Friendship is Dragons
Updates Tuesdays, Thursdays, and Saturdays
Page 832 - Griffon a Chance
Author Notes:
Newbiespud
19th Nov 2016, 5:00 AM
edit
delete
(Pop-out)
27 Comments:
"Where are we?"
"Sir, we are at 98%"
"We're almost at the climax then. Keep steady"
"Yes sir"
"Sir, we are at 98%"
"We're almost at the climax then. Keep steady"
"Yes sir"
From what I've been seeing here, G is trying to give Dash the kind of action-style battle oriented group she usually enjoys.
Remember way early on When Dash wanted something... combat-heavy? The party wasn't really built for that style, though. Look at how Gilda's been trying to goad the rest of the party to revamp their characters towards combat-oriented feats/perks/what have you. Fluts and Pinkie don't particularly care for that, though, which led to the confrontations that they did.
Remember way early on When Dash wanted something... combat-heavy? The party wasn't really built for that style, though. Look at how Gilda's been trying to goad the rest of the party to revamp their characters towards combat-oriented feats/perks/what have you. Fluts and Pinkie don't particularly care for that, though, which led to the confrontations that they did.
Ngh...I have to wait until next week to figure out G-player's reasoning? I CAN'T WAIT THAT LONG!!!
I suppose I could just theorize about it until then... Ooh, I bet her "present" was making Rainbow's fellow players improve their builds so Rainbow could enjoy playing with them more--because G figures playing with roleplay-centric people can't be much fun.
I suppose I could just theorize about it until then... Ooh, I bet her "present" was making Rainbow's fellow players improve their builds so Rainbow could enjoy playing with them more--because G figures playing with roleplay-centric people can't be much fun.
We'll see how, exactly, it gets phrased though.
I'm wondering if she'll ask the GM if she can change her alignment to CN after this. She's really not CE anymore, no matter how she tries to rules-lawyer it.
As I understand, this is still based on 4E, which doesn't have those fine distinctions. It just has Lawful Good, Good, Unaligned, Evil, and Chaotic Evil. (When you read the descriptions of the alignment, Good encompasses NG and CG, Evil encompasses LE and NE, and Unaligned contains all the -N alignments.) I think 4E is also has a "don't assign an alignment other than Unaligned unless you REALLY mean it" guideline, unlike previous editions where an 'evil' merchant could just be someone who uses dodgy weights. So RD probably should be Unaligned.
Seeing people justify their actions is always interesting. It lets you glimpse the world from behind another pair of eyes. I look forward to hearing what G thought she was doing.
I have to wonder if this is a case of "Jerk with a heart of gold".
I mean, Gilda's being complete arse, here, there's no doubt about that. But the entire reason she's doing this is because she wants to give her friend a good birthday gift. Even if she is mistaken on what exactly that gift would be (which, to be honest, we probably all are at one point or another), she's still trying to do something nice.
It's an interesting conundrum, and a nice example of the JwaHoG that isn't all "really a puppy underneath" but an actual nasty person who tries to do nice things.
I mean, Gilda's being complete arse, here, there's no doubt about that. But the entire reason she's doing this is because she wants to give her friend a good birthday gift. Even if she is mistaken on what exactly that gift would be (which, to be honest, we probably all are at one point or another), she's still trying to do something nice.
It's an interesting conundrum, and a nice example of the JwaHoG that isn't all "really a puppy underneath" but an actual nasty person who tries to do nice things.
I don't really see how she's been such a jerk. She has slightly different priorities and tries to help people, and then you get Fluttershy running from the room for some unknown reason. And then all the comments *here* saying she's a jerk. I don't see it.
It's . . . complicated to point to any one spot and go "there, that was being a jerk". That's part of the thing here, because she's being the perfect kind of jerk. The one you know is being a jerk, instinctively, but you can't quite point to anything when called to justify calling them out on it.
There are a combination of things which revolve around "tabletop group etiquette" which she has trampled on a bit, seemingly uncaring. One of those things is to try to tell her host (the GM) they're running a "bad" game, and another is to look at someone else's character and try to tell them how to make it better. You might see them as inconsequential, or that it's just a case of her being a different type of player, and you'd be right - when viewed with total objectivity.
But the tabletop etiquette I mentioned earlier comes back into play. You don't tear down your fellow group members, even if it's to try to improve them. You don't tell the GM how to do their job (if you are playing a game with a GM, even a rotating one). And if you are an invited guest, you most certainly do not - DO NOT - try to hijack the table.
I hate to sound like someone who takes this too seriously, but there is an unwritten code among tabletop gamers. In this code is one specific understanding - if you show up, you abide by the rules and behavior guidelines set by either the host (if it's at a person's home) and/or the GM (if in a public space like a gaming store). Different groups have different rules, and it is important to *respect* those rules even if you don't agree. If you absolutely cannot stand those rules, then excuse yourself politely and leave. That is part of what is meant when someone is called a jerk, or a tool, or various other choices of words I will not use here. It's not about what they did or said, it's about understanding what it means to sit down at a tabletop group.
If you need it simpler? You are a guest at the table, and it is important to behave like you would if you were a guest somewhere else. Should that include talking down about your host or fellow guests, it should not surprise you that people think you are a jerk.
There are a combination of things which revolve around "tabletop group etiquette" which she has trampled on a bit, seemingly uncaring. One of those things is to try to tell her host (the GM) they're running a "bad" game, and another is to look at someone else's character and try to tell them how to make it better. You might see them as inconsequential, or that it's just a case of her being a different type of player, and you'd be right - when viewed with total objectivity.
But the tabletop etiquette I mentioned earlier comes back into play. You don't tear down your fellow group members, even if it's to try to improve them. You don't tell the GM how to do their job (if you are playing a game with a GM, even a rotating one). And if you are an invited guest, you most certainly do not - DO NOT - try to hijack the table.
I hate to sound like someone who takes this too seriously, but there is an unwritten code among tabletop gamers. In this code is one specific understanding - if you show up, you abide by the rules and behavior guidelines set by either the host (if it's at a person's home) and/or the GM (if in a public space like a gaming store). Different groups have different rules, and it is important to *respect* those rules even if you don't agree. If you absolutely cannot stand those rules, then excuse yourself politely and leave. That is part of what is meant when someone is called a jerk, or a tool, or various other choices of words I will not use here. It's not about what they did or said, it's about understanding what it means to sit down at a tabletop group.
If you need it simpler? You are a guest at the table, and it is important to behave like you would if you were a guest somewhere else. Should that include talking down about your host or fellow guests, it should not surprise you that people think you are a jerk.
A lot of the stuff you're saying would make more sense if she was joining an actual session and not showing up to hang out with them while they're not playing and instead specifically trying to remake their characters.
I mean, why would you even be remaking your characters if you didn't care about character builds?
And a lot of the stuff you're saying are 'unspoken rules' are most certainly not rules in any of the groups I've played with. Everyone gives the GM advice (the GM power is 'gets the last word' not 'tyrant who no one can talk back to'), everyone gives advice on each others' characters, and if an invited guest is 'stealing the show' that's a lot better than having them sit around uncomfortably doing nothing which is honestly what actually happens most of the time.
I mean, if a guest steals the show that's one session with a different focus. It's *fun*. It's only a problem if a regular group member always steals the show and eclipses people.
I mean, why would you even be remaking your characters if you didn't care about character builds?
And a lot of the stuff you're saying are 'unspoken rules' are most certainly not rules in any of the groups I've played with. Everyone gives the GM advice (the GM power is 'gets the last word' not 'tyrant who no one can talk back to'), everyone gives advice on each others' characters, and if an invited guest is 'stealing the show' that's a lot better than having them sit around uncomfortably doing nothing which is honestly what actually happens most of the time.
I mean, if a guest steals the show that's one session with a different focus. It's *fun*. It's only a problem if a regular group member always steals the show and eclipses people.
@Terrycloth:
It's lovely you read into the post above exactly what you want to, and nothing else.
"I mean, why would you even be remaking your characters if you didn't care about character builds?"
You can absolutely care about your character builds . . . and not care about your character builds.
It totally makes sense - if you have any experience in playing a character as a character, but want them to still be *effective* if it comes time to fight.
"(the GM power is 'gets the last word' not 'tyrant who no one can talk back to')"
That last word is "tyrant nobody can talk back to", you realize. It's just in a softer, velvet touch as opposed to bludgeoning the players with it. If you haven't realized it yet, your past GMs have been doing an awesome job disguising it. I can tell you many times I've had to use that last word to be "no" . . . without actually using "no" or "you can't", short of someone asking if his dice roll let him hide a heavy crossbow in his pants.
"everyone gives advice on each others' characters"
There's advice and "your build/concept is terrible", either in words or tone. Gilda has crossed that line a couple times.
"and if an invited guest is 'stealing the show' that's a lot better than having them sit around uncomfortably doing nothing which is honestly what actually happens most of the time."
I don't think I said Gilda was trying to "steal the show", but thanks for telling me what I said. I was wondering if we would get around to that part of having a disagreement. I think Gilda is trying to redefine the group paradigm to something she understands . . . and excels at.
"I mean, if a guest steals the show that's one session with a different focus. It's *fun*. It's only a problem if a regular group member always steals the show and eclipses people."
We have very different views on what's a problem. If a guest shows up, and completely pushes the game into another direction because they feel like it, and don't actually stick around for the aftermath?
Yeah, that's a *problem*.
If a regular group member always steals the show and eclipses people, that's not a problem. That's a tool the GM can, and should, use.
It's lovely you read into the post above exactly what you want to, and nothing else.
"I mean, why would you even be remaking your characters if you didn't care about character builds?"
You can absolutely care about your character builds . . . and not care about your character builds.
It totally makes sense - if you have any experience in playing a character as a character, but want them to still be *effective* if it comes time to fight.
"(the GM power is 'gets the last word' not 'tyrant who no one can talk back to')"
That last word is "tyrant nobody can talk back to", you realize. It's just in a softer, velvet touch as opposed to bludgeoning the players with it. If you haven't realized it yet, your past GMs have been doing an awesome job disguising it. I can tell you many times I've had to use that last word to be "no" . . . without actually using "no" or "you can't", short of someone asking if his dice roll let him hide a heavy crossbow in his pants.
"everyone gives advice on each others' characters"
There's advice and "your build/concept is terrible", either in words or tone. Gilda has crossed that line a couple times.
"and if an invited guest is 'stealing the show' that's a lot better than having them sit around uncomfortably doing nothing which is honestly what actually happens most of the time."
I don't think I said Gilda was trying to "steal the show", but thanks for telling me what I said. I was wondering if we would get around to that part of having a disagreement. I think Gilda is trying to redefine the group paradigm to something she understands . . . and excels at.
"I mean, if a guest steals the show that's one session with a different focus. It's *fun*. It's only a problem if a regular group member always steals the show and eclipses people."
We have very different views on what's a problem. If a guest shows up, and completely pushes the game into another direction because they feel like it, and don't actually stick around for the aftermath?
Yeah, that's a *problem*.
If a regular group member always steals the show and eclipses people, that's not a problem. That's a tool the GM can, and should, use.
@GrayGriffin:
Oh, don't shudder. Everyone expresses themselves differently and some are simply not as concerned with how it appears to other people. Especially if the people around the table have been going a long time and can pick up that rolling their eyes and going "ooooookay" isn't an insulting putdown but an indication they think it's a mistake.
I've gamed with people who would literally and completely serious use "that's retarded" absently, without thinking, and offhandedly. When you're comfortable with everyone around the table, there are . . . things . . . which are said, done, laughed at which wouldn't be done publicly. It's private, it's "home", it's a safe place to just switch off the filter and have a fun night.
If I judged the people I gamed with only by the worst things to come out of their mouths when they were relaxed (and possibly drunk) then there are absolutely *no* "good people" gaming.
Doesn't mean a good person can't act like a complete . . . Richard . . . sometimes.
Oh, don't shudder. Everyone expresses themselves differently and some are simply not as concerned with how it appears to other people. Especially if the people around the table have been going a long time and can pick up that rolling their eyes and going "ooooookay" isn't an insulting putdown but an indication they think it's a mistake.
I've gamed with people who would literally and completely serious use "that's retarded" absently, without thinking, and offhandedly. When you're comfortable with everyone around the table, there are . . . things . . . which are said, done, laughed at which wouldn't be done publicly. It's private, it's "home", it's a safe place to just switch off the filter and have a fun night.
If I judged the people I gamed with only by the worst things to come out of their mouths when they were relaxed (and possibly drunk) then there are absolutely *no* "good people" gaming.
Doesn't mean a good person can't act like a complete . . . Richard . . . sometimes.
@GrayGriffin:
True. And yes, I do realize. But there are . . . things . . . which must be said about this topic in particular.
Especially since social things are rarely ever cut, dry, black, white, good, bad. They're ugly, crazy, multifaceted, and just because someone acts a jerk doesn't mean that's all they are.
Nobody is ever so simple that they are only one thing. Except in fiction, naturally.
True. And yes, I do realize. But there are . . . things . . . which must be said about this topic in particular.
Especially since social things are rarely ever cut, dry, black, white, good, bad. They're ugly, crazy, multifaceted, and just because someone acts a jerk doesn't mean that's all they are.
Nobody is ever so simple that they are only one thing. Except in fiction, naturally.
If I had to guess, I think Gilda's present to Dash's player was going to be making a badass warrior chracter to work with Dash and let her have some moments of awesome battles. I suspect that Dash has been telling Gilda each week about what happens, maybe not totally accurately and from that Gilda feels like Dash has been getting the shaft because to her, it sounds like Dash never gets to really do anything combat based because either the GM shoots it down or another player steps in and steals the spotlight. Rarity dominated all the thieves guild stuff, the parasprite invasion was trumped by Twilight, Fluttershy not only took the dragon encounter but what was supposed to be Dash's ticket session. And then Pinkie practically consumes the spotlight all the other times. While it might not bother Dash as much, Gilda might be interpreting it differently and feels like they're constantly benching her friend and not letting her play. While she certainly went about it the wrong way I think Gilda was trying to get everyone more interested in combat so that Dash could finally participate in her eyes. Her anger with Pinkie I can partially relate to because while Pinkie isn't trying to be a glory hog it could easily be seen as that since she tries to insert herself into and dominate -everything- she can be in. I've seen plenty of players just shove someone out of a moment so -they- can be the person getting all the attention. That might be how Gilda views Pinkie, especially since the session she's joining is supposed to be about Dash and Pinkie's player immediately seemed to be hijacking it by talking about how -she- was planning the party etc.
Her gift was it to bend her new group until it was shaped like her old group
I appreciate that we're able to get some Griffonstone screengrabs for this "meeting G outside" scene. I like to think this comic will systematically work its way through the adventures of the entire show, but even if it does, it's unlikely we'd be getting a Griffonstone arc any time soon. If we do, it'll be the return of "G" as a guest player, as maybe she comes to understand the value of plot-based roleplaying...provided that doesn't simply happen here and now, with Spud's writing. ;)
She might not care so much for optimising her character's <i>class</i>, but Pinkie certainly cares about her character.
Dash, I know you're not great with subtext, so here are the "truth" and the understandable versions of the scenario:
Gilda thinks she is "rescuing" you from a style of RPing she doesn't understand.
tl;dr, "Oh my god, it's a mirrage... it's sabotage!"
Gilda thinks she is "rescuing" you from a style of RPing she doesn't understand.
tl;dr, "Oh my god, it's a mirrage... it's sabotage!"