48 Comments

I knew Gamemasters that sounded like Rulette. And the only reason anybody played in their games was because they were the only one that wanted to run anything. When other GMs appeared that ran games that appealed more to the wantings of the group playing rather than making every conform to a TPK factory, folks moved on to other groups and nobody really saw those other GMs anymore.

In college back in the 80’s a guy I shared a trailer with DMed a weekly gaming session among a group of us for a couple of years. This all went swimmingly for quite a while. I’m still friends with some of those people to this day. But then he methodically wiped out the entire party at the climax of the quest. His fiancé ran a paladin who was often in conflict with the rest of the party and I have since wondered if she just didn’t want him running games after they got married. thing thing soured several friendships with the couple.

“we’re gonna do what they say can’t be done”…. hmmm…. put your pants on through the head somehow?

Get bootleg beer to Atlanta in 28 hours without getting caught.

And watch out for Sheriff Buford T. Justice!

“My apologies to all you people, out there in radio land!”

I used to love the first 2 movies, until the TV edits came up a bunch on cable, and hearing all the cuss words get watered down gave me PTSD, lol.
No one actually says “scum-bum” irl, much less 100 times in 90 minutes.

Yeah.
I think some films, that are cleaned up for TV, don’t work as well as the original films.

I think, if Full Metal Jacket, [the 1980s film], was re-dubbed in milder, rated-PG language, the film’s story doesn’t work as well. :D

“Ended friendships”?

If he means, she chased off some her friends…that were just her friends, and that closed some friendships with her, then I’m OK with that. A character self-sabotaging herself doesn’t bother me.

But if she provoked some…I guess some baseless rumors + provoked discord between some friends…just for her own entertainment, then in my view, that would be VERY messed up. Hm.

[I know, I’m relying on a lot of “ifs” in my ideas. Oh well.]

What’s the benefit for/ necessity of her continuing to interact with Thomas, again? He seems determined to be unpleasant. That gets old pretty fast. Just take the hint and let him stew in his grudge, he’s happier that way.

Also it’s hilarious for someone as fucked up as Thomas to judge what constitutes ‘misguided’, just saying…

Yeah she should just give up on him and never be in the comic again. Instantly writing off people because they aren’t getting along with you every second of the day is the best way to live. Romeo echo tango alpha Romeo delta.

“Romeo echo tango alpha Romeo delta.” Ha. Just so you know, that’s nowhere near as clever or amusing as you think it is, chump :)

There may be some unrequited attachment there. It needn’t necessarily be love. I’ve known a person or two that just couldn’t let go of a relationship that didn’t work.

I don’t really understand your complaint. If you’re asking why Rulette is trying to fix a friendship that she might feel she botched, or just plain make it up to Thomas in some way, that’s a rational action. If you’re just mad that Thomas isn’t immediately forgiving her and being nice, yet is attempting to at least leave the door open to progress, well, that’s also a rational action. So we have two characters making in-character choices–what’s the problem? If it’s simply that Thomas has been a little abrasive, like, how did you get past Reggie and Evrina to reach this point in the comic?

Well, at least she’s not Nathan.

Maybe I missed something, but who?

Was he the guy Thomas knew when Thomas was a teen? I think some guy Tom + Patty knew- was in their d + d games group. There was some guy that they both knew: he didn’t get along with anyone, + later died by suicide.
Maybe that is Nathan. I’m not sure.

So first off, gonna say I like the update to the cast page. Also concerned about Rulette and Marcy having a gun on them randomly at all times. Mostly because I dislike people who seem non-malicious having to have a reason to defend themselves.
Secondly, yeah, the people who use the rules to make things go exactly how they want just for themselves, either as a GM or a player, are generally not the greatest to be around. Rules for most TTRPG’s should be seen as slightly bendable, at a minimum, guildelines.

I stand by my earlier observation.

Some things are all fun and games until you suddenly don’t have a friend group to pull them on anymore as a consequence.

Sounds like she was the only female in a group of D&Ders, who was the GM, and the guys got jealous over her flirting with all of them. Sounds about right?

Doesn’t even have to be the only one – just the only one as flirty and, uh, “gifted”. Also a recipe for hellacious drama of the Very Not Cool sort.

Partially maybe, but it also seems like she was a miserable DM. And these two things can intersect as well, if she plays favorites in the game to reflect her personal feelings.

It’s pretty clear that he’s not mad about the game, he’s mad about interpersonal relationship stuff that happened AT the game.

Coming late to this one, so will simply add that the wide range of reactions regarding (based on our incomplete picture from unreliable narrators) who is in the wrong and to what degree speaks to your writing, so props to you there. The art adds as well; to me at least that slight swiggle on the mouth line for Rulette speaks of unease…

Looking forward to this week’s developments for sure.

I dunno, Thomas. You sound kind of like “it’s okay when I do it” here.

It’s okay when he does it, even though he doesn’t do it, and just stated as such? You could try to argue he’s wrong, but even if so, he’s not being a hypocrite internally because he doesn’t see his actions as remotely comparable.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.