My charmander uses firewhip...

From my standpoint I've been rolling raises on my attacks with the whip for the last 3 sessions, so if anything I would think that would have been an issue, for the last 3 sessions, when I made the rolls in front of everyone. Just saying...

More so if anything you proved my point, what appeared to be rules that supported playing the character a certain way were all entirely wrong. I'm not mad, I just don't particularly like that my understanding was wrong, so I move on. Coming back and saying "Waahhhh my character concept failed" is trolling, but then again I half expect that if I walked in your front door right now you would be laughing like I am at this whole thing... I need a beer now...

Moto Damasko wrote:From my standpoint I've been rolling raises on my attacks with the whip for the last 3 sessions, so if anything its more confusion than rage.

More so if anything you proved my point, what appeared to be rules that supported playing the character a certain way were all entirely wrong. I'm not mad, I just don't particularly like that my understanding was wrong, so I move on. Coming back and saying "Waahhhh my character concept failed" is trolling, but then again I half expect that if I walked in your front door right now you would be laughing like I am at this whole thing... I need a beer now...

What part of "wahhh my character concept failed" are you not doing. Here's a quote from you.

Gaipan is a concept, and as a concept he has failed because rules have suddenly, as in this session, become an issue.

The rules were not suddenly an issue. I made them clear earlier and then ASSUMED that the raise was on the spell effect not an "extra damage maneuver". And again I apologized for the confusion on that. My point stands though, that if you feel that your character has failed due to the interaction between one obscure advantage and one specific spell (of which you have MANY more) then you are whining and crying over spilt milk. Gaipan is not a failure, you just weren't using all the other options available to him. I'm sad to see that we wont see him again, because his blessings from the deathgods were awesome and flavorful. I really wish they had happened more than twice in the entire 2 1/2 month long campaign.

Again Corey, Waaahhh my character failed, is trolling. I didn't like how things changed now that rules changed, my character concept is different, I took things that I thought worked differently, it's fine. I didn't quit him mid game, but the campaign is over now and the character that I built to help fill the void left my jiyori has lost interest and given me a distaste. I'll survive...

One comment I do have was on the blessings, I felt that the blessing was good, no question, but it felt out of character against enemies that were not big baddies. Which is why I loved it against mikara, but felt that against the bear and pretty much any of the henchmen it was less than worth it, or out of character. Also maybe its just my experience with Damasko and Raijin, but I felt besides our stupidly effective archer, our Bushi were rather underwhelming when I gave them extra attacks with a Katana.

Also that advantage was expected to work with a number of abilities, from attack rolls, to fire spells, to skills, etc, it's been used in everything from weapon attacks to rolls for spellcraft. Regardless I enjoyed the character and disliked the character for very specific reasons, some mentioned, some not, but I'd like to play something else if and when we come back.

As for hamfisting a technique in, it was part of Gaipan's flavor, without it what's the point :3 that's like jiyori without jade strike.

btw I'm online if you are up for a LoL game.

As the crime, so the punishment; I went public with my complaint, so let me do the same with my apology.



Corey, you're right. I totally shouldn't have done this. It was disrespectful to your decision-making, and goes against the entire point of making you the GM - so that you can make decisions about how the rules work. I don't have to like the result, or even agree with it, but I certainly shouldn't have gone public with it.



I will try to be better about how I handle my conflicts in the future.

Aaronious wrote:As the crime, so the punishment; I went public with my complaint, so let me do the same with my apology.



Corey, you're right. I totally shouldn't have done this. It was disrespectful to your decision-making, and goes against the entire point of making you the GM - so that you can make decisions about how the rules work. I don't have to like the result, or even agree with it, but I certainly shouldn't have gone public with it.



I will try to be better about how I handle my conflicts in the future.

Thems fighting words!

Thank you Tim. Also, I want to reiterate that neither of you hurt my feelings PERSONALLY. hahaha, I still <3 you both and I'm glad that we can have an open dialogue. I don't think that the GM should just decide on one thing and then say "screw you" to anyone who thinks otherwise. Which is why I hope that my explanation was sufficient. I know it wasn't a popular decision, but I felt it was the most logical and, most importantly, balanced take on the debate between the weapon vs fire whip. Not being a player myself, I had nothing vested in the actual outcome, so I decided on the one that would lead to the least amount of possible abuse.

I do accept your apology, but again don't sweat it. Lets just try to keep possible conflicts like this out of our sessions, and keep it in PM's or polite, educated, and logical forum posts. The most important thing for these campaigns and sessions is for everyone to have a smile on their face... whether they are the DM, the Player, or just someone reading our fluff posts. It's about us all coming together and having fun. Lets keep it that way.