Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Darkuwa 12-12-05, 08:31 PM	There a guy in our group that never does any negative interaction with the other characters. I mean half the fun is feuds between elves and dwarfs and being annoyed by gnomes. Examples 1: The game I'm DMing he played a human fighter and their first mission was just to get a package for the prince, inside was a key and a note that would have told them the prince was evil, he takes it and emediatly puts it away so that the rogue and the 2 crazy druids who would open it cant. I then have them make sense motives when the prince says the note says his fathers dead, this guy is the only one who makes it but doesn't tell the other or anything. Example 2: Other game where I'm not the DM. My character was stuck with a belt of femininity for a couple months, he finally gets it off. Now my character hates gnomes, absolutly loathers them. Anyways after the fight to get the key for the belt, one of the gnomes in the group(The reason my character hates gnomes) is unconsious, this guy metagames so that he can stop me from putting it on the gnome. He then takes the belt so that I can't put it on the gnome while we camp. He just doesn't seem to get that they're can be character conflicts in game, maybe he thinks that I'm doing it just cause I hate the gnomes player(which I do but thats beside the point). Anyways, anybody got any advice?
dgit 12-12-05, 08:45 PM	sounds like the guy just wants to be liked, is he new to roleplaying or just new to your group? and tbh its quite possible that his character might not want to be nasty to people or cause conflict, i doubt thats the case but there are enough people who would rather not get into a fight in RL. For the examples: sounds a bit weird, but fudge a roll or find another way to introduce the plot (btw if i was an evil prince who assassinated his father i would have had someone seal the ass off that package with wax and killed the muppets who should be UPS and not the FBI so fast for butting into my stuff) belt of reversed sex is SOOOO funny so its a pity you couldn't keep using it, but we do use a sort of house rule in our games that you have to be stupid enough to put the item on yourself. I would laugh my self to death if someone managed to get it on another PC though, totally class moment :)
BobtheBiotitan 12-12-05, 08:57 PM	WOW! how long has this guy been playing? Nothing is more fun than poking... fun at other players. For instance in one game a player was some race of cat and we kept asking him where his litter box was, and when he dies if he goes to the giant litter box in the sky. A comment that lasted all campaign was "Scratch, Scratch goes the kitty cat" muttered under our breathes. :D Hell, my halfling once spent half the campaign unconcious in the NPC fighters backpack because I kept picking fights with him. I once got a crititcal sneak attack punch in his balls. He went unconcious from the pain. I ran into the woods for a week before even looking at him again. Guess what happens when I go back to camp though? He knocks me cold and throws me in his backpack. Good times, Good times :) Seriously though this guy needs to lighten up! Tell him that, and if he doesn't understand then help him to.
BW0222 12-12-05, 08:59 PM	Darkuwa, Example #1. That is exactly what I would do. a) He is hired to deliver a package to no less than a prince. He doesn't know what is inside. He would have no reason to open it and every reason not to. b) Even if he doesn't care about honour, he might not get paid if it was delivered open... or certainly risks death, jail, eyes burnt out, loss of a hand, etc. All this, and for all he knows it could be some perfume for the prince's girlfriend or the latest romance novel from Ket. c) The thing could be trapped - with serious stuff. Geas, 15d6 flamestrikes, poison, etc. d) Even if there is something valuable inside... so what? What kind of lunatic would steal from a prince of a kingdom? You don't think someone that powerful has the will and resources to find you? e) If he was good, then he could easily end up with an alignment shift. Even the most CN rogue should be thinking twice about opening a package to one of the most powerful people in the kingdom. It isn't goody two-shoes for a postal worker not to open packages. It is common sense. Beside morality, I can't see why anyone would think that the benefits could out weight the risks. Example #2. Sound about right. >this guy metagames so that he can stop me from putting it on the gnome The guy has been playing with out for months. It doesn't sound like meta-gaming, it sounds like common sense that you would try to go after the gnome, the first chance you get. You said three times in the post that you hated gnomes. I'd be waiting to stop you from trying this. Personally, I'm not sure he is the one with the problems. As a DM, you seem to expect/encourage people to break laws for little or no visible benefit and at insane risks to the entire party. As a player, you get yourself involved in player vs. player actions and then get upset when another player doesn't want to see it. In both cases, if I was the guy, I'd be saying fairwell to both parties and heading off on my own. Why adventure with crazy people who you can't trust? IMO, it is metagaming to assume that any group would stay together under such circumstances.
stabs 12-12-05, 09:00 PM	I was DMing a party of 3 evil folks once, a CE cleric of Gruumsh, a LE Red Wizard and a NE Druid. But they were getting along far too well for my liking. They were always in agreement, they never bickered over treasure, they were still playing in the "Good" party mindset. "Oh? A magick wand? What's say we give it to the wizard, good chap? A staff? To the druid it goes, my friends!" This from people who had just met on Death Row and broken out together. So I recycled an encounter an old DM once ran for us. I artificially engineered (er... DMed...) a point of conflict: A powerful item ("Overpowering Evocation" on the Detect Magick) hidden in the stump of a dryad's tree. The only way to get to the item was to cut into the tree, which would kill the dryad. Party Orc: "Me wantee!" After the druid put an arrow in the Cleric of Gruumsh, it was decided that they would not be retrieving the item after all... Okay, so I was hoping for something a little more drastic (A TPK where the DM's not involved?) but the point stands. In the game where you're DM, try and stick in a situation where at least two of the party members will disagree. Even if it's not specific to that player, you'll at least force him to take sides. NOTE: Only do this with mature players, lest your party never adventure again because they now hate each other. Otherwise be thankful for so much cohesion.
Gailbraithe 12-12-05, 09:35 PM	He just doesn't seem to get that they're can be character conflicts in game, maybe he thinks that I'm doing it just cause I hate the gnomes player(which I do but thats beside the point). Anyways, anybody got any advice? I start by re-examining that.
Gurv 12-12-05, 09:39 PM	In Example #1, he accepts a job from a powerful Prince to recover a package (and we assume return it intact). So he does so and strives to keep it away from his crazy friends who want to open it. It sounds like he wants to do what he is supposed to. He has no way of knowing that the package he is carry condemns the prince...so what he is doing makes sense. You seem to expect him to act foolishly. Worse, since you have created a scenerio where acting stupid wins the day, you are just being twisted. There is no winning when the solution is to fail at what you are trying to do. In Example #2, it sounds more like you stirring up trouble. It seems like he had enough in character reason to expect you to try and torture the gnome. It sounds like your character has a mean streak and shouldn't be left near sharp objects...forget about cursed items. Further, it sounds like you are upset that the player won't fight with you. Based on my limited knowledge of you, I would say that you are a disruptive player who gets his kicks from interparty strife. As a DM you get a thrill out of dooming players who actually try to do the missions they are sent on, and you reward those who act foolishly or without good reason.
spectralphoenix 12-12-05, 09:47 PM	A thread complaining about a player who doesn't cause intraparty conflict? That has got to be a first. Seriously, if you were an adventurer who regularly risked your life on the assumption that the party's skills and teamwork can overcome challenges you could not, you would want your comrades to get along.
loaba 12-12-05, 10:33 PM	In both cases, if I was the guy, I'd be saying fairwell to both parties and heading off on my own. Why adventure with crazy people who you can't trust? IMO, it is metagaming to assume that any group would stay together under such circumstances. Right on, BW0222. :D
Silverthumb128 12-12-05, 10:39 PM	Examples 1 Where does the bad part come in? Example 2 I'm pretty sure you're confusing "metagaming" with "roleplaying." :rolleyes: He just doesn't seem to get that there can be character conflicts in game, maybe he thinks that I'm doing it just cause I hate the gnomes player(which I do but thats beside the point). Anyways, anybody got any advice? Yes: My advice is to let him roleplay. Stop trying to stifle his creativity. Maybe he thinks it'll be easier to get things done when the PCs aren't quarreling amongst themselves? Yeesh.
Demonfey 12-13-05, 12:39 AM	I will say this: there is some fun to be had in conflict. Once, there was a mage duel over the fate of an item in one of the groups I've been in (I was one of the two mages). Hell, my original group begins with the jokes about characters and the small, entertaining feuds (the little bickering that just shows you care enough to acknowledge the other) before we get started.
Wilds 12-13-05, 12:44 AM	Based on my limited knowledge of you, I would say that you are a disruptive player who gets his kicks from interparty strife. As a DM you get a thrill out of dooming players who actually try to do the missions they are sent on, and you reward those who act foolishly or without good reason. Actually on the few games I DMed with him in it. I was the one causing all chaos, OOC, when I was DMing :schemes: . Hey that last part is me! As a DM you get a thrill out of dooming players who actually try to do the missions they are sent on, and you reward those who act foolishly or without good reason
loaba 12-13-05, 12:45 AM	I will say this: there is some fun to be had in conflict. Once, there was a mage duel over the fate of an item in one of the groups I've been in (I was one of the two mages). Hell, my original group begins with the jokes about characters and the small, entertaining feuds (the little bickering that just shows you care enough to acknowledge the other) before we get started. I agree and disagree at the same time. Some party conflict is inevitable and can even be group-building. But starting crap just for the sake of starting crap is well, crappy.
Demonfey 12-13-05, 12:57 AM	Fair enough, although my example was an artifact that we were either going to give to a BBEG as a bribe to leave us alone or to keep it and take on the BBEG, and it was LG vs CN. What if the gnome was the cause of him wearing the belt in the first place? Wouldn't making said gnome find out what its like be just evening the score?
Milandros 12-13-05, 06:34 PM	Hang on, you're complaining because you want more intra-party conflict, and this guy isn't co-operating, his PC is arguing with yours and stopping him doing things? Isn't that intra-party conflict? :P If he's got a good-aligned character with a non-substandard INT and WIS score, then it sounds like he's playing sensibly. He doesn't take missions and then deliberately screw them up, he doesn't let people get hurt or abused unnecessarily - sounds fair enough to me. If you, and your players, want a game of in-party fighting, why not just require that all PCs be evil? Make it an evil campaign? Have PCs with deliberately opposing backgrounds? Personally I wouldn't play in that kind of game, but if it's what you enjoy, then have fun with it. Though if you don't like the people you're playing with, maybe you should look for another group? I generally play with friends myself.
ReverendCow 12-13-05, 07:18 PM	If you, and your players, want a game of in-party fighting, why not just require that all PCs be evil? Make it an evil campaign? Have PCs with deliberately opposing backgrounds? Why does evil automatically mean that you can't get along with the rest of the party? Even evil people have friends. Evil people can also share common goals. Why would an evil party be less able to do things in a cohesive manner than a good, neutral, or mixed party? The only answer I can come up with to those questions is if the characters are being played as Stupid Evil.
20goingon1232 12-13-05, 07:34 PM	The OP: "Waa! Mommy! He won't give me what I want! Waaa! He won't fight with me! He thinks he is above me! Waaa!" :rolleyes: Grow up.
Good Agnostic 12-13-05, 09:34 PM	The player sounds right on to me. I don't think the OP has a valid complaint.
ChaoticGood 12-13-05, 10:27 PM	At least somebody in the party knows how to play a sensible character. Otherwise, the rest of your party would surely be dead!
allenchan 12-13-05, 10:30 PM	Agreed. The OP needs to gain some maturity, if thats the best parts of playing dnd for him.
Darkuwa 12-14-05, 01:37 AM	Yah, searching dead orc bodies and then looking at me the second I take a step towards the gnome is not metagaming. [/sarcasm] I don't care that he isn't doing interparty conflict, but stopping me and the gnome's player who have fun with it is not. The DM actually had pulled me aside while the gnome was on the ground and told me that my character would probly be thinkign about it, but it was not strong enough to require a will save. As for the envelope, I clearly described it as being openable without anyone being able to tell. All the other characters wanted to open it and he didnt even though his character was CN.
20goingon1232 12-14-05, 04:15 AM	It's called keeping an eye on the rabid psycho-racist that should have (and in my campaigns and any party I am part of, WOULD have) been jetissoned with the orcs. You and the gnome player? Now who's metagaming? He is doing what his CHARACTER would have done. You want to do what YOU want to do, not your character. You admitted it yourself, so don't bother denying it. YOU are the metagamer here, kid.
Demonfey 12-14-05, 04:17 AM	CN means chaotic neutral. As in "goes with what he wants to at that moment in time". If he didn't want to open the package, he can do that and still be chaotic.
allenchan 12-14-05, 04:31 AM	Yah, searching dead orc bodies and then looking at me the second I take a step towards the gnome is not metagaming. Assuming you werent moving silently/hiding, of course he'd know you were moving towards the gnomes, and his character is probably absolutely aware of previous problems between the two, thus this is perfectly reasonable.
Crichton 12-14-05, 04:46 AM	I can identify with this guy. Right now I'm playing a monk who has a particularly troublesome rogue teammate. For me, teamwork and planning strategies is more fun than interparty conflict. Even though both are fun from time to time, it doesn't mean that every player has to have a conflict. Maybe this guy should be a half-elf? They're universally liked by all and get a bonus to diplomacy.
Andrew_980 12-14-05, 05:15 AM	The guy foster teamwork, tries to stop metagaming (me and the other player thought it was funny) and doesn't assume every npc must be betrayed because they can. what a nasty rotten player, how dare he not have juvenile out of character pranks and giggle like idiots with those who think putting a cursed item on a party member is ok.
Milandros 12-14-05, 12:52 PM	Why does evil automatically mean that you can't get along with the rest of the party? Even evil people have friends. Evil people can also share common goals. Why would an evil party be less able to do things in a cohesive manner than a good, neutral, or mixed party? The only answer I can come up with to those questions is if the characters are being played as Stupid Evil. Absolutely - I've been playing in such a game myself. In spite of the fact that our characters are truly despicable, they haven't turned on each other. Why? Because the DM helped the players with information as they chose their backgrounds, making sure that they had non-conflicting goals. In addition, there's a strong central authority. My point was that the OP seems to want a game in which people do destructive things just for jollies, and really wants more in-party fighting - he's complaining about a character trying to fulfil the mission he was given without abusing the trust placed in him. I think a game of hostile, in-fighting, racist nasty types is probably best done with an evil game - yes, a Stupid Evil game. I'd hate it, but if that's what the OP wants...
Twisted Puppy 12-14-05, 02:39 PM	You can have the tension between dwarves and elves, half-orcs and gnomes, or whatever without reverting to actually giving another party member the shaft. In a campaign I'm in, I'm playing a Gray Elf Wizard. One of the party members is a dwarven cleric. The barbs fly back and forth between the two. It's almost a contest who can get in the best zinger. For all that, never once has the wizard failed to do their best to support the cleric. If the only way you can have that tension is doing something detrimental to another character - which is what I call putting the girdle of femininity on another character - I find myself in agreement with 20goingon1232. OP is the problem in this case.
spectralent 12-14-05, 02:54 PM	WOW! how long has this guy been playing? Nothing is more fun than poking... fun at other players. For instance in one game a player was some race of cat and we kept asking him where his litter box was, and when he dies if he goes to the giant litter box in the sky. A comment that lasted all campaign was "Scratch, Scratch goes the kitty cat" muttered under our breathes. :D Hell, my halfling once spent half the campaign unconcious in the NPC fighters backpack because I kept picking fights with him. I once got a crititcal sneak attack punch in his balls. He went unconcious from the pain. I ran into the woods for a week before even looking at him again. Guess what happens when I go back to camp though? He knocks me cold and throws me in his backpack. Good times, Good times :) Seriously though this guy needs to lighten up! Tell him that, and if he doesn't understand then help him to. I am stuck with constant raven puns and frequent attemps to get me to wear a cape. This revovles around the fact our DM requires we make up verbal components for our spells. Guess what the first thing that came to mind for telekinesis was? (CLUE: read my sig) I can allways mhit the half DM if im annoyed though!HERE (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread/php?p=8001588#post8001588) is the explenation to that odd sentance
BW0222 12-14-05, 09:22 PM	>Yah, searching dead orc bodies and then looking at me the second I take a >step towards the gnome is not metagaming. [/sarcasm] It isn't. They fact I could tell what your character was going to do reading the first couple of lines of your post. I didn't need to be subjected to two months of gaming with you to realize that you were going to cause problems. >I don't care that he isn't doing interparty conflict, but stopping me and the >gnome's player who have fun with it is not. You want to be a jack-ass and disrupt his game and he is supposed to meta-game to allow you to pull this nonsense - even though a three-year-old could tell what you were going to pull. Then you can mad at him for not allowing allowing you to hurt someone else. >The DM actually had pulled me aside while the gnome was on the ground >and told me that my character would probly be thinkign about it, but it was >not strong enough to require a will save. As for the envelope, I clearly >described it as being openable without anyone being able to tell. Then you should be equally open to him messing with your character -- destroying your plans, making you angry, etc. Obviously, you can't handle your own medicine. I always love folks who want inter-PC conflict and then complain about it after the fact. >All the other characters wanted to open it and he didnt even though his >character was CN. A CN character isn't chaotic stupid. If you are a part of a group of soldiers going to say Afganistan, and you have one guy who *hates* coloured folks and lets you know time and time again. Then, while with the group, you catch him trying to mess with a coloured soldier.... gee... you aren't supposed to stop him if you are chaotic? Even if you are the most selfish person realizes that if you can't have a basic level of trust with folks you rely on in combat, that you're as good as dead. However, if you want my advice... look up some RPGA games or other folks in your area looking for new people for their gaming group. Then give the new player the information. Hopefully, he can find a more mature group to play with.
danielinthewolvesden 12-15-05, 05:04 PM	Yes, there is a problem player in your group. It ain't that other guy. :noway: :banghead:
Darkuwa 12-15-05, 06:34 PM	Ok, just let it die now.
20goingon1232 12-17-05, 04:35 AM	Hmm... No apologies, no admission of fault, just a quiet slink away. Anyone else NOT surprised?
Keg of Ale 12-18-05, 04:47 PM	Hmm... No apologies, no admission of fault Apologies to us? What for?
Cymraegmorgan 12-18-05, 05:09 PM	Ok, just let it die now. But half the fun is negative interaction! Aren't you having fun being slammed for your immature behavior? :weep:
20goingon1232 12-18-05, 05:43 PM	Apologies to us? What for? Making us wade through that mountain of immature, delusional drivel?
Leukrythus 12-18-05, 05:49 PM	Examples 1: The game I'm DMing he played a human fighter and their first mission was just to get a package for the prince, inside was a key and a note that would have told them the prince was evil, he takes it and emediatly puts it away so that the rogue and the 2 crazy druids who would open it cant. I then have them make sense motives when the prince says the note says his fathers dead, this guy is the only one who makes it but doesn't tell the other or anything. Is the fighter so powerful that he can't be slept or subdued in some way by the spell casters? Take it away from him and let him believe that he still has it. The rogue should be able to make a reasomnable forgery.
20goingon1232 12-18-05, 05:53 PM	Is the fighter so powerful that he can't be slept or subdued in some way by the spell casters? Take it away from him and let him believe that he still has it. The rogue should be able to make a reasomnable forgery. Why are you encouraging such immature anti-social behaviour?
Leukrythus 12-18-05, 05:57 PM	Example 2: Other game where I'm not the DM. My character was stuck with a belt of femininity for a couple months, he finally gets it off. Now my character hates gnomes, absolutly loathers them. Anyways after the fight to get the key for the belt, one of the gnomes in the group (he is the reason my character hates gnomes) is unconsious, this guy metagames so that he can stop me from putting it on the gnome. He then takes the belt so that I can't put it on the gnome while we camp. First of all, what is "metagaming"? It seems as though he is playing the part of the group bully, whether or not he is role-plaing it or not. What do the rest of the players think? The lone uncooperative character should be abused by the others. If you are the one uncooperative character,then you should reconsider your role in the group. I had a similar situation with a thief in our group who would always rob stuff, and often got caught. Our group had to eventually cut ties to both the character and player.
Leukrythus 12-18-05, 06:01 PM	Why are you encouraging such immature anti-social behaviour? Sorry, but that's the way I am. Unfortunately I was born this way. By the way, could you see it in your heart to spot me a few thousand gold pieces?
Silverthumb128 12-18-05, 06:08 PM	I had a similar situation with a thief in our group who would always rob stuff, and often got caught. Our group had to eventually cut ties to both the character and player. Kicking a thief out for thieving? I must've fallen into Limbo, because nothing in this thread is making sense. I suppose the Fighter's next, as he was fighting? What a quaint accent you have, you must be from a different part of the word than I. Oh yeah, you just got this thread locked.
Darkuwa 12-18-05, 06:16 PM	First of all, what is "metagaming"? It seems as though he is playing the part of the group bully, whether or not he is role-plaing it or not. What do the rest of the players think? The lone uncooperative character should be abused by the others. If you are the one uncooperative character,then you should reconsider your role in the group. I had a similar situation with a thief in our group who would always rob stuff, and often got caught. Our group had to eventually cut ties to both the character and player. Meta-gaming is using info that your character doesn't have to affect his actions. He was facing away from my character when my character was heading towards the gnome. When I said my character was moving towards the gnome he said his character turned around and told me not too. There is no way his character could have known that I was even there let alone going towards the gnome, in fact noone in the party even knew that I had gotten the belt off yet.
20goingon1232 12-18-05, 06:25 PM	What a quaint accent you have, you must be from a different part of the word than I. That being said, there's no reason why our introduction can't be beneficial to both of us. I represent one of the larger trading concerns in these parts, and perhaps we could come to mutually profitable terms on some commodities of interest. To your former paragraph, it is no fault of mine that you do not know how to speak the Queen's English. Rest assured that I would not hold this against you. It is something fit only for polite society. As to your latter paragraph, I find it almost impossible, in this day and age of Nigerian confidence games, to take that kind of an introduction seriously. Alas, that paragraph has given me no choice but to relegate you to the same category as the snake-oil salesmen.
20goingon1232 12-18-05, 06:33 PM	Meta-gaming is using info that your character doesn't have to affect his actions. He was facing away from my character when my character was heading towards the gnome. When I said my character was moving towards the gnome he said his character turned around and told me not too. There is no way his character could have known that I was even there let alone going towards the gnome, in fact noone in the party even knew that I had gotten the belt off yet. First, you want to attack the gnome from Day 1. Second, you were moving normally. I don't know about you, but I can hear people moving around just fine in a carpetted room, let alone out in the boonies, unless they are being deliberately silent, which you were not. Just because he can't see you doesn't mean he doesn't know you are there.
Leukrythus 12-18-05, 06:33 PM	Kicking a thief out for thieving? I must've fallen into Limbo, because nothing in this thread is making sense. I suppose the Fighter's next, as he was fighting? Not for thieving, but for being maliciously stupid to deliberately hurt a group he had no real interest in being in. The guy had no reason to play the game except boredom, and wanted to ruin it for others. Sorry for not presenting enough details.
Leukrythus 12-18-05, 06:35 PM	Meta-gaming is using info that your character doesn't have to affect his actions. He was facing away from my character when my character was heading towards the gnome. When I said my character was moving towards the gnome he said his character turned around and told me not too. There is no way his character could have known that I was even there let alone going towards the gnome, in fact noone in the party even knew that I had gotten the belt off yet. Sounds like your DM needs to take control of the group. He had relinquished control to the fighter. Do you rotate DMs, or is he the only one?
20goingon1232 12-18-05, 06:36 PM	Kicking a thief out for thieving? I must've fallen into Limbo, because nothing in this thread is making sense. I suppose the Fighter's next, as he was fighting? There are no Thieves any more, unless the player is acting like a thief. There are Rogues, but they are not the same thing. So, the player must be playing his Rogue like a Thief and the party didn't care for it. Good-bye PC.
Leukrythus 12-18-05, 06:38 PM	Oh yeah, you just got this thread locked. I find it hard to imagine that anyone would take my words as anything but an attempt at role-playing. If anyone has been offended I offer my most sincere apology, as insult had never been my intent. By the way, could I interest you in some rare and exotic perfumes? Or perhaps some with a magical kick to them?
Leukrythus 12-18-05, 06:41 PM	There are no Thieves any more, unless the player is acting like a thief. There are Rogues, but they are not the same thing. So, the player must be playing his Rogue like a Thief and the party didn't care for it. Good-bye PC. Again, sorry for not presenting enough information. It was the anti-social behavior of the player, and not what the character did.
Silverthumb128 12-18-05, 06:45 PM	There are no Thieves any more, unless the player is acting like a thief. It was hard to tell what was meant. Could've been 2nd edition, could've been homebrew, I really don't know. He was vague on the matter of thieves as a class. I find it hard to imagine that anyone would take my words as anything but an attempt at role-playing. If anyone has been offended I offer my most sincere apology, as insult had never been my intent. There are ways to make it known to be an roleplayed statement, but all it sounded like was making fun of someone's way of speech. We can't be expected to assume you're roleplaying when there's already a roleplaying board.
20goingon1232 12-18-05, 06:49 PM	There are ways to make it known to be an roleplayed statement, but all it sounded like was making fun of someone's way of speech. We can't be expected to assume you're roleplaying when there's already a roleplaying board. Let it slide, dude. I wasn't insulted. If anything, it merely showed his lack of education ;)
Silverthumb128 12-18-05, 06:53 PM	Let it slide, dude. I wasn't insulted. If anything, it merely showed his lack of education ;) Fair enough. :D It just seemed horribly out-of-place to say such a thing in context of this thread to make mention of anyone's use of the letter "u."