negative style of posting across multiple threads.
Rich H wrote:Though, after all that is said, shall we start again with a clean slate? I think everyone here would like to do so.