Friendship is Dragons
Updates Tuesdays, Thursdays, and Saturdays
Page 821 - Tactical Empathy
Author Notes:
(Pop-out)
23 Comments:
As someone that's probably insensitive, I think their outrage is a bit exaggerated.
I'm surprised Gilda was as apologetic as she was, even though judging by the title and her follow-up it's most likely an act. Still, I think it was a really convincing act and if she can pull something like that off, I'm surprised she so blatantly slipped up at the end out loud.
I'm surprised Gilda was as apologetic as she was, even though judging by the title and her follow-up it's most likely an act. Still, I think it was a really convincing act and if she can pull something like that off, I'm surprised she so blatantly slipped up at the end out loud.
Her last lines aren't "out loud", I'm pretty sure they're meant as an aside since we don't have thoughts typically in the comic. So it's more internal monologue than actual slip.
As to the outrage, I think it clarifies the interaction in the previous strip. Gilda obviously came on harsher than properly able to express in this format, so we see the appropriate reactions to clarify the moment.
As to the outrage, I think it clarifies the interaction in the previous strip. Gilda obviously came on harsher than properly able to express in this format, so we see the appropriate reactions to clarify the moment.
Four out of five? Four out of five what? Players, I should think, but what does she actually intend to do?
I had a player do something like this to me when I tried to start a game. His goal: get my GM notes and become the GM. Only problem was he didn't due "subtle" or "patient" and caused the game to blow up before character creation. This combined with many other things made me give up on gaming.
Game died before it even started...
He demanded I "promise not to take out any harsh feelings I had against him if he allowed me to play." I chose to quit without giving him anything.
Yeah the four out of five part is weird especially as there are six other players. Seven if you count the DM. So why only "out of five"?
1.) DM
2.) Twilight Sparkle
3.) Apple Jack
4.) Pinkamena Diane Pie (I may not have watched the show yet, but don't underestimate my nerd prowess)
5.) Rarity
6.) Fluttershy
7.) Rainbow Dash
8.) Gilda
Rainbow Dash is already on the standard Gilda feels should be enforced, and naturally she is too. The DM is rarely counted along with the gamers, so that's 3 out of eight down before Gilda counted the ones she needed to work on.
That said, who is the problem child that Gilda feels still needs correcting?
Twilight is almost a munchkin by nature, Apple Jack is much the same for all she pushes it less, and Rarity has all the knowledge she needs to power game, she just chooses not too. So these three are likely "fine" in Gilda's book, for the moment at least.
That leaves just two left. She had some harsh things to say about Pinkie's sheet, but the format of the page suggests that Fluttershy's the one she feels needs improvement.
Ok, now THEY are acting like a dick. Gilda wasn't that bad. Or does she not allowed to have an opinion? She show her disaproval, but she tried to be civil about it at least. The team, on the other hand, is not trying to be civil.
look back over the previous page. She made Fluttershy's player run off crying, or at least that's implied. They do have a reason to get on Gilda's player's case about this.
Eh.
Gilda's player has been disruptive and a little dismissive of their game thus far, and the group is rather tightly knit after all this time.
So, honestly, while they might have rebounded *hard* on Gilda's player for talking down to Fluttershy's player . . . it's not undeserved, and if there's something coming up which is more malicious towards the rest of the party then this was an under-reaction.
And I'm sure it's visible with that last line (to us at least) there are motives less than pure being played around here. I'd wager the "plan" is to draw the group into imploding under trying to fit into the box Gilda's player has in mind for the game.
Gilda's player has been disruptive and a little dismissive of their game thus far, and the group is rather tightly knit after all this time.
So, honestly, while they might have rebounded *hard* on Gilda's player for talking down to Fluttershy's player . . . it's not undeserved, and if there's something coming up which is more malicious towards the rest of the party then this was an under-reaction.
And I'm sure it's visible with that last line (to us at least) there are motives less than pure being played around here. I'd wager the "plan" is to draw the group into imploding under trying to fit into the box Gilda's player has in mind for the game.
If you can be sent crying by "If you sure about it", then you deserve it. There is a clear case of favourism here. The best Gilda can do is to turn her back and leave. She is not going to like playing with this group.
If you look at what Gilda said, and attach the appropriate intonations in your head, she was being quite nasty.
And then acted like it wasn't a big deal at all.
Their reactions aren't that extreme in light of that.
And then acted like it wasn't a big deal at all.
Their reactions aren't that extreme in light of that.
Ah, but that is the heart and the devious trap of such people. What they SAY may not be so objectionable so much as how or when they say it . . . but they will readily act hurt and victimized by over-reaction to other people who weren't there.
That may be the other side of her intent. To play the injured party to others who wouldn't know better, and the only one inside the group in common is Dash's player who people may not trust as being 100% on the level . . .
Ruin the group's name outside of it. Make them infamous for what they haven't done at all.
That may be the other side of her intent. To play the injured party to others who wouldn't know better, and the only one inside the group in common is Dash's player who people may not trust as being 100% on the level . . .
Ruin the group's name outside of it. Make them infamous for what they haven't done at all.
I just had a somewhat evil thought. Now, what if, just to mess with Gilda, the enemies were changelings that mimicked their abilities and power levels? All the min-maxing they did would be essentially worthless - the only way for them to win would be to work together.
Remember, changelings are excellent at team work AND the long con. Just look at how they worked together when they invaded Canterlot. No, the changelings would be a finger of God from the GM with the message: "BECOME CLEVER OR BECOME DEAD." Personally I find optimization of a character as creating a HUGE blind spot consisting of everything else. The most unpredictable and dangerous character I ever made was a well-rounded, slightly above average fighter.
Personally, I see this as Gilda trying to get on with as many of the Group except probably Rarity, as I remember Gilda being somewhat dismissive of her..
Fluttershy being a no no now means she may try and get on with the rest.
She's still a Jerk with what's going on. Am I thinking too far ahead to think she may play Starlight Glimmer later, a definitely min maxed character?
Fluttershy being a no no now means she may try and get on with the rest.
She's still a Jerk with what's going on. Am I thinking too far ahead to think she may play Starlight Glimmer later, a definitely min maxed character?
I had this happen to me once in a game. It completely killed what little interest I had in Scions (I was already off put by the backstory and the fact that the game is literally all about munchkinism).
The big difference between what happened to Fluttershy's player and what happened to me was that Fluttershy's GM is insisting on courtesy and no hurt feelings. In my case, the GM had no problem with other players saying things like "neither I nor my character sees any reason to respect you or your character."
That being said... Fluttershy's player is overreacting a bit. At least, so far. There's a bit of a difference between being told to go $!@# oneself and hearing "Okay, if you're sure" in a condescending tone.
The big difference between what happened to Fluttershy's player and what happened to me was that Fluttershy's GM is insisting on courtesy and no hurt feelings. In my case, the GM had no problem with other players saying things like "neither I nor my character sees any reason to respect you or your character."
That being said... Fluttershy's player is overreacting a bit. At least, so far. There's a bit of a difference between being told to go $!@# oneself and hearing "Okay, if you're sure" in a condescending tone.
The term "Cerebus Syndrome" also predates TVTropes by a fair bit, I believe, and definitely predates its being included on the site -- it comes from Websnark, where it was to refer to GOOD, effective development from comedy to drama, as contrasted to First and Ten Syndrome, which was when it was fumbled and made the whole thing worse.
The term "Cerebus Syndrome" also predates TVTropes by a fair bit, I believe, and definitely predates its being included on the site -- it comes from Websnark, where it was to refer to GOOD, effective development from comedy to drama, as contrasted to First and Ten Syndrome, which was when it was fumbled and made the whole thing worse.
So if you're finding it weird to watch a little bit, don't worry - it's just as strange for me too.
I don't want to fall into full-blown terminal Cerebus Syndrome, though. That, I've been determined against since the very beginning five years ago. (Goes to show how long TVTropes has been mainstream, too, which is kinda crazy.)