Coup de Whaaaa?
Chapter: Season Three
I wish I could say this is based on pure fiction but sadly, I had the displeasure of witnessing a similar event many years ago. Thankfully, I was just a player at the table at the time and to say the moment was awkward is a huge understatement.
The worst part is that when you took the guy in question away from the table, he was awesome. Some folks are just oblivious to how they act when they sit down at the game table. Believe me, I’ve seen some real Jekyll/Hyde stuff and it is ugly.
How is Sam going to handle this situation? I don’t do this often but believe me, you’ll want to see this on Friday.
And this is what happen when you put rules/anything-else above fun.
I CALL FOUL!!!
Sure, I agree that Pop is doing it in a rude way, but I can share his irritation of the ploy. I mean, if it’s not possible to die, then where is the excitement of surviving a difficult encounter? Any risk is possible – it is not a real risk since the DM will just pull a replacement out of his pocket.
Sir Reginold dies instantly due to electrocution. No Save.
I hear a “Shoop-da-whoop” coming….
love the fuzz for charlie…
Reginold must roll a dex save… for the “strange golem” has a self-destruct mechanism. Con save for running. And this will all be at -3… for various creative DM implications.
I like the idea of the Charliebot’s death getting retconned because he-actually-made-his-dodge-roll-after-all, and then Charliebot literally kills him with a shoop-da-woop. That would be hilarious.
Rules lawyers are fucktarded. If your DM uses Rule Of Cool, you STFU and roll your d8.
Just remind them of Rule #1 of D&D: “The DM is always right.”
Just wish they’d printed that in the Players’ Handbook as well as the DMG.
If someone at my table pulled the shit like that Pops have pulled, they’d be smacked down harder than if Zeus’ thunderbolt had struck them.
Metagaming, dickish behaviour…
Christ, go fucking get him Sam. This reminds me way too much of a few players I’ve had the horrific pleasure of GM’ing for.
that’s when you tell them to pack up their fucking dice and get the fuck out after making them pay for the pizza.
Weeeeeeeeell… I don’t know about other people but I think wrecking a helpful, possibly sentient construct for no (in-universe) reason at all could be considered an evil act. And you know what they say about evil acts and paladins…
Oo, good point! Is that paladin about to become a fighter with shitty THAC0?
I thought I was grognard/old school, but in my games death usually meant bringing in another character fairly quickly, meaning however long it took you to roll up a new character. Or as in this case, coming in as an NPC. DM even let me run a new character for a while during one campaign because my main character was badly injured and DM wanted him to spend some time healing. Apparently he’s from the Dicknard school of gaming.
OH SNAP! We’re about to see the father/son face-off. Move over Star Wars, there is a new dysfunctional family battle royal in town. Can’t wait for Friday! Also, Panel 3…flippin’ fantastic!
YOUNG VS OLD THROWDOWN. I hope this means the return of evil Sam to kick his dad’s wizened arse!
Yeah, the way I see it, the paladin’s got a save to make for electrocution, and he’s about to lose his powers for killing a sentient life form with no provocation.
I can’t help but think “Wait… There’s a DM GUILD?!? How can I become a member? Where do I send my monthly dues?”
Most old-schoolers I know/met aren’t this much of a dick. Maybe he’s giving him a hard time to see if he can handle problem players?
Oh sure… let’s all harp on Pops. Sam is the one who outright MURDERED Charlie’s character out of the blue with a one-hit death trap. And then he hands Charlie a DMPC who immediately drops the adventure on easy mode. The same Sam who allowed Pops to bring a Lawful-Good Paladin into a party of anarchic crazies and stomp all over the other players. Oh no. This isn’t Pops. Sam created this mess. And he’s trashing the adventure as he flails to recover from it.
Pops was promised an old-school dungeon crawl and a classic adventure. He made an old-school paladin. And he expected an old-school challenge. And now “here’s a secret passage to the vault of You Win.” Did Sam consider the rule of fun before this mess started? Did he consider the rule of fun when he allowed Pops to join in? When he approved Pops’ character? No no no.
Now, to be fair, that trap was probably avoidable and Charlie just rolled a natural 1 on it, as he tends to do. (Brian himself said that’s “a thing” Charlie is known for.) Old school modules are notorious for unfair save-or-die traps like that. That wasn’t Sam, that was Sam following the module.
The custodian character is very powerful, yes, but he died far too quickly for us to know his true motives. For all we know that chute goes straight to an incinerator room and the party was meant to distrust Charliebot and roll sense motive to figure that out. Putting in an NPC who tries to get you to willingly jump into a no-save deathrap is a fitting ploy for this kind of game.
Lastly, it is possible for a party to be composed of characters with varying motivations and world views, resulting in interesting party in-fighting and roleplaying opportunities, without it turning into a total session meltdown. That came about from pops being unreasonable and kind of a douche.
When it comes down to it, looking around the table and realizing the people you care about are more important to you than the purity of the game, a good player has the responsibility to not be a douche just because “that’s what my character would do”.
And right now, he’s not even doing “what my character would do”. He’s being out-of-character, blatantly meta-gaming, and making an ass of himself.
And this is unrelated, but while I wholly disagree with your post I just finished replying to, I clicked to your site right now and it looks really cool. Gonna go read like /all of it/ when I’m done with this stuff for work.
Well, thank you.
Meanwhile, on the death trap thing… see, I’ve got no problem if a player gets sidelined and has to sit out. These things happen. Its part of the risk of the game and the satisfaction of victory. But that’s just me. Not everyone shares that view. Clearly, Sam doesn’t. He feels badly for Charlie almost immediately and hands him an NPC to keep him in the game. Fine. Perfectly valid thing to do. But, if you’re the sort of DM who has trouble letting players sit out and miss out because they died, you should be adjusting the adventure accordingly. The instant death death-trap (even if it only happens on a bad roll) doesn’t have a place at your table and you should know it. Sam failed to adjust the module to his style. And, in fact, he probably shouldn’t be running his group through an old-school module because it isn’t a good fit for him or for his group.
As for douchebaggery, you are right, no player has a right to ruin other players’ fun. But the DM is the ultimate arbiter and authority. Pops had another PC imprisoned against his will. That should have been a warning sign. And it is Sam’s duty to step in at that point.
I can’t cheer for Sam here and, if Sam wins, I can’t call it a victory. All Sam is doing is cleaning up a disaster that he allowed to happen. The adventure is already over. Already ruined. Whatever happens now will not salvage it.
The main problem here is that Sam is (at least from what I’ve seen) a 4.0-style GM running a 1.0-style module. In fact, I wouldn’t be surprised if the save-or-die trap caught /Sam/ off guard as well as Charlie.
It is up to Sam as the DM to adjust the module to taste, but it surely doesn’t help that his father is breathing down his neck expecting everything to be 100% faithful to the source material as written. No matter what he does somebody is going to be unhappy. You seem to be calling the usage of Charliebot as Sam backpedaling, and I think I can agree with that. Sam is trying to make the best of the conflicting expectations of his usual gamers and his father, and it’s just a whole big thing now. Has he made some mistakes? I think so. Have they been terrible enough to consider him a terrible horrible very bad DM? Eh, I dunno. He’s trying his best and in my opinion that’s what counts.
At this point I feel both Sam and Pops are responsible for the current situation, but Sam’s part stemmed from (minor) incompetence, whereas Pops’ stems from outright bein’ a douche. That’s why I’m on Sam’s side here.
Overall, I think you really have to congratulate Brian for his accurate portrayal of the kinds of around-the-table conflicts many of us have experienced in real life, while simultaneously providing entertaining punchlines and working through an emotionally complex story about Sam trying to gain the approval of his father.
Well, obviously Brian has made a lot of people care about these clouds of ink and creative ephemera. That is definitely to his credit. He made me give a shit about the discussion, which is fricken’ unpredented. But, dammit, I’m on Pops’ side!
And yes, I said DMPC because the gods know Sam would have had the custodian pull the same crap if Charlie wasn’t in control of him! Sam is a bad DM and he should feel bad!
I have to agree; “Here’s a path straight to a room of awesome weapons”? That’s the kind of crap 10-year-olds pull in their first game.
It pains me to say it, but I agree with you, sir. At least on the subject of Charlie’s new character. I would never let a PC have that kind of knowledge. This “custodian” should have large gaps in its memory and hidden agendas.
I don’t agree that Sam is responsible for his dad’s behavior.
By not putting the kibosh on Pop’s behavior right from the get go, Sam was tacitly approving it. No player has the right to treat other players like that, even for the same of “just role-playing the character” and it is the DM’s job to step in and make sure it doesn’t happen.
While I agree that pops’ shenanigans should have been quashed earlier, that would have (1) been less entertaining comic-wise, and (2) it’s reasonable to think he was less inclined to police pops given he is his father, after all.
Oh yeah, I get that. Totally. But, end of the day, if all the commenters want to jump in and stick up for “poor Sam,” I get to jump in say Sam is the one who ate crackers in bed. He doesn’t get to complain that he’s all itchy.
It’s certainly a more complex issue than “Sam good, Pops bad” like some people may like to believe.
As I remember that module, all the ‘bots were nucking futs. Who says Charlie-Bot was actually leading them to where he said he was? Or if there was anything still there?
Hmm, I might be missing something, but “Sir Reginald destroys the strange golem”? Where exactly does it say that he is successful? It is my understanding that in D&D, you roll for everything, and even if you do away with e.g. social rolls, combat is there to stay. At the very least, it should require some approval from the GM (game-agnostic term, deal with it), which was clearly /not/ given.
Of course, the games I know tend to give the players the responsibility for their own characters’ death, rather than the GM, so I wouldn’t know.
We have an older player who is beginning to quash the fun at our table.
I agree with Brian about the Jekyll & Hyde stuff – it’s weird how a totally cool person can become a shitty table member.
I also really dig the conversation AngryDM is having with DaMunky. Both Pops & Sam are partly responsible – just as other players and I are not standing up enough for ourselves, in addition to the one guy being a dick – but I find it hard to blame anyone as much as the person who is being a dick to a table full of people who are having fun.
It seems Pops has let his Lawful aspect overpower his Good. It’s a sad thing to witness.
This is unfortunately the kind of behavior I have, in my limited gaming experience, come to expect from paladins. They tend to be what is colloquially called “Lawful Asshole” and take it upon themselves to police the party. But Pops is going further than that and meta-gaming in extra dickisheness that his character alone would not otherwise be doing.
I like to think of them as Lawful Stupid. You just have to find clever ways of getting around their watchful gaze.
Thief: Whats that over there, Sir Reginald? A vampire sacrificing a baby to Bahamut?
Paladin: What? Where? (turns, sword drawn)
(Thief picks pockets)
Paladin: I don’t see anything.
Thief: Keep looking. Perception isn’t a Paladins class skill.
Methinks we may be looking too deeply into a comic.
Now you’re just talking crazy talk!
after reading all the great posts and thoughts above me, i went over this comic again. I love the last 4 panels and what is shown. Charlie sad over 2nd death and Sam as well. Also, Sam a little embaressed over what has happened. UNTIL, his dad says “Find a new hobbie. Then, “Sh*t is on Dad! Prepare for a world of PAIN! You don’t insult my friends and walk all over them as well.”
Brian, i love what you have done here and that you went here. Tough subject to address- that is – a bad player at the table. Been there and even done that to my shame. It can be a hell of a wake up call to be asked to sit out the next session or two. Worst part was that i didn’t even know what i had done (being a bad player) till the DM brought it up later that week in private.
You know, while I agree with AngryDM about how terrible Sam has handled the situation, I also know from being a DM myself that sometimes you just have a night where you make all sorts of bad decisions because your game is off. Or you really wanted to try something. So maybe Sam let his enthusiasm get ahead of his intelligence there and invited Pops to his game. A game that he’s not accustomed to playing.
On a side note, I’ll be pleased if this was a trap set by Sam from the beginning to prove something to Pops. That all the other players are in on it. A trap to prove to Pops that just because he was a great gamer back in the day doesn’t excuse his ego and rough personality present day. That it’s easy to fall from such great heights when you become an arse.
all valid points asides, dick move on the “maybe you should look for a new hobby”. rule book or not, that was uncalled for.
buuuuut, this is fiction, only a game bla bla bla, no need to get worked up over it ect.
I just had to comment, are you referencing that guy who shot an arrow at the hags? Walter, I believe his name was? Oh wait, it’s that other dude. Nevermind.