<Snipped quote by Abillioncats>
Calling him out for being egotistical when they were simply stating their opinion was rude and wrong. There was nothing egotistical in what they said.
Even if they were, calling them out for it like that is going to cause tempers to flare even more.
Without a central plot or equivalent, subplots are inherently lead by ego, or rather, whoever is the most popular at the time. A GM can offer guidance and oversight, but if they're not going to make any semblance of a central story than those of us who have the misfortune of disagreeing with other players are going to get shafted, or simply forced to do as Crimson mention and stick with their own subplot and hope that someone takes an interest in you. Because as Krayzikk said, subplots shouldn't be relevant to others, which gives everyone a convenient reason not to care about each other. Regardless if your subplot is as important as somehow getting your hands on some sort of WMD or as menial as going to the beach.
I've been at work for hours and the argument is resolved, but I just wish to clarify because people seem to not have parsed what I meant. Most specifically, I didn't call Lucius egotistical; believe me, I've called people egotistical before and it's more straightforward than that.
I referred to a way of thinking as ego, as in, relating to one's ego. Attached to a plural "you", referring to the fact that everyone has an ego and that certain lines of thinking are related to it. Nor was my remark on relevance directed at him specifically, but as a rebuttal to the line of thinking he presented. Which factors in to the second clarification; I never said subplots should be irrelevant, just that whether or not they
are relevant is an irrelevant factor.
But the argument has come and gone, I just wanted to clarify what people seem ro have misinterpreted.
