Game? No Thanks...

[eliakon]

Fishmalks are highly discouraged outside of TOON.

And what is a Fishmalk in reference to this thread? Nonsense. It's all nonsense.

Ohhh! I know this one! A Fishmalk is a crazy for the sake of being crazy character. One that's just an utter loon and has no bearing or motivation other than 'wooo hooo hooo! I'm goofy!"

Wait so we arent supposed to play crazies like that?

No actually your not.
Play a crazy that is crazy but in some sort of constructive way.
The Fishmalk guy is the one that is trying to upstage the entire group with his antics and disrupting everything by showing how insane they are.
Those types are bad PCs. They are disruptive and worse are deliberately designed to go after the other players (not their characters) that is an unacceptable trait in a game and I too would kick out such a player if they continued.

Okay so the Fishmalk is a crazy munchkin and again munchkin = kicked... or educated first and then kicked.

A person who is deliberately trying to harm everyone else for their own amusement?
If I am feeling charitable I might give them a warning first.
But honestly? If you have not learned that you are not the center of the universe and that a game is a coperative thing where you have to share and that abusing your peers for your own amusement isnt acceptable already... then the chances that me saying to not do that are going to change anything are between zero and none.
Because lets face it. This person is a kind of sadist. They are getting their kicks from causeing other people grief and pain and frankly... I dont want to deal with that sort of person in my game, and I dont want to deal with their antics. Especially since I am pretty sure that they will give me puppy dog eyes about how they didnt mean it and they need another chance... and do it again, and again and again each time asking for an explaination of what they did and one more chance.

And for the record. No this is not a munchkin. This is an abuser, plain and simple. And I have no place at my table for people who are going to abuse the other players.

[eliakon]

That very tendency is the red flag to which I refer. The above poster has not only indirectly claimed a period of military service necessarily imparts knowledge of world military history, but because all militaries (including historical and fictitious ones) are part of "the military" this knowledge is universally applicable, as if veterans hold some sort of absolute monopoly on the notions of tactics and strategy. It is this form of special pleading that I find a warning sign at the gaming table.

Who's pleading?
I'm stating facts.

@ Curbludgeon
By your statement why should you listen to Doctors, they don't know everything about Medicine.

You keep ignoring that this was their JOBS. They trained constantly for the being a Soldier. When I was in we trained in not just US equipment, Strategies and Tactics, but those of other Countries. We were also encouraged to study history both Military and Political so that we could understand not just what we were doing, but why were doing it.

You keep ignoring his points
1) your presuming that your knowledge of past material will make you an expert on future material. Unless you yourself are a strategic and tactical genius I find that highly unlikely as you will not be able to have sources, tests and other material to work with.
2) your presuming that your personal situation is the same situation that everyone in the military was in. I am going to assume from your statements that you were an Officer or a rather senior NCO. Since most junior enlisted and NCOs do NOT get encouraged to study history and politics and strategy and tactics and the rest.... which means that now YOU are generalizing that certain kinds of Officer training (not even all officers get that) should be the criteria for which all military people should be held... its not, most people DO NOT HAVE THAT
3) it also ignores his problem that he runs into (and I see this a lot myself honestly) in that a huge number of military people feel that they are the sole experts on the military. That civilians have no place telling them anything about military matters and that they are entitled to critique others on their military stuff. That may be fine if they ask for it... in a game it is dead wrong and I would kick them out in a heart beat too. Not everyone is interested in running the most accurate military simulation possible based on the best theorized tactical doctrines, where in every adventure is nothing but brutal, no quarter military fighting and the players demand that the opponents have all their forces in the proper organizations and such so that they can use all the tricks they learning in the military to get all the intelligence... that isn't gaming that is the players vs the GM, and the GM is right to be sick of it

1) Studying the past makes the present more capable. Practicing in the present makes any soldier more capable than a civilian GM who is a history buff and never participated in military action. Basically making that soldier at your table the history that tactics in the future would be based off of.
2) I'm only saying this from a USAF standpoint but, as soon as we're out of Basic we are encouraged to study past and present and read articles on future expectations there is a CMSgt Reading list that we are told to read if we want to get ahead. It isn't required but highly recommended (and my brothers in arms will get that joke).
3) Your right the GM is the boss and all players shouldn't be taking it so seriously. That said military members ARE the experts on the military. Are you telling me you are not the expert in your life and in your career field and that you will except a person who has never experienced either to input their outside opinion as fact? Civilians have NO place telling us anything about military matters. Civilians may note history but they have no clue what went through the minds of the commanders, so often freaking history show "experts" state so and so MUST have been thinking x when he... The "experts" have no dang clue. We are as entitled to critique on issues of military "stuff" as a doctor is on doctor stuff, an engineer on engineer stuff and so on and so forth and not expect people un-educated in the career field to be capricious.

See, this is exactly why he is saying that he doesn't want military people in his group.
The attitude that "civilians have NO place telling us anything about military matters.
I will use small words here
It. Is. A. Game. People.
If you can not get that then I would kick you out too.
Seriously. This is a game. It isn't a military matter, and if your 'military' pride cant allow you understand that then you have no business whatsoever in sitting down at that persons table.
Stop a moment and think about it.
The ranting about how the military people have the right to judge military matters? About how they have the right to critique military stuff. How they alone have the right to judge military matters?
What The Hell People!
If you have that attitude then you are the problem. Because you are telling that GM that their game is a military matter! And I am sorry, you are 100% in the wrong there. No two ways about it, you are flat out dead wrong.
Not only are you being deathly rude to that GM, you are being disrespectful to every one of your fellow military professionals who can tell the difference between real life and games and knows the difference between military matters and games.

I would ask that my fellow military and ex-military people stop and think for a moment.
Set aside your pride for a bit and realize that the entire reason that people like him don't want people like us in their games is that there are to many people who are doing exactly this!
Who are pretending that some civlians role playing game is a military matter and that they are therefore the only true authority and the only people that are qualified to speak on the subject.

[Prysus]

I would ask that my fellow military and ex-military people stop and think for a moment.
Set aside your pride for a bit and realize that the entire reason that people like him don't want people like us in their games is that there are to many people who are doing exactly this!
Who are pretending that some civlians role playing game is a military matter and that they are therefore the only true authority and the only people that are qualified to speak on the subject.

Greetings and Salutations. From what I can tell, both sides here are talking about extremes. Let's look at other parts the military/ex-military have said ...

I also wouldn't care if a GM who has no clue about tactics was doing something silly as long as a DOD trying to interject isn't shot down and thrown out the first time they try to correct the GM. "I understand you were in the military and likely know tactics better than I, but I am the one running the game. If you want to run a military game be my guest, but you chose to play." If the DOD keeps interjecting then they are no better than a rules lawyer or a munchkin and should be asked to leave.

Yes I made it to senior NCO rank, and have no problem with civilian opinions on military matters. I also remember that it is the GM who makes the ultimate decisions. I will make my case of I think he is wrong but will abide by his decisions.

Both here accept it's a game and a Game Master has final say, and they'll abide by that decision. Basically, both sides (for the most part) are discussing different extremes. Side 1 (no ex-military) ...

G.M.: *Provides scenario.*
Military: *Explains why that wouldn't work, or a different tactic would be better.*
G.M.: "I understand what you're saying, but it would take way too much game time to redo things the way you're describing. I don't have the stats or maps ready for that kind of thing."
Military: *Presses issue.*
G.M.: "It's a game, let it go."
Military: *Continues to press issue and disrupt game.*

Most of us here will agree the military in the above is being disruptive. A one-time incident is one thing, but if this becomes a pattern he should be asked to leave. Meanwhile, Side 2 (ex-military know what they're talking about) ...

G.M.: *Gives far fetched scenario.*
Military: *Describes why that wouldn't work and a better solution.*
G.M.: "You don't know what you're talking about! I don't care how many times you've used a rifle, you've never had a laser rifle so you know nothing of tactics with it."
Military: "The tech is different, but what's being used in this scenario has enough similarities to modern technology that tactics wouldn't change that drastically, and the technology wouldn't allow for the scenario you presented above. Wouldn't it be better if we just --"
G.M.: "No! This is why I can't stand ex-Military. You think you know everything. Get out!"

The above G.M. is combative. Instead of acknowledging it's a game and he may not be an expert at everything, he's taking the stance the military player is ignorant about military matters, their opinions are worthless, and they shouldn't be allowed in a game at all. I'd like to think most of us would agree the G.M. is in the wrong.

So I'd like to think most of us (there are always exceptions) can agree that extremes of either side are bad? Farewell and safe journeys.

[Zer0 Kay]

Wait so we arent supposed to play crazies like that?

No actually your not.
Play a crazy that is crazy but in some sort of constructive way.
The Fishmalk guy is the one that is trying to upstage the entire group with his antics and disrupting everything by showing how insane they are.
Those types are bad PCs. They are disruptive and worse are deliberately designed to go after the other players (not their characters) that is an unacceptable trait in a game and I too would kick out such a player if they continued.

Okay so the Fishmalk is a crazy munchkin and again munchkin = kicked... or educated first and then kicked.

A person who is deliberately trying to harm everyone else for their own amusement?
If I am feeling charitable I might give them a warning first.
But honestly? If you have not learned that you are not the center of the universe and that a game is a coperative thing where you have to share and that abusing your peers for your own amusement isnt acceptable already... then the chances that me saying to not do that are going to change anything are between zero and none.
Because lets face it. This person is a kind of sadist. They are getting their kicks from causeing other people grief and pain and frankly... I dont want to deal with that sort of person in my game, and I dont want to deal with their antics. Especially since I am pretty sure that they will give me puppy dog eyes about how they didnt mean it and they need another chance... and do it again, and again and again each time asking for an explaination of what they did and one more chance.

And for the record. No this is not a munchkin. This is an abuser, plain and simple. And I have no place at my table for people who are going to abuse the other players.

How is a munchkin not an abuser?

[Zer0 Kay]

Who's pleading?
I'm stating facts.

@ Curbludgeon
By your statement why should you listen to Doctors, they don't know everything about Medicine.

You keep ignoring that this was their JOBS. They trained constantly for the being a Soldier. When I was in we trained in not just US equipment, Strategies and Tactics, but those of other Countries. We were also encouraged to study history both Military and Political so that we could understand not just what we were doing, but why were doing it.

You keep ignoring his points
1) your presuming that your knowledge of past material will make you an expert on future material. Unless you yourself are a strategic and tactical genius I find that highly unlikely as you will not be able to have sources, tests and other material to work with.
2) your presuming that your personal situation is the same situation that everyone in the military was in. I am going to assume from your statements that you were an Officer or a rather senior NCO. Since most junior enlisted and NCOs do NOT get encouraged to study history and politics and strategy and tactics and the rest.... which means that now YOU are generalizing that certain kinds of Officer training (not even all officers get that) should be the criteria for which all military people should be held... its not, most people DO NOT HAVE THAT
3) it also ignores his problem that he runs into (and I see this a lot myself honestly) in that a huge number of military people feel that they are the sole experts on the military. That civilians have no place telling them anything about military matters and that they are entitled to critique others on their military stuff. That may be fine if they ask for it... in a game it is dead wrong and I would kick them out in a heart beat too. Not everyone is interested in running the most accurate military simulation possible based on the best theorized tactical doctrines, where in every adventure is nothing but brutal, no quarter military fighting and the players demand that the opponents have all their forces in the proper organizations and such so that they can use all the tricks they learning in the military to get all the intelligence... that isn't gaming that is the players vs the GM, and the GM is right to be sick of it

1) Studying the past makes the present more capable. Practicing in the present makes any soldier more capable than a civilian GM who is a history buff and never participated in military action. Basically making that soldier at your table the history that tactics in the future would be based off of.
2) I'm only saying this from a USAF standpoint but, as soon as we're out of Basic we are encouraged to study past and present and read articles on future expectations there is a CMSgt Reading list that we are told to read if we want to get ahead. It isn't required but highly recommended (and my brothers in arms will get that joke).
3) Your right the GM is the boss and all players shouldn't be taking it so seriously. That said military members ARE the experts on the military. Are you telling me you are not the expert in your life and in your career field and that you will except a person who has never experienced either to input their outside opinion as fact? Civilians have NO place telling us anything about military matters. Civilians may note history but they have no clue what went through the minds of the commanders, so often freaking history show "experts" state so and so MUST have been thinking x when he... The "experts" have no dang clue. We are as entitled to critique on issues of military "stuff" as a doctor is on doctor stuff, an engineer on engineer stuff and so on and so forth and not expect people un-educated in the career field to be capricious.

See, this is exactly why he is saying that he doesn't want military people in his group.
The attitude that "civilians have NO place telling us anything about military matters.
I will use small words here
It. Is. A. Game. People.
If you can not get that then I would kick you out too.
Seriously. This is a game. It isn't a military matter, and if your 'military' pride cant allow you understand that then you have no business whatsoever in sitting down at that persons table.
Stop a moment and think about it.
The ranting about how the military people have the right to judge military matters? About how they have the right to critique military stuff. How they alone have the right to judge military matters?
What The Hell People!
If you have that attitude then you are the problem. Because you are telling that GM that their game is a military matter! And I am sorry, you are 100% in the wrong there. No two ways about it, you are flat out dead wrong.
Not only are you being deathly rude to that GM, you are being disrespectful to every one of your fellow military professionals who can tell the difference between real life and games and knows the difference between military matters and games.

I would ask that my fellow military and ex-military people stop and think for a moment.
Set aside your pride for a bit and realize that the entire reason that people like him don't want people like us in their games is that there are to many people who are doing exactly this!
Who are pretending that some civlians role playing game is a military matter and that they are therefore the only true authority and the only people that are qualified to speak on the subject.

What do you do for a living Eli? (Don't actually expect an answer, nor need one). Are you telling me that you have absolutely no concern, no pride in your trade that you wouldn't mind that the GM knowing what you do makes completely inflammatory comments about it? A civilian GM who claims to know military strategy and then performs in such a way that would makes a mockery of the military and calls it good is as much an abuser as a fishmalk.

A civilian GM who doesnt claim expertise in your careerffield and is playing a game is usually excused of their ignorance. A little assurance when confronted with a "that's not how...", that it is due to a lack of experience and that it is indeed just a game and not intentionally making a statement about their job goes a long way.

But your attitude of "if the GM thinks that their an expert in something, that they have no experience in because they read it in a biased book (they all are one way or another), then the GM is right to whizz on those with actual experience." Sucks

Does the GM have the right to declare themselves experts on slavery, the holocaust, life as a refugee from a war zone, life as a minority, life in a country without freedom all because you read a book once? That shows far more arrogance than those with actual experience claiming their experts in the field and that the GM's book knowledge is wrong. There is a respectful way to let someone know that it is a game and and their experience isnt in question. But only if your not making a mockery of them in the first place.

[Zer0 Kay]

I would ask that my fellow military and ex-military people stop and think for a moment.
Set aside your pride for a bit and realize that the entire reason that people like him don't want people like us in their games is that there are to many people who are doing exactly this!
Who are pretending that some civlians role playing game is a military matter and that they are therefore the only true authority and the only people that are qualified to speak on the subject.

Greetings and Salutations. From what I can tell, both sides here are talking about extremes. Let's look at other parts the military/ex-military have said ...

I also wouldn't care if a GM who has no clue about tactics was doing something silly as long as a DOD trying to interject isn't shot down and thrown out the first time they try to correct the GM. "I understand you were in the military and likely know tactics better than I, but I am the one running the game. If you want to run a military game be my guest, but you chose to play." If the DOD keeps interjecting then they are no better than a rules lawyer or a munchkin and should be asked to leave.

Yes I made it to senior NCO rank, and have no problem with civilian opinions on military matters. I also remember that it is the GM who makes the ultimate decisions. I will make my case of I think he is wrong but will abide by his decisions.

Both here accept it's a game and a Game Master has final say, and they'll abide by that decision. Basically, both sides (for the most part) are discussing different extremes. Side 1 (no ex-military) ...

G.M.: *Provides scenario.*
Military: *Explains why that wouldn't work, or a different tactic would be better.*
G.M.: "I understand what you're saying, but it would take way too much game time to redo things the way you're describing. I don't have the stats or maps ready for that kind of thing."
Military: *Presses issue.*
G.M.: "It's a game, let it go."
Military: *Continues to press issue and disrupt game.*

Most of us here will agree the military in the above is being disruptive. A one-time incident is one thing, but if this becomes a pattern he should be asked to leave. Meanwhile, Side 2 (ex-military know what they're talking about) ...

G.M.: *Gives far fetched scenario.*
Military: *Describes why that wouldn't work and a better solution.*
G.M.: "You don't know what you're talking about! I don't care how many times you've used a rifle, you've never had a laser rifle so you know nothing of tactics with it."
Military: "The tech is different, but what's being used in this scenario has enough similarities to modern technology that tactics wouldn't change that drastically, and the technology wouldn't allow for the scenario you presented above. Wouldn't it be better if we just --"
G.M.: "No! This is why I can't stand ex-Military. You think you know everything. Get out!"

The above G.M. is combative. Instead of acknowledging it's a game and he may not be an expert at everything, he's taking the stance the military player is ignorant about military matters, their opinions are worthless, and they shouldn't be allowed in a game at all. I'd like to think most of us would agree the G.M. is in the wrong.

So I'd like to think most of us (there are always exceptions) can agree that extremes of either side are bad? Farewell and safe journeys.

YES, I love you. Are you a professional arbitrator? You always know exactly what I mean and see both sides. Thanks for clarifying, as always. I agree the Vet in scenario 1 is annoying once and a phallus if constant. While the GM in two is an inconsiderate jerk. Now GM 1 and Vet 2 would be fine together. The vet would always end up having fun and the GM would gain experience from a direct source and have those "my friend did..." or "one of my players..." stories that make other people go "holy crap."

[Zer0 Kay]

With all due respect Zero (I do indeed respect anyone willing to serve but that is besides the point) you'd be surprised how many military people I have encountered who act like experts that actually knew less about their equipment, history, and operational/tactical doctrines than I do as a "mere" civilian, who has acquired nothing more than a large number of reference books on the subjects. So you'll forgive me if I will not take a former military person as an "expert" because I am a "civie" unlike say a doctor or lawyer who has a shyte ton of evidence of being an expert beyond merely BEING a Doctor or Lawyer.

Thank you. I probably would be surprised and would expect that those veterans were "dirtbags" military technical term, not the civilian or law enforcement variant.

So if the Doctor's and Lawyer's crapton of evidence is their body of work rather than their amount of book knowledge then would an expert military personnel be one who has done their job, received favorable reviews and has been honorably discharged or retired or is said expertise also based on level acheived? If that is so then does a DD214 claiming such stand as sufficient evidence of said veterans expertise? Granted their expertise should only be expected to pertain to their career field (AFSC/MOS/Rating). Also if based on career field and rank/level achieved is the same standards held to doctors and lawyers? Is a lawyer an expert of all law is a lawyer the same level of expertise as a partner in a law firm? Is a Neurosurgeon an expert in all medicine. Do not all hold more expertise in their general profession than the common person? Remember that the legal definition of an expert is someone who has a greater knowledge in a subject than the average person and I understand that this would put the average buff as an expert.

[Shorty Lickens]

I'd like to point out theres a buttload of soldiers who are mediocre shots and dont know how to do anything except a basic field strip and cleaning.

Theres plenty of armchair commandos who can name and replace every part in an AR-15.

[jaymz]

Zero....actually no its their diplomas etc and the typically vast library of medical references they may have that is the proof not just their real life experience. Dudebro army guy can usually only give me his word as to how "expert" he is. You'll forgive me if I want more than that

[zerombr]

let me say my one thing here.

If someone started critiquing the tactics of my enemies, whether the player had personal experience in the field or not. I just say, "Well you don't know their whole story, now do you?" If they press the issue under the guise of arrogance, I ask them to stop. I've never had anyone go any further than that.

[Fenris2020]

I see an awful lot of nit-picking going on in these posts.
A lot of it makes me think that the people nit-picking have a personal problem with the people being treated that way.
How about acting like adults, and address what someone's actually saying?
There was one poster who said that he liked GMs to research (I'm that way myself); now it seems obvious they were talking about something for a campaign; perhaps the poster is tired of GMs who run, say a 15th century game, that has no idea of 15th century mores, lifestyles, or whatever. The next poster jumped on that with a researching one thing, and off-topic research. I'm guessing a lack of comprehension is involved, or malice, since no other option seems likely.
That is the sort of GM and player I avoid inviting to my house to game. They're more interested in one-upping someone than having fun with friends.
Another thing is the veterans. I love having my fellow veterans at a table. I also like having people from law enforcement, medics, and what have you, game. I make it a point before the game to get their input on various scenarios that may occur during a campaign.
I don't think small unit tactics will change over-much merely due to composition of the unit (player group), between the current day and the fantasy of Rifts. Sure, they change according to environment, but that isn't really what's being addressed, is it? At least a reasonable person would see that.
I was warned by a few people about this company's forum-board, and from what I can see, the people who warned me were right. I love Palladium's products, and would like to see them get a better reputation than what some of you are causing the company to have. People who have to make themselves feel awesome by some of the passive-aggressive and outright aggressive attacks I've seen in this thread alone, not to mention some others, are exactly the sort I'll never allow to game with me.
I can handle rule-lawyers; I am one, I just don't pick and choose like a lot of them do; I also do hard-copy print-outs of my rule revisions, which of any conflicting rules I use (Rifts seems to have a few...). Munchkins? Whatever, most have been subjected to some bad GMs and are trying to make characters that can survive arbitrary crap (and they can be coaxed into making "standard" characters in a short amount of time, I find).
Many gamers' problems are due to bad experiences in previous groups. Instead of just giving someone the boot day one, discuss things with them. Make sure everyone at the table knows what your rules and expectations are, and make sure you're living up to your players' as well.
We all game to have fun, or t least we should be; if you're not gaming to have fun, do something else.

[Fenris2020]

Zero....actually no its their diplomas etc and the typically vast library of medical references they may have that is the proof not just their real life experience. Dudebro army guy can usually only give me his word as to how "expert" he is. You'll forgive me if I want more than that

Dudebro?
Okay, so if the soldier/ veteran shows you the good reviews, awards, at cetera are you less condescending and more respectful, or does that take something else?

[jaymz]

If you don't know the type of person I'm referring to when I say dudebro army guy let alone the fact you didn't seem to bother to read the posts leading up to your cherry picked one, so you could display passive aggressive offense no doubt, that's your problem not mine because if you do know the type of person I'm referring to and had read the preceding posts then you'd not ask such asinine loaded question. In other words **** off troll

[Fenris2020]

If you don't know the type of person I'm referring to when I say dudebro army guy let alone the fact you didn't seem to bother to read the posts leading up to your cherry picked one, so you could display passive aggressive offense no doubt, that's your problem not mine because if you do know the type of person I'm referring to and had read the preceding posts then you'd not ask such asinine loaded question. In other words **** off troll

So you'll troll instead of answering the question.
I bet you also want to know why these boards seem to be dying, which is obvious even to a newbie on here like me.

edit: As an aside, the coin came up heads, so I responded instead of reporting the obvious flame-attack. Bear that in mind in case you choose to respond with something less than polite to me again.
Ever.

[jaymz]

The answer is in the post prior to your Cherry picked one. Do your own work troll.

[SpiritInterface]

YES, I love you. Are you a professional arbitrator? You always know exactly what I mean and see both sides. Thanks for clarifying, as always. I agree the Vet in scenario 1 is annoying once and a phallus if constant. While the GM in two is an inconsiderate jerk. Now GM 1 and Vet 2 would be fine together. The vet would always end up having fun and the GM would gain experience from a direct source and have those "my friend did..." or "one of my players..." stories that make other people go "holy crap."

Spot on. I defer to the Teacher in our group when he talks to the GM about being a teacher and how schools should be run, and our GM is happy for the advice and knowledge.

As for pouges that think that the know combat, weapons and tactics, we have had a couple join our group and try to show how smart they were. When they discovered we had several of our players were military historians and that we had at least one vet in our group at any one time (at our largest we had three, one of which was a Submarine Nuke Tech) they decided to find a different group.

My problem was that Prysus seemed to dismiss that there could be someone who had knowledge and experience that they were willing to share with the GM to make things better, so they spoke up.

[Prysus]

YES, I love you. Are you a professional arbitrator? You always know exactly what I mean and see both sides. Thanks for clarifying, as always.

Spot on.

My problem was that Prysus seemed to dismiss that there could be someone who had knowledge and experience that they were willing to share with the GM to make things better, so they spoke up.

Greetings and Salutations. Since I was called out by name, what part of my post makes you feel I was dismissive of experience and knowledge?

From what I see, I've made two posts in this thread. The first was regarding Choose Your Own Adventure books. The second was the examples that Zer0 Kay agreed with you, and then you called his review of my post as "spot on."

Is it the part where I quote the both of you and state how you both show you'd be respectful of the Game Master's final decision? Is it the first scenario where the vet knows what he's talking about but is still a disruptive jerk? Is it the second scenario where the vet offers a "better" solution but the G.M. is a dismissive jerk? If none of the above, can you quote the part where you feel I was being dismissive?

Again, I was called out directly for this conduct. I don't believe I was, but if someone disagrees I'd like to know how and why. Either I can clarify a position for them, or correct my behaviour of I'm truly in error. Farewell and safe journeys.

[SpiritInterface]

YES, I love you. Are you a professional arbitrator? You always know exactly what I mean and see both sides. Thanks for clarifying, as always.

Spot on.

My problem was that Prysus seemed to dismiss that there could be someone who had knowledge and experience that they were willing to share with the GM to make things better, so they spoke up.

Greetings and Salutations. Since I was called out by name, what part of my post makes you feel I was dismissive of experience and knowledge?

From what I see, I've made two posts in this thread. The first was regarding Choose Your Own Adventure books. The second was the examples that Zer0 Kay agreed with you, and then you called his review of my post as "spot on."

Is it the part where I quote the both of you and state how you both show you'd be respectful of the Game Master's final decision? Is it the first scenario where the vet knows what he's talking about but is still a disruptive jerk? Is it the second scenario where the vet offers a "better" solution but the G.M. is a dismissive jerk? If none of the above, can you quote the part where you feel I was being dismissive?

Again, I was called out directly for this conduct. I don't believe I was, but if someone disagrees I'd like to know how and why. Either I can clarify a position for them, or correct my behaviour of I'm truly in error. Farewell and safe journeys.

My Bad, I got confused by the many buried posts and lost track of who posted what. I apologize for my comment. I really need to not post when tired.

[Fenris2020]

YES, I love you. Are you a professional arbitrator? You always know exactly what I mean and see both sides. Thanks for clarifying, as always. I agree the Vet in scenario 1 is annoying once and a phallus if constant. While the GM in two is an inconsiderate jerk. Now GM 1 and Vet 2 would be fine together. The vet would always end up having fun and the GM would gain experience from a direct source and have those "my friend did..." or "one of my players..." stories that make other people go "holy crap."

Spot on. I defer to the Teacher in our group when he talks to the GM about being a teacher and how schools should be run, and our GM is happy for the advice and knowledge.

As for pouges that think that the know combat, weapons and tactics, we have had a couple join our group and try to show how smart they were. When they discovered we had several of our players were military historians and that we had at least one vet in our group at any one time (at our largest we had three, one of which was a Submarine Nuke Tech) they decided to find a different group.

My problem was that Prysus seemed to dismiss that there could be someone who had knowledge and experience that they were willing to share with the GM to make things better, so they spoke up.

What does a nuke tech know about tactics and weapons...?

[SpiritInterface]

YES, I love you. Are you a professional arbitrator? You always know exactly what I mean and see both sides. Thanks for clarifying, as always. I agree the Vet in scenario 1 is annoying once and a phallus if constant. While the GM in two is an inconsiderate jerk. Now GM 1 and Vet 2 would be fine together. The vet would always end up having fun and the GM would gain experience from a direct source and have those "my friend did..." or "one of my players..." stories that make other people go "holy crap."

Spot on. I defer to the Teacher in our group when he talks to the GM about being a teacher and how schools should be run, and our GM is happy for the advice and knowledge.

As for pouges that think that the know combat, weapons and tactics, we have had a couple join our group and try to show how smart they were. When they discovered we had several of our players were military historians and that we had at least one vet in our group at any one time (at our largest we had three, one of which was a Submarine Nuke Tech) they decided to find a different group.

My problem was that Prysus seemed to dismiss that there could be someone who had knowledge and experience that they were willing to share with the GM to make things better, so they spoke up.

What does a nuke tech know about tactics and weapons...?

Not much but he sure as hell can talk about the how A submarine works and how a Nuclear power system works. When I want to know about weapons on a Submarine I talk to my uncles who are Civilian Techs who load, unload and service the torpedoes and Tomahawks for the navy.

[Fenris2020]

YES, I love you. Are you a professional arbitrator? You always know exactly what I mean and see both sides. Thanks for clarifying, as always. I agree the Vet in scenario 1 is annoying once and a phallus if constant. While the GM in two is an inconsiderate jerk. Now GM 1 and Vet 2 would be fine together. The vet would always end up having fun and the GM would gain experience from a direct source and have those "my friend did..." or "one of my players..." stories that make other people go "holy crap."

Spot on. I defer to the Teacher in our group when he talks to the GM about being a teacher and how schools should be run, and our GM is happy for the advice and knowledge.

As for pouges that think that the know combat, weapons and tactics, we have had a couple join our group and try to show how smart they were. When they discovered we had several of our players were military historians and that we had at least one vet in our group at any one time (at our largest we had three, one of which was a Submarine Nuke Tech) they decided to find a different group.

My problem was that Prysus seemed to dismiss that there could be someone who had knowledge and experience that they were willing to share with the GM to make things better, so they spoke up.

What does a nuke tech know about tactics and weapons...?

Not much but he sure as hell can talk about the how A submarine works and how a Nuclear power system works. When I want to know about weapons on a Submarine I talk to my uncles who are Civilian Techs who load, unload and service the torpedoes and Tomahawks for the navy.

That makes sense.

[Blue_Lion]

Yeah, a GM's overzealous wish to control everything is a huge red flag, I agree. In a way, that's what mine was about as well. Essentially the GM saying, "It doesn't matter how strong or smart you are, the story is happening the way it's happening."

Yea I was at a table and the GM rail-roaded my charter to do something like that.

Spoiler:

Charter had a job to help people off a space station. Charter was a smuggler so I had a small ship with smuggling compartments. I had 6 people on my ship when I landed there was no inspection I off loaded several crates that where not searched. No cargo was loaded on the craft. The people where successfully snuck to the ship through vent shafts in the floor(ship was in a shuttle bay.) Getting ready to leave and to get a inspection. Had to make a skill roll to hide the people. Made the roll one of the people opened the hatch during the inspection getting caught. So the whole thing went side ways. Managed to take out the inspector before he could call for help. But now I can not get permission to leave. So I decide to make a run for it. I use two HE MRM to blow the shuttle bay door after raising my shields. The blast radius of just the two missiles (no chain reaction with other explosives) was 4 times normal stats. I fly out the hole in the shuttle bay door. He then tells me the explosion compromised the whole station killing every one on board. I was shocked how could such a attack take out a whole station with over 100K people. GM asked me why I did not use my lasers and I told him I needed to make a hole for my ship that was much bigger than the lasers and honestly expected to need to shoot a few more missiles to break the door as ships in phase world have so much MDC. As soon as I am clear and see that no one is fallowing I check on the people and find 3 of them dead do to suffocation. So even with a successful roll a smuggler could not smuggle people. Before I could make it to the next port I was already being chased by 2 cosmo knights for blowing up the slaver station killing 100K people. Who turned me in and I was told my charter was found guilty.

So I crumpled up the charter and tossed it in the trash. GM was like why you do that I had plans for him. I said so did I and walked out. Never played with them again.

[zerombr]

Woooow. That was heavy handed

[Zer0 Kay]

I'd like to point out theres a buttload of soldiers who are mediocre shots and dont know how to do anything except a basic field strip and cleaning.

Theres plenty of armchair commandos who can name and replace every part in an AR-15.

But even those crappy shots have still been trained (if it is in their career field) to take a building. A really crappy shot wont qualify and combat specific career fields usually require higher qualifying scores.

[Zer0 Kay]

YES, I love you. Are you a professional arbitrator? You always know exactly what I mean and see both sides. Thanks for clarifying, as always. I agree the Vet in scenario 1 is annoying once and a phallus if constant. While the GM in two is an inconsiderate jerk. Now GM 1 and Vet 2 would be fine together. The vet would always end up having fun and the GM would gain experience from a direct source and have those "my friend did..." or "one of my players..." stories that make other people go "holy crap."

Spot on. I defer to the Teacher in our group when he talks to the GM about being a teacher and how schools should be run, and our GM is happy for the advice and knowledge.

As for pouges that think that the know combat, weapons and tactics, we have had a couple join our group and try to show how smart they were. When they discovered we had several of our players were military historians and that we had at least one vet in our group at any one time (at our largest we had three, one of which was a Submarine Nuke Tech) they decided to find a different group.

My problem was that Prysus seemed to dismiss that there could be someone who had knowledge and experience that they were willing to share with the GM to make things better, so they spoke up.

What does a nuke tech know about tactics and weapons...?

Not much but he sure as hell can talk about the how A submarine works and how a Nuclear power system works. When I want to know about weapons on a Submarine I talk to my uncles who are Civilian Techs who load, unload and service the torpedoes and Tomahawks for the navy.

He would also know what life on a sub is like and what he was assigned to do during general quarters. Additionally he would know how to field strip and break down the weapon(s) he has to qualify with (probably a pistol because he would be an officer) and knows that guns use magazines not clips since the M1 and that a gun can't kill a person, without a person pulling the trigger. That AR in AR-15 doesn't mean assault rifle.

[Fenris2020]

YES, I love you. Are you a professional arbitrator? You always know exactly what I mean and see both sides. Thanks for clarifying, as always. I agree the Vet in scenario 1 is annoying once and a phallus if constant. While the GM in two is an inconsiderate jerk. Now GM 1 and Vet 2 would be fine together. The vet would always end up having fun and the GM would gain experience from a direct source and have those "my friend did..." or "one of my players..." stories that make other people go "holy crap."

Spot on. I defer to the Teacher in our group when he talks to the GM about being a teacher and how schools should be run, and our GM is happy for the advice and knowledge.

As for pouges that think that the know combat, weapons and tactics, we have had a couple join our group and try to show how smart they were. When they discovered we had several of our players were military historians and that we had at least one vet in our group at any one time (at our largest we had three, one of which was a Submarine Nuke Tech) they decided to find a different group.

My problem was that Prysus seemed to dismiss that there could be someone who had knowledge and experience that they were willing to share with the GM to make things better, so they spoke up.

What does a nuke tech know about tactics and weapons...?

Not much but he sure as hell can talk about the how A submarine works and how a Nuclear power system works. When I want to know about weapons on a Submarine I talk to my uncles who are Civilian Techs who load, unload and service the torpedoes and Tomahawks for the navy.

He would also know what life on a sub is like and what he was assigned to do during general quarters. Additionally he would know how to field strip and break down the weapon(s) he has to qualify with (probably a pistol because he would be an officer) and knows that guns use magazines not clips since the M1 and that a gun can't kill a person, without a person pulling the trigger. That AR in AR-15 doesn't mean assault rifle.

I'm pretty sure the navy qualifies via laser tag, rather than actual shooting.