Rainbow Dash: Alright, I'm gonna do it...
DM: It ain't gonna happen...
Rainbow Dash: Here we go...! <roll>
DM: Don't get your hopes up...!
(beat)
Fluttershy: WOOOOOOOO—!!!!
So... is this the kind of DM who sits there silent and utterly broken for 10 minutes? The kind of DM who flips the table in anger that the player beat all odds to score a 20, or the kind of DM who is like me--spinning in their chair cheering the player and awarding a round of free Exp for everyone because that moment was awesome?
Hey, it's just a game. Why not celebrate with the players and enjoy the moment? I've played under a lot of DMs with a serious "Us vs. Them" mentality, but I always felt it should be more just pretending to be a versus thing. I love joining in player victories when i'm in the hot seat. :D
The DM isn't likely to cheer for this. Too much time arguing against it, and a track record of at the very least being kind of selfish (i.e., wanting people to have fun, but have fun the "right" way) and sulking or getting upset when the players go off the script. Not "us vs. them", but not "everybody's on the same team" either.
I enjoy reading the comic, but I probably wouldn't actually want to play in one of the DM's games. ;)
This really seems like a "Holy crap the roll actually happened" pause.
The "hostility" here was the DM playing the odds - that this 5% thing would in fact fail, and getting frustrated with the players becoming more and more obsessed with this final roll, than moving on.
No, "Lauren" learned to roll with the punches from the first arc (which wrapped up the MANE CAMPAIGN PLOT in the first session), and has proven pretty flexible, if on occasion vexed.
The GM does seem to be being a bit arbitrary here. Requiring two natural 20s out of three rolls... the odds of that happening are quite a bit lower than the 5% that she's telling people not to get their hopes up on now, and there didn't seem to be much thought behind that beyond 'let's throw something virtually impossible at them'.
Yeah, the hostility wasn't in this comic specifically, it's been in the whole sequence.
She arbitrarily decided after the fact that Rainbow Dash would be *backstage* instead of watching her friend whose performance she was specifically worried about, and used that as an excuse to (try to) make Rarity's plan fail.
Because... reasons? It derails the campaign to have Rainbow Dash fail here, doesn't it? I don't get it.
It's a bit of a shame, really. A good gm challenges their players but really has a story to tell and expects the pcs to survive long enough to see it play out.
I'd have put some steep penalties on RDs roll, but I'd still have given her a 50/chance (and then made the roll myself and lied about the result if it was bad. Don't tell my players this)
I'm thinking that the lesson learned in this arc would be on the GM's part, actually. The story is more important than the scene. Even if the players come up with something utterly ludicrous, telling the overall story is FAR more important than getting upset and throwing impossible roadblocks at the players.
A challenge? Sure. A complex die roll? (Where you have to make cumulative rolls to hit a target number before the number of rounds runs out.) Sure. But arbitrarily pulling "three nat 20's because I'm upset and I say so," out of their rear and throwing it into the game is excessive, and detracts from good storytelling.
I think the GM is going to learn the most from this session. Telling the story is more important than forcing the players to follow the rail. And that means recognizing when the rail isn't helping, and be willing to adapt to the changing nature of the game.
If the GM wants to keep a group like that in something resembling control, they have to learn how to adapt back, and shift the scene to change the situation the PC's are throwing at them, in a way that makes the resulting outcome look like it was intended from the beginning. Insisting people stay on the rail is a good path to frustration, for everyone.
So yeah. I figure the GM's got a lot to learn about adapting her playstyle to the evolving game. This will help with that.
Except it was already established back in Hurricane Fluttershy (Act 1 which wound up postponing the action) that the PCs vastly out perform the NPCs by a country mile. Meaning if a PC cannot do it, no way an nPC can succeed...fairly anyways.
As it wasn't enough that the players were being kinda insufferable, the DM must make sure to remind us it's insufferable too. Damn, what a low...
Also, I agree with Digo. Good roleplaying trumps the us-vs-them mentality, that is fairly known. Only if the players *like* to feel antagonized should the DM behave that way, because ultimately the DM is there to ensure everybody has a good time (well, actually everyone should play their part for that objective, but the DM is the one with the most influence on that factor).
Yeah, a good bit of insufferability all around at the table for the session. I guess it happens. Might not have happened so much if that thieves guild wasn't thrown in to mess up Dash's chances at a ticket again. I dunno. Maybe.
It was a good hook to give all the party something to do, and they succeeded. The part where Rarity was still forced to work as if she was trying to win was kind of a stretch though, pitting PCs against each other is calling for trouble, although Rarity's player really, *really* didn't think it through.
You know. I think a lot of people are forgetting the fact that the Session has already could LUDUCIOUSRLY off-track when Pinkie got her Streetwise Natural 20 whilst searching for an underground betting ring.
Just. Keep that in mind when it comes to judging the DM. I'm not going to dictate to you HOW that changes the situation above. But I think it is incredibly important to keep in mind.
Also: I fail to see what the issue is with the Thieves Guild. They are obviously the arc-villains. In fact, you know what? I'm calling Blueblood being Elusive right here, right now.
Oh no, I remember. Every. Single. Natural. 20. In. This. Comic.
And also I have my trusty calculator nearby to remind my what's a probability of such events in real life.
@Kaze
One of my previous groups had an event blessed by the Dice Gods themselves. On this occasion a critical was a 19 or a 20. There were 7 people, DM included. For one heal ability and various assists, altogether _19_ crits were rolled on various REAL d20s in near succession (there were a few non-crits in the mix, but no failures). It was magic.
I honestly think Pinkie Pie was in the right when she brought it up. People are arguing the die vs roleplaying but I don't see why. In my mind shouldn't what Pinkie brings up be what's happening? Rainbow has rolled a high streak of dice getting progressively higher. Let's say the 17 was her pushing herself to her limit, the 18 would be going a bit beyond that right? The 19 would be pushing further to hit the sound barrier and the 20 we assume she just rolled would be it breaking.
Honestly if the DM wasn't being so stuck up about the situation, because let's not forget it's their stupid idea to bring the thieves guild into everything and made Rarity the one to go against Rainbow in this, then they should have noticed it first. A DM's job is to create the world and then let the campaign play out the dice rolls is just a number representation of what's happening, therefore they should have noticed the sequence and thought "okay how would this look, what is Rainbow Dash doing right now?".
Also the DM is being irrationally frustrated about this. Look at the last comic, they have a backup plan, one established when Rarity knocked out the wonderbolts. They rolled to see how long they'd be out for and presumably it would end before they all died. So why not let the plan go through? Besides the DM is the one encouraging Rainbow, the element of LOYALTY remember, that trying to save her friend is a stupid idea and can't be managed. After congratulating her on finally getting into roleplaying. No matter which way you put it the DM is in the wrong.
"Honestly if the DM wasn't being so stuck up about the situation, because let's not forget it's their stupid idea to bring the thieves guild into everything and made Rarity the one to go against Rainbow in this, then they should have noticed it first. "
I was under the impression this was something Rarity's player decided to drop on the GM either at the last minute or with no warning.
One of the people I used to game (my brother's friend) with rolled 4 20's in a row (same odds as this). Being 2nd edition, that instantly killed the dragon. On the first attack of the encounter. The DM ruled that it was a random encounter.
I have to step in for the DM, here.
If that would have been my group, Rarity would, most likely, be dead.
I'm willing to fudge the dice or come up with a save if a player had a bad die roll, but having the players make suicidally bad choices, and then denying the "save" I throw their way? Nope. Zero tolerance.
How are the players going to feel any kind of suspense if they can rely on the DM saving their characters if they argue long enough about it? It would turn the game in to a wish-fulfillment fantasy more than anything else.
Also, seeing that this is a fantasy setting, and levitation/flight spells are a dime a dozen (featherfall, much?), there's always the lifeline of someone saving Rarity via spell.
Alternately, the GM could have rarity die, and then run a storyline focused on her resurrection (which is the approach I would most likely take).
I understand that many players get upset when their characters die, but in the end, it's just a game/story. Characters die. The DM is neither bad, nor spiteful, for saying the character is going to die, in a situation like this. And the DM is not a bad person for attempting to maintain campaign stability by putting a foot down on godmode/mary-sue plays.
Thank you, this is exactly it. I don't think there is any malice in this decision this is a DM simply making the players aware "stupid decisions lead to harsh consequences" In any actual game I've been in if a player jumps off a skyscraper while hoping that screaming on the way down gets someone to toss them a rope, but refuses any not thrown by a player, they'd almost certainly end up dead.
"I have to step in for the DM, here.
If that would have been my group, Rarity would, most likely, be dead."
I probably would not have let it get this far, this much suspense, and definitely no "let's get the perfect d20" shenanigans.
I've been watching commentary about how bad this whole thing is for the GM when it's their job to make the adjudication fairly and quickly. If it's not covered in the rules, it's on them to come up with something fast to avoid stalling the game long enough for them to do so.
It's also on them to make sure the game is fun, yes, but if you decide to set a precedent you had better damn well be ready to accept it coming back to bite you later. Which it has in this last arc, since Rarity has been trying to run the game now rather than the GM.
There's a difference between cooperating with a player or your players to come up with a good story, and having a player drop it on you blind. Doing that to me, and forcing me into "night doing improv" for however long until you want to stop and let someone else play?
You're not going to make me happy about following through, and expect me to defer to you rather than be the GM - you've hijacked my game, now you get to run it without my full cooperation.
Which, I will reiterate, you more than likely would have had if you had set it up before acting.
Yeah. That the reaction of the least spoken ones. XD
The best odds I ever had was with a made up rule that you may call "celestial win" and "devilish fail". If you got 77 or 66 on a D100, then you rolled up a D10. if you get 777 it was better than a 01, if it was a 666 it's worst than a 100.
Let's just say mister boss didn't even manage to rise. XD
This campaign was soooo strange. even if it's like 1/1000 chance we always get a 777 or a 666 during a game. I think the odds were more around 1/50. That was crazy but one of the funniest game I ever had.
This was an actual mechanic in In Nomine, on the d666. rolling 1-1-1 or 6-6-6 would be really good or really bad, depending on which "team" you were on.
Well then. I think this GM is probably as flabbergasted as my GM when I managed to force water down the boss's throat and freeze it, killing him instantly. I love elemental monks
That may be the biggest holy crap of the scene.
Hey, it's just a game. Why not celebrate with the players and enjoy the moment? I've played under a lot of DMs with a serious "Us vs. Them" mentality, but I always felt it should be more just pretending to be a versus thing. I love joining in player victories when i'm in the hot seat. :D
I enjoy reading the comic, but I probably wouldn't actually want to play in one of the DM's games. ;)
The "hostility" here was the DM playing the odds - that this 5% thing would in fact fail, and getting frustrated with the players becoming more and more obsessed with this final roll, than moving on.
No, "Lauren" learned to roll with the punches from the first arc (which wrapped up the MANE CAMPAIGN PLOT in the first session), and has proven pretty flexible, if on occasion vexed.
She arbitrarily decided after the fact that Rainbow Dash would be *backstage* instead of watching her friend whose performance she was specifically worried about, and used that as an excuse to (try to) make Rarity's plan fail.
Because... reasons? It derails the campaign to have Rainbow Dash fail here, doesn't it? I don't get it.
I'd have put some steep penalties on RDs roll, but I'd still have given her a 50/chance (and then made the roll myself and lied about the result if it was bad. Don't tell my players this)
A challenge? Sure. A complex die roll? (Where you have to make cumulative rolls to hit a target number before the number of rounds runs out.) Sure. But arbitrarily pulling "three nat 20's because I'm upset and I say so," out of their rear and throwing it into the game is excessive, and detracts from good storytelling.
I think the GM is going to learn the most from this session. Telling the story is more important than forcing the players to follow the rail. And that means recognizing when the rail isn't helping, and be willing to adapt to the changing nature of the game.
If the GM wants to keep a group like that in something resembling control, they have to learn how to adapt back, and shift the scene to change the situation the PC's are throwing at them, in a way that makes the resulting outcome look like it was intended from the beginning. Insisting people stay on the rail is a good path to frustration, for everyone.
So yeah. I figure the GM's got a lot to learn about adapting her playstyle to the evolving game. This will help with that.
From then on players learned that fast-talking GM is a BAD idea.
Also, I agree with Digo. Good roleplaying trumps the us-vs-them mentality, that is fairly known. Only if the players *like* to feel antagonized should the DM behave that way, because ultimately the DM is there to ensure everybody has a good time (well, actually everyone should play their part for that objective, but the DM is the one with the most influence on that factor).
Just. Keep that in mind when it comes to judging the DM. I'm not going to dictate to you HOW that changes the situation above. But I think it is incredibly important to keep in mind.
Also: I fail to see what the issue is with the Thieves Guild. They are obviously the arc-villains. In fact, you know what? I'm calling Blueblood being Elusive right here, right now.
And also I have my trusty calculator nearby to remind my what's a probability of such events in real life.
One of my previous groups had an event blessed by the Dice Gods themselves. On this occasion a critical was a 19 or a 20. There were 7 people, DM included. For one heal ability and various assists, altogether _19_ crits were rolled on various REAL d20s in near succession (there were a few non-crits in the mix, but no failures). It was magic.
Honestly if the DM wasn't being so stuck up about the situation, because let's not forget it's their stupid idea to bring the thieves guild into everything and made Rarity the one to go against Rainbow in this, then they should have noticed it first. A DM's job is to create the world and then let the campaign play out the dice rolls is just a number representation of what's happening, therefore they should have noticed the sequence and thought "okay how would this look, what is Rainbow Dash doing right now?".
Also the DM is being irrationally frustrated about this. Look at the last comic, they have a backup plan, one established when Rarity knocked out the wonderbolts. They rolled to see how long they'd be out for and presumably it would end before they all died. So why not let the plan go through? Besides the DM is the one encouraging Rainbow, the element of LOYALTY remember, that trying to save her friend is a stupid idea and can't be managed. After congratulating her on finally getting into roleplaying. No matter which way you put it the DM is in the wrong.
I was under the impression this was something Rarity's player decided to drop on the GM either at the last minute or with no warning.
If that would have been my group, Rarity would, most likely, be dead.
I'm willing to fudge the dice or come up with a save if a player had a bad die roll, but having the players make suicidally bad choices, and then denying the "save" I throw their way? Nope. Zero tolerance.
How are the players going to feel any kind of suspense if they can rely on the DM saving their characters if they argue long enough about it? It would turn the game in to a wish-fulfillment fantasy more than anything else.
Also, seeing that this is a fantasy setting, and levitation/flight spells are a dime a dozen (featherfall, much?), there's always the lifeline of someone saving Rarity via spell.
Alternately, the GM could have rarity die, and then run a storyline focused on her resurrection (which is the approach I would most likely take).
I understand that many players get upset when their characters die, but in the end, it's just a game/story. Characters die. The DM is neither bad, nor spiteful, for saying the character is going to die, in a situation like this. And the DM is not a bad person for attempting to maintain campaign stability by putting a foot down on godmode/mary-sue plays.
If that would have been my group, Rarity would, most likely, be dead."
I probably would not have let it get this far, this much suspense, and definitely no "let's get the perfect d20" shenanigans.
I've been watching commentary about how bad this whole thing is for the GM when it's their job to make the adjudication fairly and quickly. If it's not covered in the rules, it's on them to come up with something fast to avoid stalling the game long enough for them to do so.
It's also on them to make sure the game is fun, yes, but if you decide to set a precedent you had better damn well be ready to accept it coming back to bite you later. Which it has in this last arc, since Rarity has been trying to run the game now rather than the GM.
There's a difference between cooperating with a player or your players to come up with a good story, and having a player drop it on you blind. Doing that to me, and forcing me into "night doing improv" for however long until you want to stop and let someone else play?
You're not going to make me happy about following through, and expect me to defer to you rather than be the GM - you've hijacked my game, now you get to run it without my full cooperation.
Which, I will reiterate, you more than likely would have had if you had set it up before acting.
The best odds I ever had was with a made up rule that you may call "celestial win" and "devilish fail". If you got 77 or 66 on a D100, then you rolled up a D10. if you get 777 it was better than a 01, if it was a 666 it's worst than a 100.
Let's just say mister boss didn't even manage to rise. XD
This campaign was soooo strange. even if it's like 1/1000 chance we always get a 777 or a 666 during a game. I think the odds were more around 1/50. That was crazy but one of the funniest game I ever had.
"NEIGHAGARA FALLS!
Slowly I turned.
Step by step.
Hoof by hoof!"