Page 1152 - Saved by the Cloud

6th Dec 2018, 6:00 AM
<<First Latest>>
Saved by the Cloud
Average Rating: 0 (0 votes)
<<First Latest>>

Author Notes:

Newbiespud 6th Dec 2018, 6:00 AM edit delete
Newbiespud
As I was thinking about this scene, it occurred to me: We kinda dropped the whole 'friendship lesson' thing within the first few sessions of the comic, so that wouldn't be the thing that turns it around...

62 Comments:

Khyrin 6th Dec 2018, 6:18 AM edit delete reply
Was not expecting that turnabout.
Specter 6th Dec 2018, 6:28 AM edit delete reply
Specter
This feels like this is going into 'feels' territory, and I'm getting all giddy and excited for it.
Anon 6th Dec 2018, 6:34 AM edit delete reply
Yes, bring on the feels!
ThatGuest 6th Dec 2018, 6:48 AM edit delete reply
Yep, in the end, as GMs we're supposed to give the players a place where they can have their adventures and write their stories.
Enigmatic Jack 6th Dec 2018, 6:54 AM edit delete reply
That's what bugs me about the popular "GM vs. PCs" trope. I know that for a lot of people that's just tossed around as a joke... but there are some people out there who think that's how the game is actually supposed to be played.
Digo Dragon 6th Dec 2018, 7:07 AM edit delete reply
Digo Dragon
As a very experienced DM, I can tell you that such a trope doesn't workout for many groups. Most players I've had just want to have a fun social experience, and what table top RPGs can do really well is be used as a tool to create a fun, social experience.
Godzfirefly 6th Dec 2018, 9:13 AM edit delete reply
@Digo

I'd say yes and no. In the old days of early D&D, antagonistic DMing was pretty common, so also pretty accepted. It was part of the social experience and social contract. It was part of how both players and DMs had fun.

And, if the players expect antagonistic DMing (that part is VERY important) then the experience really is fun. Indeed, if the players expect an antagonistic DM and get one that's working with them instead, that can ruin that particular type of group's fun. They want the challenge and the risk. They aren't having fun if their characters aren't periodically dying. If they feel the DM isn't giving them that risk/challenge, they will push for it until either the DM breaks or they get what they want. Sometimes by intentionally ignoring the storyline and looking for more challenging foes. Sometimes by trying to skip the weaker stuff and going to the end of the story early.

Either way, the difference in playstyle between DM and players when the players want an antagonistic DM and the DM isn't that can be just as damaging to group dynamics as if they want a cooperative DM and get an antagonistic one.
Albert 6th Dec 2018, 12:03 PM edit delete reply
Antagonistic DMs were an evolutionary adaptation of the wargaming ancestry of D&D.

In wargames, the referee was the neutral arbiter of the decisions made by the players. (And often had to decide the outcome of requests by the players that weren't strictly covered by the established ruleset, which incidentally is where the Old-School 'rulings not rules' mindset comes from.) War and diplomacy was conducted by players against other players. Some of the impetus to play D&D was to provide backstory for the hero units that would eventually be the lords of realms fighting each other.

Since gaming groups functioned better when PC adventurers worked together instead of fighting each other - particularly when the player pool was small enough that every got together to play together more-or-less each session - the DM had to take on the role of the opposition as well as being the neutral arbiter.

People from a wargaming background had some understanding that the ref wasn't supposed to be there to screw you over any more than he or she was there to hold your hand and wipe your nose, but D&D exploded and drew in a lot of players who lacked that background experience. Unfortunately, the instruction for novice DMs was haphazard and the results were varied. _Widely_ varied.

In fact, on page 92 of the 1e DMG, Gygax admits that he screwed up in terms of instructing novice DMs, resulting in the immoderate extremes of both Monty Haul and Killer Dungeon campaigns. Unfortunately, AD&D was a hot mess in terms of rules and didn't help guide the DMs who needed that help the most.

The post-TSR official policy seems to be that DMs are supposed to provide stories and victories to the players. The dissatisfaction with that - the similarity to Monty Haul campaigns - is likely a contributing factor to the nostalgia fueling the OSR movement.

FiD's DM is frustrated because she had a set of dramatic solutions in mind for her campaign and Twilight's player came up with solutions that took a shortcut. Bringing in DiscorDM was . . . well, it resulted in illuminating another angle the structural weakness of DMing while already 'knowing' how the plot is 'supposed' to go.
Digo Dragon 6th Dec 2018, 1:52 PM edit delete reply
Digo Dragon
@Godzfirefly

In the old days there were many things that were "socially accepted" that are not now. I don't need to provide any examples as I'm sure you understand history.

Still, just because it was thought of as okay then, it didn't make it right. My gaming experience goes as far back as 1995/96 with second edition D&D. I've dealt with groups where a GM had that mentality of "me versus you" and even if the players expected it, it isn't fun when the GM has essentially Discord-like god powers while you only have a level 3 character.

And I'm not saying challenge in itself is bad. I like to challenge my players and I myself enjoy a hard-won fight. But the mentality I'm referring too is the unhealthy one where the GM will always win because they said so. You will lose your agency, you will be railroaded, and your character will ultimately die in the adventure because that is what the GM expects. Those are the GMs to avoid.
Paradoxical 7th Dec 2018, 5:04 AM edit delete reply
Arguably that is still a cooperative DM.
TheStratovarian 6th Dec 2018, 10:12 AM edit delete reply
TheStratovarian
@Digo.

I grew up under dealing with so many gms like how discord has been, that I got to the level of discord in knowing the rules, how to break them, how to ensure that only a gm fiat could force a death outside dice.

And it shapes you dealing with gms like the discord. Holy heck, 4 generations of game later, and im still unlearning the bad habits those gms instilled.

I outside two gms, will never still make a family, a town, or give them anything possible to use against me in backstory. I will fight, i will be a gm's bane to hell and high water at the suspicion of killer/ringer tendencies.

To show what kind of breaking i can do. I took, with nothing more than a mage hand and natural flight, from a level 20 wizard stuff the gm was going to save for a needed encounter. With a sorcerer. The gm outside fiat couldnt do anything, as he said in voice chat.

I know how to break a system. It's a problem that I had to learn to be able to play, and enjoy the game then.

That I could do that, was likely an eye opener for the gm. I have been in twilights steps, but the end result of having that gm style constantly. Not the good one that she actually has, and that has made a mistake calling in the other.


I get why twilight is flustered as a player, i have walked in that kind of step, and the end result as a player isnt pretty. It's ball of distrusting hate that would give any ling it meets cardiac arrest.
Digo Dragon 6th Dec 2018, 2:00 PM edit delete reply
Digo Dragon
@TheStratovarian

I too grew up dealing with these GMs, but I guess I had a better result of it, as I didn't pick up as many of the habits you describe. Yes, I did learn Discord's level I knowing the rules, the loopholes, the wording of fiat, but I felt that in most of my experiences running, I knew those things to remind me what not to do in handling players. Give them some agency, give them some choice. Make it feel challenging without making it frustrating.

I wasn't perfect. I think rail-roading was my biggest fault in my early DM years, but I'm always getting better at it these years than last. The one quirk I still retain these days is that I always use "DM" to refer to myself and "GM" to refer to any other game judge. Heh.

As for backgrounds, yeah I can see the fear in putting something down that can get used against you. I love using backgrounds to give the players side-quests, but I feel that it has to have a two-way communication on expectations to work right so you don't feel burned for writing a sibling or family or estate that the GM can use. I been there. I try not to burn a PC unless they want me to.

P.S. Is that icon new?
TheStratovarian 6th Dec 2018, 5:17 PM edit delete reply
TheStratovarian
@digo
Changed it today, one i've had on my da for a bit. (Maluhia, from a forum rp for the icon.) Love the zebra's.

But, yeah, the first, is a good friend of mine. 10-11 years of him dm'ing, and him offering me to a 5e game for things.

And the other, a new, but a ponyfinder game, going on two years. He went down expected paths, but he had reasons for doing that, well, were good. And played in very well to the party's revival of lashstada.

And the 5e game, I had a character retire happily for things. And a sister in matters that the gm and friend put good work into. She was more hated for being a stuck up bleep, and blackmailing a king to keep her brother out of the knights.

A mother that cheated on dad after he cheated on her. The nature of family and some good young and the restless style crud. And it was and still is a bit of a major hub for things in the game. I gave him a ton of info on why, how, and types. And he built a city and location around it.

From slaying a dragon, to breaking a lich's phylactery, even aiding against a tiamat inspired hobgoblin horde.


A good gm, can give you an amazing experience with your backstory, or a patron (If warlock and 5e) and it is a huge way to immerse a player in the game.

We just spent about four sessions trying to reach our kobold rogue's people before the undead claimed them. And this was to a point of them if he wasnt sure if he wanted to throttle them, or leave them to their fate.

Just to have our theurge (Wizard ua) find a clever way to ensure they could escape before they attacked a final time.
The Old One 6th Dec 2018, 10:51 AM edit delete reply
Actually, as a GM, I see things as telling my story with the players having an effect, but really just knocking down the pins as I set them up.
Maybe that's because I'm heavily influenced by modules or because I like to adapt novels or episodes into game terms, but I am not by any stretch a "sandbox" GM.
That said, I have learned the value of flexibility, so I can adjust on the fly if the players do something unexpected
ThatGuest 6th Dec 2018, 11:07 AM edit delete reply
Knocking down the pins you set up is fine but theres no reason to have the bumpers up and so close together that all the players really have to do is put the ball between them and push and let everything happen on it's own. You can still have the bumpers up if you want to be safe for important parts of the story but at least let the players bowl, whether they strike or split.
Dragonflight 6th Dec 2018, 4:40 PM edit delete reply
I've made my share of mistakes early on. Sometimes, I'll revisit moments I particularly remember, and someone will comment that they'd actually felt railroaded in that sequence. So there's no guarantee things will be as *perfect* as you'd like them to be, or that they'll be remembered as fondly as you will. Just let the players know you're working to overcome the rail issue, but that sometimes there will be some events that have to happen a certain way to advance the story. If you have a mature group, they'll understand.

An example of that for me would be the Star Wars game I ran a couple years back. The game started in the Clone War CGI era. The PC's started out as agents of the Jedi (although only two and a half of them were Jedi. I say one of them was half a Jedi because he gamed the system, did morally reprehensible things and then rationalized it all away by saying that because he didn't overtly kill random innocents, he refused to accept any DSP's I awarded him for being Evil.)

Anyway, the plotline called for the fall of the Republic, and the rise of the Imperial Era. Except... the PC's managed to hold on to Coruscant. Yoda (the Sith Lord in my game with Palpatine as his puppet,) had relocated to the Ciutric Hegemony to build a new throneworld, and thanks to the recovered and rebuilt remnants of the Star Forge technology, he had built the capability to churn out large numbers of robot TIE fighters.

Faced with hordes of new Star Destroyers armed with keel gun versions of the Death Star superlaser, the PC's came up with an improvised defense built on loyal Republic fleet assets, civilian pilots, and mercenaries who opposed Darth Yoda. Despite throwing a surprise fleet at them with the ability to kill capships, they managed to drive off the Imperials and keep the seat of the Republic alive.

The net result was that the Empire was only *half* the galaxy, while the Republic took the other half.

Now, some of the players complained that I was railroading the Rise of the Empire storyline. They'd managed to save Coruscant, and drive Yoda's forces back. They argued that it should be a mostly still-Republic galaxy against a small holdout around Ciutric.

I reminded them that the Rise of the Empire was assumed in the storyline, and would happen when it was appropriate for it to happen. The PC's had managed the impossible and retained fully *half* the galaxy. But the Imperial Era was still a thing, and was always intended to be.

Sometimes the rails exist for a reason. When some of them argued that it should be *their* version of events, I asked them point-blank what game they'd like to run next. Because if we went with their suggestion, the Star Wars game was already finished. They sort of sat back and chewed on that one for a bit, and finally agreed that they wanted a lot more Star Wars. So they ran with the status quo.
obscurereader 6th Dec 2018, 5:08 PM edit delete reply
@Dragonflight, I can respect that you threw the players a bone and had it so the galaxy was split in half rather than fully taken over by the Empire thanks to the efforts of the pcs, but I would like to raise a couple of questions involving your last paragraph. I can understand wanting to tell a story involving the Empire coming to power and the pcs having to deal with it (so fair enough if you really didn't want to run a Star Wars game without having the Rising Empire premise go through in some fashion as a dm), so was that the reason you would end the Star Wars game if the players' suggested version of events was taken? I feel like there are multiple directions to take story in the player version of events mentioned (ex: hunting down Darth Yoda, ferreting out corruption and his influence within the Republic and the Jedi Order, stamping out the remnants of Evil!Yoda's failed takeover attempt, preparing for Evil!Yoda's return, etc.) and I personally can't really think of any other reason to not go with the Republic still in control beyond just not wanting to tell that kind of story. I'm not entirely sure I'm properly understanding why you wanted to end the game if the players' desired events were taken, so is it all right if you could elaborate on your reasons, for clarity's sake? (Don't want to start a fight or anything, I just want to know what your thought process was there).
Dragonflight 7th Dec 2018, 8:58 PM edit delete reply
Hmm. Don't worry about flaming or anything. I'm a fairly laid-back guy.

The Star Wars game was built on several concepts. It began during the stealth flight to Christophsis in the Clone Wars CGI, and went forward from there. I imported a lot of stuff from all over. David Xanatos from Gargoyles was the Republic's chief weapons contractor, for instance, and he lived in a palatial tower above the Coruscant clouds. Stuff like that.

Yoda was the Sith Lord in the game, drawing from the KOTOR games by Bioware. In the first game, your character is eventually confronted by a creature of the same race as Yoda. He lectures your character, explaining you are actually Darth Revan, but he had the council mindwipe you and implant a false identity. Then in the second game, he is supposedly killed on Coruscant while hiding from the Darth Nihilus.

My take on that was, what if he faked his death? What if by using the Force to rewrite a person's mind, he opened himself up to corruption? And then he started following a darker path on the road to becoming a full-fledged (and virtually immortal) Sith Lord.

(next msg)
Dragonflight 7th Dec 2018, 9:04 PM edit delete reply
Fast Forward to the present day. Vandar Tokare, the entity known as Yoda, is four thousand years old. Made possible by using the Dark Side to steal life energy from others, and a talent called Pall of the Dark Side to conceal his power from the Light side practitioners.

His goal was to use the skills gained over four thousand years to deal with a threat to the whole galaxy. In the Expanded Universe series of books, one of the underlying concepts was a Celestial entity called Malastare. She was created by a group of corrupt Celestials who wanted to evolve to the same kind of "living Force" entities others of their kind had already achieved. But they were dark siders, and couldn't. The greatest among them got somehow trapped in the Dark Side and became a near-mindless predator which later corrupted a human girl who was in love with a Celestial. I took some of that and changed it for the game.

In my game, this cabal believed that if they could create a schism into the Dark Side itself, they could create an Entity who could effectively bootstrap them all into becoming living Darkside Entities.

They blew it badly.

The result killed them, but resulted in the creation of a lifeform which existed in the Dark Side. Its initial forays into basic intellectual and emotional development led to the rise and fall of the Rakatan Empire. Then it went silent for about thirty thousand years. Then, with the appearance of Darth Nihilus, it began to stir once more.

Yoda, seeing this as a pre-eminent threat to the galaxy, began a lifelong quest to find a way to destroy this threat. Along the way, he went darkside, believing in his twisted logic that the Pall talent would allow him to hide himself from Malastare's awareness.

The scary part was, he was correct. But the price was more than he should have tried to pay.

(next msg)
Dragonflight 7th Dec 2018, 9:11 PM edit delete reply
The point of the story was to deal with the Dark Side entity, and to oppose Yoda in his quest to eventually supplant Malastare by killing and absorbing her essence in the last fight of the game.

But in order to make any of that happen, Yoda needed something. The EU version of Star Wars had these three ancient Celestial space stations, which were part of a galactic project of titanic proportion. They collectively created and sustained the Maw. The collection of clustered black holes no one could fly through without being destroyed. If the stations were destroyed, the maw would drift apart or consume itself.

In the center, imprisoned by all the black holes, was the Celestial home star system, where Malastare was imprisoned. They couldn't just destroy the planet, because the physical tear into the Dark Side would remain. So they decided instead to make it as inaccessible as possible. But there was always the chance that someone could bypass the ancient security, and make the stations move the Maw singularities enough to open the only safe path through the Maw.

In order for this to happen, Yoda needed several things. He needed a substantial starfleet in order to hold off enemy forces while he made his move. He needed an army to hold the stations and the systems they were in while he was on the Celestial homeworld, so that he wouldn't be trapped inside. And he needed a large contingent of dark side sith to support him because history had proven over and over that where Sith go, Jedi follow.

If I had allowed the PC's to hijack the planned game enough that Yoda was prevented from gathering the required forces needed to secure the space stations, the game was already over. If he couldn't get to Malastare to challenge the entity for its Dark Side power, his entire plotline simply ceases to exist, and all of a sudden, the entire main plot arc is nullified.

I couldn't tell the players all that at the time, it would have been the equivalent of reading the last chapter of a book before they got there. But the basic truth was that if the PC's had been allowed to completely prevent Yoda's acquisition of a sufficiently large army and navy to support his actions, the game was already done. Nothing he could do after that would allow him to succeed in his mission, and there was no point in continuing.
obscurereader 8th Dec 2018, 2:34 AM edit delete reply
Hm... Interesting. It sounds like you really wanted the story to focus on the Greater Scope Evil that was the Dark Side Entity (with Evil!Yoda being a slightly more small scale but still important main antagonist/Big Bad due to his motives and methods). I can understand not wanting Evil!Yoda's main plan dropped out of the gate, at least.

However, there still is something I'm a little bit curious about - why not try creating other ways for Yoda to take down the stations/access the Maw? I'm sorry, but I am not quite understanding why Evil!Yoda had to accomplish his goals in precisely the way you outlined, unfortunately... Am I making any sense in my questioning/confusion?

To throw some ideas out there as examples - not necessarily the greatest ideas, but just stuff I thought of just trying to think through the scenario to get to the same general area with the pc's overwhelming victory in-canon - what about having Evil!Yoda attempt a stealth mission in desperation to destroy one of the space stations and let the destabilization take the Dark Side Creature with it/open a path so he could make his move as the destabilization spread to consume the power of the subsequently emerging creature? Or having him go outside the galaxy to try and subjugate peoples not seen by the main galaxy to build a new army in secret and attack the stations that way? Or maybe he starts with trying to turn the players, make his greatest enemies his allies in his quest so he can start rebuilding a functional army and come up with a stronger offensive/solution? Or, in his desperation, he hijacks a prototype superweapon being developed by the Republic/his old forces before his defeat to fly out to the Maw and cause the Maw to expand or something to kill the entity, threatening the entire galaxy? (In all of this, the players could be pursuing Evil!Yoda's attempts and trying to thwart him, while slowly uncovering the existence of the Dark Side Entity and coming up with countermeasures on their own). The players could eventually have been confronted with Evil!Yoda's motives at some point, too, and then have to figure out how to deal with the bigger threat - do they perhaps try to work with Evil!Yoda in an Enemy Mine situation to stop him from going too far in the name of stopping the entity, or do they perhaps find their own solutions while doing their best to not fall to the Dark Side like Evil!Yoda did?
Dragonflight 8th Dec 2018, 9:00 PM edit delete reply
The PC's response to the event they had was to use the power of the Light to overcome and destroy Malastare.

Since Yoda had the forces he needed to secure the stations, he managed to manipulate the Maw singularities to open the path. The passage was narrow, and it wasn't possible to take a whole starfleet through. Nothing large than a blockade runner could go through the corridor, limiting the available forces. But if the stations' security were reinstated, even that would close off, and whoever was in that star system would be trapped there, isolated from the entire galaxy.

The problem I had with a stealth solution regarding the stations was that all it would take is the PC's realizing what's up, and just reset the security system. Why bother confronting Yoda, when the ancient Celestials devised the perfect mousetrap? Just flick the switch, and cue the closing credits.

He needed some way to secure the stations for the duration of the plan. Plus, as the PC's had been slowly destroying his dark side assets galaxywide during the campaign, he realized eventually he didn't actually *have* the planetary assets he needed to take the Celestial world. In the end, he had to lure the PC's there, to deal with the local defenses while he used Pall to sneak around just out of sight until he was ready to make his move.

The PC's believed that if one of their Jedi with no Dark Side Points on their character sheet voluntarily sacrificed themselves by entering the Dark Schism and channeling the Light, they could destroy Malastare. The trick was surviving long enough to get there, and pull it off.

There was a moment in the game when the PC's were lured to Ciutric to speak with Darth Yoda. He had sent a PC's character's father, who had been selectively reprogrammed using Tokare's favorite force trick, turning the NPC against the player. The NPC tried running the morally gray explanation Mr. Morden used in Babylon 5, when explaining what the Shadows stood for in the episode where he drops a White Star on Z'Hadum. The PC's didn't buy it any more than Sheridan did. So that was right out.
(next msg)
Dragonflight 8th Dec 2018, 9:08 PM edit delete reply
As for superweapons, I was trying to avoid too many "oh look! Another superweapon no one knew about!" moments. There were precious few to work with. The Death Star Plans had been discovered before the thing was even built, and because one of the players was allied with the morally gray Bothan Spy Network, they gave the Network a copy of the plans. Before you could facepalm, copies of that battle station were everywhere in the galaxy. Which is why Darth Yoda built keel guns for his capships instead of building a Death Star. He saw no profit in such a long undertaking, when he needed shipkillers *now*.

The PC's, ironically, were their own worst enemy there. They took scavenged and reconstructed core tap technology from the Star Forge, combined it with several automated shipyards, a powerful droid brain programmed by a PC to be as smart and intuitive as possible, and loaded in a modified Death Star blueprint which turned it into the galaxy's biggest mobile micro Dyson Sphere... which just happened to have a planet-killing superlaser mounted on it. The thing wound up possessed by a Sith Ghost from the Rakatan Empire era, and using the Star Forge technology, made itself functional and mobile far faster than it should have been able to.

Then one of the players, playing an ambitious Senator, who had maneuvered the New Republic to make himself first part of the Executor's Council (above the Senate,) and then finally the Supreme Chancellor, revealed the existence of his Death Star to the galaxy. Purely in the interests of encouraging peace, you understand...

Yeah. That went over about as well as you can imagine.

Since Yoda had lost a massive resource to make armies with, and since the Mandalorian contingent had created a corridor of neutral systems in the middle of what was Imperial space, Yoda had manpower problems. His solution was the Dark Trooper project from the early Star Wars first person shooter games.
(next msg)
Dragonflight 8th Dec 2018, 9:08 PM edit delete reply
He took a single, genetically perfect human specimen, and used the technology created by the Kamino to imprint a personality into the soldier. The personality was... *limited.* To put it mildly. A common insult in the Star Wars universe was to call clone troopers "wet droids." As one of the players commented when they saw the Dark Troopers deploying from biotech storage pods, calling them wet droids was insulting both clone troopers, and droids.

Physically, each Dark Trooper looked like Arnold Schwarzenegger. They were deployed from their biotech pod in nothing but a thin skinsuit. They'd get into their Dark Trooper armor, which would be right in front of them, and then proceed to kill anyone they were pointed at. When not needed, they'd reverse the process, their biopods stacked and racked in life support bays until needed again.

This system was about as cold as I could imagine someone like Yoda making the armed forces of the Empire like. Utterly inhuman and impersonal. Each soldier actually *less* than a robot killing machine, while at the same time, capable of greater feats of intuition.

The PC's kept Yoda's research on its back leg most of the game, preventing him from having more than a couple regiments of those things at any given time. When he figured out how to use the same tech to safely create bioengineered Sith, they *really* turned up the heat on his project.

As it turned out, they didn't have to push as hard. His bioengineered Sith had gained effectively a form of Serial Immortality. When they die, a cryopod in a facility on Ciutric defrosts, and they step out. But they are the same person *inside*, and they remember everything. So the more they do that, the twitchier they get. Eventually, it proved self-destructive.
Dragonflight 8th Dec 2018, 10:03 PM edit delete reply
As for simply destroying a station, that wouldn't work. Without the stations to control the Maw, the singularities would start consuming each other, and would almost certainly wipe out the Celetial solar system in the process.

The thing was, the schism would remain in space, or inside the black holes. This works from the perspective of everyone else (sort of,) but from Yoda's perspective, he couldn't run the risk that the schism he has to physically enter winds up inside the event horizon of a black hole. If he couldn't get to Malastare, he ultimately couldn't win. So destroying the stations and hoping the singularities don't make the Schism inaccessible by occupying the same spot in space was too great a risk to take.

By the time the PC's figured out what was going on, they didn't want to see that outcome either, because they'd come up with a sacrificial victory plan which they thought would allow them to destroy Malastare forever. Essentially, remove the "actively trying to corrupt you," part of the equation from the Dark Side in the Star Wars universe. Still there, still corrupts what it touches. But no longer has the *intent* to tempt the force user to the Dark. A massive win for the good guys, in other words.
Smiles 6th Dec 2018, 6:59 AM edit delete reply
Argle...

I trust Spud a lot but hope he's got a good handle on this. I didn't feel Twilight's been some blameless victim up to now. She hasn't had a fun time, I accept that, but this is a multifaceted problem and going 'she's in the right'... just feels off to me.

Perhaps it's because she's a very different kind of gamer to me? IDK, I'm just not that sympathetic to her being this down over how things went. OOC drama aside, IC this situation would have me on tenterhooks, which makes this whole scene feel...weird. Not wrong, more surreal.
ThatGuest 6th Dec 2018, 7:18 AM edit delete reply
When you stop letting your players play and just want to use them to act out your script and story they're not players anymore. They're action figures.

And people usually don't like being toyed with.
Bezerker21 6th Dec 2018, 7:59 AM edit delete reply
.... And suddenly I realize why I'm not a great Dm. I've been doing that, coming up with this story in my head that I expect the players to follow, then getting flustered and not having any plan when they decide to do something else....
ThatGuest 6th Dec 2018, 8:10 AM edit delete reply
What I do is I create a main storyline, then I find out what my characters want to do. For example in my current game one character is hunting their father for vengence, one wants to become a big time pirate, one wants to become a famous explorer and the other is running from their past. So now I'll use all those and weave them in and out of the main story to give them reasons to get involved in the first place and stay interested in pursuing the main quest.
Nimble 6th Dec 2018, 9:42 AM edit delete reply
I think what we have to remember here is that this is happening in one session, over the span of a couple of hours. This isn't something that's been going on for weeks and weeks, this is all happening in one D&D session.

Nobody has really done anything wrong or intentionally harmful. Nobody is trying to spoil anybody else's fun (save for the Discord/Fluttershy interaction, which was handled very poorly on both sides).

This is just a major conflict of interests, and the climax of something that's been bubbling under the surface, behind the scenes for a long, long time.
This has been a long time coming, and as a long-time reader of the comic, I've seen it coming. Twilight and the GM coming to a head has been something I've been expecting since the Parasprites.
Mr Wednesday 6th Dec 2018, 11:48 AM edit delete reply
@Smiles, you’re definitely right that this is a multi-faceted situation. By extension it makes it difficult to likewise say “twilight is in the wrong”.

I’m not quite sure what you mean at the end, though. This feels surreal because it doesn’t feel earned, is that it? Like GM is feeling bad, but has no reason to? If that’s your view I can definitely understand that even if mine is different (and if that’s not your view I apologize for misreading, and am open to being corrected)

The way I see it, the Main GM has been thinking of Twilight as the enemy, a problem to solve because she so often stops plots in their tracks. What GM needs to remember is that what DiscorDM was to them, they are to Twilight: a mentor.
FanOfMostEverything 6th Dec 2018, 7:03 AM edit delete reply
You learn more as a teacher than a student if you're doing it right. The same principle applies to DMs and players.
Joe the Rat 6th Dec 2018, 10:39 AM edit delete reply
Indeed.

As a corollary: Never stop being a student.
Applied to RPGS: As a DM, never stop being a Player.

I don't mean "Have A DMPC," I mean come to your own game from the perspective of a Player - what would be cool, fun, exciting, memorable, etc. for the players - that is what you want to think about as you build and run the game.

If your group is all about Master-level strategic gaming and exceptional exploits, build around hard situations and expect the insane. If your players like to screw with each other, make sure there are opportunities for everyone to get screwed over by the world. If they want to play to the Tropes, play with the Tropes.
Digo Dragon 6th Dec 2018, 2:05 PM edit delete reply
Digo Dragon
I once ran an adventure for a group of military peeps. I spent a few nights prior cramming info on US Civil War tactics and military protocol to give them a fun adventure during the US Civil War. I dinno if that was too much investment work for the adventure, but they liked it a lot. Even then, I still got taught some new things about the US armed forces which was fascinating and useful to running military genre adventures.
Lethologica 8th Dec 2018, 12:56 AM edit delete reply
Obligatory: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ylzrfaDdxk
Luke 6th Dec 2018, 7:49 AM edit delete reply
Here is where they both come to understand one another, to learn and to forgive. Not just one of them apologising, but both.
Guest 6th Dec 2018, 11:02 AM edit delete reply
What do you feel Twilight should apologize for? Not considering the MainDM's feelings about their won-too-soon campaign enough?

Genuine question here, not trying to start the flames.
Mr Wednesday 6th Dec 2018, 11:34 AM edit delete reply
At this point, with the GM being remorseful and backing off, Twilight definitely needs to apologize for getting so angry. I say that because her anger got the response she wanted—she’s here, talking to the GM, who’s admitting they made a mistake.

So the best way to go is a mutual apology. If Twi didn’t apologize now, that’d be a mistake on her part, and also a dick move.
Luke 6th Dec 2018, 11:44 AM edit delete reply
Twilight became too wrapped up in her own world, dominating the others - I didn't realise this at first with Applejack and Rarity and Pinkie, I thought they were being obstinate obstructions to her, but as of the comic from a few days back when they then began to work out how to get away from Discord that I realised they were just embracing their role, and role playing.

Applejack is a partial exception with her attitude to Rainbow Dash, but Twilight was mainly acting as though the game were centred around solving the problem, with anything else not only pointless, but detrimental. Ironic considering Applejack and Twilight are my two favourites, they are the two players who in retrospect are acting the worst - but not badly, not without reason, and the Dungeon Master and the guest are acting far worse.

But no one is trying to be cruel or the villain - they just don't understand what the others want or are trying to achieve. Hence everyone apologising

And don't worry - I know it was a genuine question, not an attempt to start an argument :-) I know tempers have been flying on this, but as I am not a role player, though friends with some, I don't have the same emotional investment some others have towards the situations. I generally also - not always but I try - see the humanity in others even when I disagree, and know that people can disagree without intending to hurt another. And I think others do too, but sometimes forget that there is someone on the other side if the screen.
Mr Wednesday 6th Dec 2018, 11:48 PM edit delete reply
Those are excellent points, Luke.

I’ve been thinking about it or a while, and I’m feeling like Twilight is in this for more than just the problem-solving. I kind of think she also really wants to know what happens next. And the two are probably linked, because she’s heavily invested in the PLOT, and so probably considers all the Discord theatrics part of the FLUFF, and this unnecessary. She seems to be pretty genre savvy, and to have absorbed a lot of this kind of media before. She perfectly anticipated Discord wanting an “entertaining failure”, and since this arc has been making her uncomfortable, I
can see why she’d just want to get on with it.

Just a thought. Not sure if anyone agrees.
Luke 8th Dec 2018, 5:49 AM edit delete reply
I do agree :-) maybe she favours one slightly more than the other, or vice versa, but they are both together in service to one another, and she values both. Problem solving and plot, I agree they both matter to her.
Toric 6th Dec 2018, 12:20 PM edit delete reply
Setting aside blame, responsibility, or judgment on this, I appreciate this moment. Not because the GM feels bad or Twilight might be calming down, or even that they're finally talking.

What I like is that, right here, the GM is making a decision to change the game for the better. The GM clearly blames themself, but whatever other people have been doing in the game to complicate things, whatever other factors might be in play, the GM HAS DECIDED to stop being part of the problem and at least correct themselves. It's nice to see them not only admitting that they haven't been happy with the game, but that they know what makes them happy and are probably not going to let anything else get in the way of fun.

On a slightly different note, I find it both poetic to the show and a little of an eye-roll that Twilight's message is the source of GM's sudden inspiration here. If Twilight hadn't been the most visibly upset at the party and needed this moment as well, I'd be annoyed because it's easy to read the inspiration from her message as an "it's all about Twilight" moment. As it is, though, I still think this is a good moment. On the one hand, I think this a great leaping-off point for Twilight to find her way back to fun after speaking with the GM. On the other, I think it would be interesting if the GM left this conversation with a purpose, asserted some control after the break, and the players suddenly find themselves having more fun with the GM's hands on the wheel.
Archone 6th Dec 2018, 1:37 PM edit delete reply
Spud pointed out in previous page commentary that our experiences have shaped our opinions. As I said in the past, my biggest flaw as a GM was that I am literally too nice - as in, I'm no good at punishing players for their poor decisions. I tend to nudge them because I don't like telling them that their characters have died, or whatnot. Which means, when it comes to actual play misbehavior... I'm at a total loss.

So... I'm really feeling for the GM here. And I LOVE that Twilight is starting to realize she's been behaving poorly here. She wanted to be part of the game, she wanted to spend time with friends... and now she's become bossy, demanding, and hindering the fun.

In fact, she's actually reminding me of... Discord. CANON Discord. The one from the show. From the episode "Dungeons and Discords." Where he realizes he's been ruining the fun - and that when he keeps his negative impulses in check, he makes the game MORE entertaining. Her friends want her there. They just want her to leave her more negative impulses at the door.
Toric 6th Dec 2018, 2:22 PM edit delete reply
First, this page doesn't really have any contextual evidence that Twilight is feeling shame or remorse. If anything, she's still upset and not really reflecting on anything based on the text of this page (though I suspect we will see...something on the next one).

However, at the risk of rehashing the same tired argument, why are you so insistent upon singling out Twilight for shame and making amends? Setting aside the actual question of what she has or hasn't done wrong, why are you intent upon reflecting her specifically in a poor light? I'm almost certain in previous posts you've conceded that multiple parties are at fault and that no one here is a bad person.

Yet this post says "she's become bossy, demanding, and hindering the fun." BECOME is a terrible choice here. As someone above has mentioned, this is ONE session. You've made it clear you don't care for her playstyle, but this is ONE session where she has not behaved her best, and certainly there is more antagonism and stress in this particular session than in others. The GM just commented that what THEY wanted from this session was the wrong thing. So while I'm aware of your opinion of Twilight and her behavior here, I don't understand how you extrapolate one bad night and a style of roleplay you disapprove of into making her THE central cause of the game's problems to the near exclusion of other players, the GM, and Discord. If you can, explain to me why Twilight alone seems to receive your criticism in any given post, because I just don't see the justice of it.
Archone 6th Dec 2018, 10:18 PM edit delete reply
@Toric, the reason I think that Twilight is feeling shame or remorse is because of the GM's statement in the final panel. She just had a bombshell hit: her friend is unhappy, and she is to blame. If Twilight is a decent person (and I believe that she is), then she's going to be feeling awful about that.

"Become" is the PERFECT word choice here. This is, after all, one session. She became this unpleasant... in this one specific session. Now is her opportunity to address her behavior and do something about it. Her friend is getting drunk to cope with what happened during this session; this is where a good person responds to that.

Also, I never said I don't care for her playstyle. Problem solving and even number crunching can be awesome - I have a friend who has had a tendency to create heavily minmaxed characters. Once they started helping fellow players with character creation, that quality became a positive thing. My problem isn't with Twilight's playstyle, it's with her intolerance for other people's playstyles. If the entire session devolves into gigglefits and silliness... so what? You can solve the problem next session. In the meantime, you get to have FUN. Fun solving problems, fun hamming it up, fun watching teammates attack the gazebo with their +4 powersaw while screaming about vengeance, whatever's on the menu.

@Thatguest, this isn't the endgame, though. That's something Discord GM's detractors keep forgetting. He's created the big horrible scenario for them to have an even more meaningful victory at the end. He's made his character into Kefka (Final Fantasy 6) destroying the world, just so the Mane 6 can defeat the living god and set things right (Or Sephiroth from FF7, Exdeath from FF5, whoever the hell was secretly in charge in FF4 because that was one confusing storyline with a LOT of "failure is the only option" going on, etc).

The GMs wanted to create a situation of disadvantage for the players; not exactly an unusual GM tactic. But that tactic always carries with it an implicit assumption: that the players have the chance to WIN from that disadvantaged position. And then feel all the more accomplished for doing so.
GrayGriffin 6th Dec 2018, 10:27 PM edit delete reply
GrayGriffin
Funny you say "her friend is unhappy, and she is to blame" about Twilight. It looks to me far more like that's the revelation hitting the GM.
Mr Wednesday 6th Dec 2018, 11:43 PM edit delete reply
Archone, I guess I only have one question: when has Twilight done this before?

Granted, her playstyle has been consistently focused on optimisation and problem-solving, but I can only remember her getting this angry during the Feeling Pinkie Keen arc, and she wasn’t as angry there as here.

You refer to her intolerance for other’s playstyles, but I don’t think this has really been an issue before now. When Gilda came in, she was criticising everyone for making sub-optimal characters, for instance. I can’t remember Twilight ever doing that.

I’d be grateful if you’d refresh my memory.

And further, I might suggest the GM’s reactions in the last few panels suggest that creating a situation of disadvantage wasn’t the whole extent of the plan. If it were, they’d be countering Twilight in true mentor fashion by saying “I’m doing this so your triumph will be all the sweeter”. (That might yet happen, and it would be a good thing if it did).

The GM feels guilty though, which suggests on some level this was about evening the score with the players. DiscorDM created a scenario in line with a plan MainGM just admitted to writing, and it was one helluva scenario.

Twilight is in an odd position here—she was both the only one calling the GM’s out on their crap, and the only one refusing to adapt to the situation. So in a way, that’s good—if something isn’t working, it’s a good bet somebody else thought the same, but was unwilling to say so (Fluttershy comes to mind).

The thing that’ll really define Twilight’s character now is ahead of us, and it’ll be whether or not she chooses to stay angry.
GrayGriffin 7th Dec 2018, 5:51 AM edit delete reply
GrayGriffin
Heck, in the Gilda arc, Twilight got caught up in character optimization while everyone else was hashing things out, but right after that she took another look at things and decided to remake her build after realizing it didn't suit her flavor-wise. Doesn't sound like a munchkinny thing to do at all.
Archone 7th Dec 2018, 6:58 PM edit delete reply
@Wednesday First of all, yes - she's used her skills to derail the campaign repeatedly, and has been a bit bossy. But not to this extent. Which is why "become" is the perfect word choice here. She has taken things to a level she never has before, which is why her friends are unhappy with her.

I don't see the GM looking guilty, I see the GM looking depressed and unhappy and frustrated. Guilt would have the GM apologizing after the break, the way Discord GM apologized to Fluttershy and was apologized to in turn (in spite of people claiming that because he didn't use the exact proper phrasing, that his contrite attitude was meaningless. Even though Fluttershy, who has now established that she's VERY good at interpreting the meaning of what's actually being said, acknowledged it as an apology when saying "I'm sorry too."). Instead the GM chose to get drunk. That's the behavior of someone needing a little anesthetic against the pain. Which is why Twilight was surprised in the previous page when she found that Main GM had beaten her to the booze. She was completely oblivious to how upset her friend was, until it hit her in the face like that.

As for Twilight calling the GMs out on their crap... that's the thing. They weren't engaged in "crap." They created an interesting and challenging adventure that was not what the players were expecting. Their crap consists of:
A super-powerful and hostile NPC.
A substantial threat to the land.
Obvious damage to the land, coupled with an inherent reality warping solution if they can get their artifacts to work.
Personalized challenges in a series of mini solo sessions, carefully crafted for each player of a character now known for toppling great powers and having the ear of the land's leadership.
A set of artifacts that will instantly defeat the new hostile NPC, if they can overcome the challenges and earn their victory.

None of that is "crap." That is a pretty damned clever adventure. It is simply an adventure that did without stats and game mechanics, and Twilight wasn't expecting that. I predict the next few pages will not only have Main GM talking about how upset he is, but also how Twilight still hasn't quite grasped that it's not just stats and numbers, it's about the ROLE you play. The character.

(Speaking of which, I'm still looking for another game. I want to try making an Alchemist of a Tiny race, like a Brownie. A Brownie Alchemist. With lots of points in the Profession: Cook skill. The team will never lack for cookies)
Mr Wednesday 7th Dec 2018, 8:05 PM edit delete reply
Guilt is painful too. Reading the text of the last comic, with the GM saying DiscorDM did exactly what they asked, “but I wrote the outline. So this is me transitioning from bargaining to depression” on top of that, up above, GM isn’t pulling up messages to remind TWILIGHT of anything. Specifically they say “it’s supposed to remind ME”.

Why is it that your suggestions so often boil down to the idea that Twilight should just have suffered in silence? That somehow everything would’ve been ok if she’d just kept the fact that she was having zero fun to herself? Your contention is that by speaking her mind, she’s done nothing but hurt people.

I don’t understand this, so I would appreciate if you would give me a straight answer as to why you think this. Don’t dodge, don’t change the subject, just tell me why it’s impossible that someone besides her is at fault. Please.
Archone 8th Dec 2018, 7:03 PM edit delete reply
My contention is nothing of the sort, and you keep demanding a "straight answer" as if I will suddenly realize I am wrong. Let me reiterate my contention:

Twilight has been bossy, demanding, and pushy.

Let me add this:

There IS a middle ground between "suffer in silence" and "loudly demand that everything be changed to be more personally suitable."

That's not a dodge, that's not a change of subject, that's a "Twilight's behavior was bad, and this is why."
ThatGuest 6th Dec 2018, 3:55 PM edit delete reply
Twilgith's anger doesn't come from out of nowhere though, it's perfectly understandable when she's spent the last few hours basically having the controller yanked away from her and being told "Here let me show you how to do it -RIGHT-" Nothing she did or said would have any bearing on the events other than some flavor text and she realized that. That's why she was so bitter on the last page. "Why are you so unhappy, you finally managed to pin us down and use us as an audience to listen to your fanfic." Is what Twilight's attitude felt like.

It's like busting your ass on an RPG video game that says your choices matter and having a big thing that took you a long time to do being boiled down to just adding a single line of dialouge acknowledging that you did it at some point. Woooo!
Dragonflight 6th Dec 2018, 4:51 PM edit delete reply
Ah! So pick the Destruction, Control, or Synthesis ending. Get three identical cutscenes, just rotoscoped in Red, Blue, or Green!

This is Mass Effect 3! Got it! :P
Guest 6th Dec 2018, 2:50 PM edit delete reply
I want to share an anecdote about my high school DM, who always meant well but didn't always have the best idea of how to go about that.

Memorably (though ironically I forget the setting), one time we were playing a group going treasure hunting on a jungle continent, a la Indiana Jones. We picked up a guide who was very obviously shifty but also the only dude who could take us into the jungle. We got a good ways and then went to sleep for the night.

"When you wake up," our GM said, "you discover your guide is nowhere to be found."

"Hang on," I said, remembering my character was a robot, "I don't have to sleep. I follow him."

"Uh," said our GM, who had apparently forgotten this while planning, "he goes too fast, you lose him."

"Hang on," I said again. "I have a bird familiar. It follows him."

"Uh," said our GM, mildly panicking, "no, you lose him."

"But--"

"You lose him. In the woods."


While it was more funny than frustrating, I think if he'd had more practice GMing he would have thought to, say, make the bird roll spot checks until it failed, which would have given the same result but seemed much less god-mode-y. Everyone's always learning.

(This is the same GM as the "You feel fiiiiiiine" and WHAT THE HELL D'YOU WANT THERE SONNY moments, but those aren't really learning experiences, they were just funny.)
ThatGuest 6th Dec 2018, 4:00 PM edit delete reply
An addition to the story I made a few pages back about the overly complicated, specific and obtuse puzzle we were presented with one day. In fact we didn't even need or want to be where we were. It was just some random crappy manor on the way to our real destination so we were like "Meh, we'll pass." Then the GM just dropped like....level 20 enemies in front of us, like fucking ringwraiths and had them chase us into the place he wanted to go. Unsurprisingly they were nowhere to be seen after that.
Dragonflight 6th Dec 2018, 4:54 PM edit delete reply
Eh, we get better the more we do stuff like this. My first response to, "I'm a robot, I don't need to sleep," would be, "The trek into the jungle was more draining on your reserves than you realized. Your first hint you overextended yourself was when you power up the next day, the players standing concernedly around you."

But that's just experience talking. Anyone who's ever had to run campaigns off the cuff can do stuff like that. :)
Guest 6th Dec 2018, 5:03 PM edit delete reply
I don't remember much else about the campaign, but I do remember I was something called a Warforged, and that the relevant part was they didn't sleep, or couldn't sleep, or at any rate it would be awake all night and would have seen this guy haring off. "He goes too fast and you lose him" was relatively quick thinking, for our experience level and the circumstances.
Archone 6th Dec 2018, 10:20 PM edit delete reply
"...I think if he'd had more practice GMing he would have thought... Everyone's always learning."

This. So much this. GMs are players too. GMs are supposed to be having fun too.
Wulfraed 7th Dec 2018, 12:19 PM edit delete reply
{not my usual non-sequitur comment}

My take for some time now has been that "Discord" has failed to separate the role of DiscordGM from DiscordNPC. Every game system I've used (though that IS decades ago) puts NPCs under the same dice-roll constrains as the players are under: regardless of how powerful that NPC is supposed to be, there is SOME chance of failing an action. (Heck -- under RuneQuest, there was likely a 1% chance the elements would have gone off even with the characters as broken as they currently are).

And while I do see the GM on the side of the antagonist -- they are also responsible for providing some sort of balance. You don't drop first-level characters into Tiamut's lair without providing some means of escape [maybe Tiamut's out fishing]. Can't do anything if the players make bad choices (from a real game: GM: Are you going to attack the dragon that is about to breath, or the one that just finished; Thief-assasin? with a good kill chance: The one that just finished; rest of half-fried party: GROAN)


{FYI: I'm not sure I care for some of the stuff in RuneQuest 4th Ed. It assumes one starts in a specific year, and all characters are the same age unless one goes through a lot of work to adjust the timing of background events; adds "passions" (hate <xyz>, worship/honor <mno>) which are supposed to influence how the character will respond to <xyz>/<mno>)
Guest 7th Dec 2018, 5:33 PM edit delete reply
I feel like there are two important skills to being a DM. Knowing how to lose gracefully, and knowing how steal ideas from your players without them knowing.

First one is obvious. If the players win, you let them. It isn't about whether or not it would work, or in some cases even if it should work. It's about whether they put the effort into it. If your players are putting themselves into the game to that degree, then congratulations: you, the DM, just won. Your players are invested. They will remember this game, and what it took for them to reach the end, from that moment on.

The second one is a little trickier, because it's more like three things. You aren't just taking what they say they want, because nobody ever says what they want, even if they think they do. People say what they have, not what they want. What you do instead, is you listen to what they talk about with each other, and instead of saying your response, you write down what your response would've been. There you go, you just stole an idea from your players, and they'll never guess where it came from.

... That's just for running a campaign, mind you. When it comes to planning one, you only ever need to make one plan, and then just never show it to them. Did your players go off the rails, and completely bypassed an encounter you'd set up in advance? Sure they did, but there's a suspiciously similar encounter that they run into later on, when they're ready to deal with it. Your players don't know what's ahead, and they don't know what they didn't see: they aren't ever going to know that reality is freaking bending around them out of sight to accommodate their terrible sense of direction. That goblin warcamp up ahead? It was there the whole time. And if they'd gone the opposite direction, it'd have been *there* the whole time, too. And if they tried to climb over the mountain instead of walk around it? Well, then it was nestled in the cliffs the whole time, and maybe it has a slightly different coat of paint so the goblins could still get around. That's not to say there are three different goblin camps: if they go one way, see a camp, and decide "nah," before going the other way? Well, then they're going to call shenanigans if they see the camp over in the other direction.

Being a DM is being Schrodinger's Cat while Murphy's Law is trying to peek in, and all you have to do is make sure the cat bites off half of a Morton's Fork before the Murphies see it, while still making it look like a real Fork.

... I guess that's just my opinion, though.
HappyEevee 7th Dec 2018, 8:16 PM edit delete reply
I've found gaming needs to be a lot of give-and-take on both sides.

The GM needs his/her time to shine, to give those monologues s/he spent time writing and to describe the temple s/he spent hours planning out. The GM needs to be able to bring out that villain with levels and actually give the players a challenge with the real threat of dying. The GM also needs the fun of seeing what the players come up with - how they solve the dungeon, diplomacy the NPCs, or start a rabbit farm on Mars to increase their pocket cash (true story).

The players need the fun of having options - very few people like a shooter-on-rails campaign. They need to feel their decisions and actions have an impact on the game and that things will turn out differently depending on what they do. They might save the town from attacking goblins or they might reanimate a dragon skeleton, craft a magical bomb sight, and ride the undead dragon around raining alchemists' fire on the land (also true story). They need to have those moments when that Nat 20 comes up and miracles happen - too offset the moments when the Nat 1 results in them trying to seduce the Mind Flayer instead of hitting it with their axe. (Sadly, our barbarian's Cha was not high enough.)

The GM needs to understand what his/her specific players at that specific table want from the game and try to provide it. The players need to understand what that specific GM's strengths and weaknesses are, work with him/her, and appreciate the labor s/he is putting into running the campaign for them. And when tempers get short, it's always, always wise to take a break, have snacks, cool down, and talk about things constructively with each other.

There are very, very few situations where only one person at the table is the complete and sole cause of any given table problem - don't be afraid to apologize (even if you feel you were fully justified in getting upset) because a lot of times just one person apologizing is enough to start everyone else realizing they overreacted as well. Apologizing is not a sign of weakness, it shows you care about the table and the game and want the good parts to continue. Always give the table a chance to mend relationships and move on to more fun.

Because at the end of the day, gaming is about having fun with your friends. Being a part of awesome stories, making epic tales to tell for years to come, being a part of those moments of pure win or pure fail (often equally memorable), and having fun together.
Zorro362 8th Dec 2018, 5:41 AM edit delete reply
Well said happyevee, well said!
I know my buddies and I always love reminiscing/sharing our favorite epic moments.
Like that time we solid snaked our way through a bunch of warehouses while disguised as crates, taking out Imps Assasins creed style, all while the James bond theme was playing in the background.