OOTS #629 is up

[Umbran]

Point blank, I didn't care for the strip based on personal preferences. Got a problem with that? Go take a long walk of a short plank.

Rude.

You are now the one taking the walk.

Folks, please continue your discussion as if Donovan was not present.

 

[wingsandsword]

While I wouldn't put past Mr. Burlew to let this be the action that forges the evil alliance between V and the imp, I really don't think he'll do something like this. It seems too obvious. I'm leaning towards that will force V to go into a trance, face the guilt, find a teleportation spell, and then seriously kick some ass against the Dragon. But I really don't think V would join forces with the imp.

V can't "find" a teleportation spell. She/he is barred from that school of magic as a specialist wizard. At most, he/she could use a Limited Wish to emulate it (5th level spell from a prohibited school), but that's it. Given how many Disintegrates V throws around, I would not put 7th level spells past him/her, maybe V just doesn't have Limited Wish in her/his spellbook?

As for the "there are no players" thing, maybe that is the authors intent, but in reading the strip he plays on stereotypes of DMing (like Roy's remark about "railroad plotlines" in #251, not to mention Elan's encyclopedic knowledge of plot cliches), and stereotypes of players, and the obvious PC/NPC split in the world that even the characters know about, it really does seem to many of us like that is the way of the world. I know that I really thought that was the authors intent until I read otherwise, and I won't blame anybody who thinks that about OOTS because when you read it, to many of us it seems just like somebody is drawing a comic strip transcript of the events of an actual ongoing D&D campaign with 1 DM and 6 players (my thought when I saw the "Order of the Scribble" flashbacks at the trial was that it was their previous campaign set in that world, for example).

 

[Remus Lupin]

Well, not only that, Umberto Eco fan that I am, I agree with him that a text (even a comic involving stick figures), is a machine for generating interpretations, including those that the author might disavow. The valid interpretation of the text is independent of the author's intent, though the author's interpretation may be taken into account.

As I read the text, there are players. And V's just got potentially shafted. And I hope the DM has left him an out.

 

[el-remmen]

I like it.

Well, not only that, Umberto Eco fan that I am, I agree with him that a text (even a comic involving stick figures), is a machine for generating interpretations, including those that the author might disavow. The valid interpretation of the text is independent of the author's intent, though the author's interpretation may be taken into account.

As I read the text, there are players. And V's just got potentially shafted. And I hope the DM has left him an out.

I have made this argument more than once in OOTS threads. Whatever Burlew says, I find the visibility of game-mechanics in language and action to suggest players. It doesn't really matter what Burlew says. He only wrote it, he's not reading it for me. His part is done already.

 

[PoeticJustice]

I like it.
I have made this argument more than once in OOTS threads. Whatever Burlew says, I find the visibility of game-mechanics in language and action to suggest players. It doesn't really matter what Burlew says. He only wrote it, he's not reading it for me. His part is done already.

That's a really cool way to approach the comic. I especially like that you can use the characters' personality to infer things about the people playing them.

For example, Haley's player is not only really greedy, but also kind of a rules lawyer, which fits a 2nd generation player who knows the ins and outs of the rules really well.

On the other hand, Roy's player obviously likes playing against type, while Durkon's player embraces the stereotypes of the game because they work.

However, where does this kind of analysis lead? Does thinking about Oots as a "real" game lead anywhere Oots doesn't already go?

 

[catsclaw227]

As I read the text, there are players. And V's just got potentially shafted. And I hope the DM has left him an out.

I agree with the first sentence. And disagree with the second one.

V's player shafted him by obsessing and not resting. I can even see a situation where the DM maybe even took him aside and tried to have a talk, and V's player basically saying "I'll play him how I want."

Sometimes, I love piling on extra drama in my head.

 

[wingsandsword]

A thought (nothing I think will actually happen in the comic, but it struck me as a disturbing "what if"):

What if the dragon succeeded, V was never able to find that dragon, and eventually decades or centuries in the future V becomes Epic level?

I don't think V barred necromancy.

Imagine an epic spell to extinguish the nacent life in every unhatched Black Dragon egg. . .on the entire planet. They aren't technically creatures yet, no SR, just unattended items. Snuff out a whole generation of Black Dragons as another strike in a cycle of revenge, this time escalating it into a world war between Black Dragons and elves.

Yeah, you'll get every Black Dragon on the planet (and probably Tiamat herself for a stunt like that) after you, but it would be quite a way to go out if you knew they couldn't come after you (like casting it right as you're dying of old age).

Makes me want to either use this as a plot hook in some future game as to why all of a type of dragon suddenly went berserk, or as backstory as to why a race of dragons has a specific hatred of a PC race over some ancient insult.

 

[mhacdebhandia]

As I read the text, there are players. And V's just got potentially shafted. And I hope the DM has left him an out.

Were I playing Vaarsuvius, I wouldn't have any problem whatsoever with what the DM just did. I like when my characters get screwed over, and have to deal with it one way or another; it's one thing to place arbitrary and impossible roadblocks in the way of the main objectives of the party, but something like this? Something with that much dramatic potential that doesn't actually screw up the ongoing story of the game? I love it.

So, you know, I don't really get it. I don't think it's all that healthy to put yourself in the character's shoes to such an extent that you get really upset when something awful happens to them; maybe if that sort of thing is explicitly barred from the game, sure, but it seems pretty obvious that the Order of the Stick has "heavy" themes on the table.

Escapism is one thing, but heroes are defined by overcoming difficulty; you're not playing much of a hero if you're just steamrolling over easy opponents and making easy choices the whole game.

 

[Pbartender]

On another note...

I just noticed, "You have two children, age 26..." and "They should be home from kindergarten by now..."

That's what, say about five elf years equals about 1 human year? Sounds about right, since historically D&D elves start adventuring at about 100 years old.

 

[Michael Morris]

And I'll thank you not to infer how I run my campaigns.

Maybe I am a GM rarity, but I don't believe that giving the PC(s) a single shot when they're at the end of their line to stop something horrific from happening qualifies as "good GMing." A fair few folks I know would put that kind of crap under "railroading" and "punishing the PC for not going along with the GM's plan."

Character abuse makes for a good story though. If nothing bad ever happens to the party or the characters the story gets boring.

Let's so how upset you would be if a random monster (and that's largely what the dragon is, a random monster) suddenly shows up, wipes the floor with your PC, and says it's going to destroy one of the most important things in your PC's life, and there's really jack-all you can do about it.

It has happened to my characters on multiple occasions. And those characters where enraged. But for myself it drew me deeper into the game. It also made the defeat of the villain responsible for the pain and anguish my characters underwent that much more satisfying.

Further, this isn't a random dragon. V is facing this dragon as a direct consequence of his choice of actions with this dragon's child. Further he was aware that the dragon he killed had a parent. He failed to take into account what an enraged dragon might do for revenge. So random, no. It's a natural consequence of enraging an intelligent foe.

But then I suppose the folks that like this strip would be just has happy if the heroes finally get back together, go to confront Xykon for the final battle... only to learn that's he already unleashed the Snarl which is going to destroy reality on its next turn... and it has initiative. Rocks fall, everyone dies. Enjoy the show.

Thing is, that would be killing the PC's off out of hand - a highly unsatisfying ending. That's a very different thing from killing NPC's out of hand to build the tension in the plot. The comparison is apples to oranges and doesn't fly.

The point your missing is that PC misfortune is a legitimate tool to build dramatic tension in the story. This particular misfortune is an outgrowth of the world reacting to the player's choices. Not all choices PC's make will be wise and good and not all consequences are going to involve palm leaves being thrown upon their path. V hit this dragon below the belt - and he knew it existed at the time. Now it's hitting back.

If it outright killed V that would be a legitimate consequence of V's action. Rather than kill V the dragon and the DM decide to torture him some more to keep the story going and make the plot thicker.

Point blank, I didn't care for the strip based on personal preferences. Got a problem with that? Go take a long walk of a short plank.

And here's where you crossed the moderation line although in your defense I'd like to point out the smilies where provoking to some degree. But I was only underscoring my own opinion - A world where PC's never face real danger or real and tragic consequences for their choices - a world where PC's always win, is boring. If you like boring that's fine. I don't.