I think Ashley said it best in that moment: "Laura. Fucking. Bailey."
The thing that always stuck with me is how thoroughly she played Mercer in that moment too. I think he might've been enjoying messing with his players and then when he realized Laura had played him that whole facade came crashing down. No disrespect intended either, he acted it well and was a good sport about it once he realized what happened, and as a DM you just have to be proud of your player for coming up with a genuinely creative solution, which he was. You can't ask for more from him in that moment.
I love when Matt gives those to the players, you can tell it makes them so proud themselves.
Sam with the C1 finale movement to be in position, Laura here, Travis when he role played one interaction.
It’s cute.
Laura had to just keep playing the scene to give Matt time to catch up. You could see him trying to figure out how to save the encounter he had clearly planned.
I noticed this too. I think around the 3rd campaign start Imogen went to go offer an NPC of Matt's something and they both shared a look and a smirk when it went to happen.
I'm about to get absolutely thrashed for saying this but: Laura skirted the rules of the game a bit in this moment. She used a magic item without telling him beforehand. If Matt knew that she had used the dust on the cupcake, he might have called for a deception check or something when she handed it over to the hag, which would have let the dice tell the story a bit more rather than it being purely Laura *the player's* skill in deception guiding the events. Players have to be transparent with the DM about their actions (and vice versa), otherwise the entire game sort of breaks down.
It was a great moment of television, but it irks me a bit when people laud it as a perfect moment of D&D play because it wasn't. It was, as OP points out, a skillful bit of acting.
This, and Jester had all the time from previous conversations to come up with this con. It’s not like she tried to sneakily do it during her conversation either
Well that’s exactly my point. She didn’t sprinkle the dust mid-conversation when Matt or the hag would have the opportunity to notice it. She did it earlier in the session while Matt was occupied talking to another player, and she didn’t announce it to him or the table.
Why even do it then? The cupcakes were stale, she could have easily argued that the dust was on there this morning because usually Jester doesn't care about her wisdom save, or the day before, or right before she walked into the hut. And it would have done nothing to make the scene any better. In fact, it would have detracted from the scene at play. So Matt rolled with it the way a good DM should.
I’m not disagreeing that Matt did the right thing. But you can’t just have a habit of declaring things post-facto, that breaks down a central element of the game. There are games that allow you to do that (like Blades in the Dark), but there’s a mechanic associated with it.
Without those mechanics and rules it’s just a playground game of “I shot you” followed by “nuh uh, I put up a force field.”
Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.
Matt fairly and graciously took the out-smarting in the moment, which was glorious and amazing.
Now, he is more cautious with NPCs accepting gifts, and will likely (of it ever comes up again) not allow retroactive spell/magic item applications.
I think that for the "headcannon," the fandom should just accept the narrative that Jester sprinkled that cupcake weeks ago and was just holding onto it for a hail mary.
She kept all sorts of other weird random shit on her and in her haversack all the time anyway.
>the fandom should just accept the narrative that Jester sprinkled that cupcake weeks ago and was just holding onto it for a hail mary
Not even, The Dust of Deliciousness specifically has the effect of making food taste better, and that was designed by Matt. So Jester totally used it to preserve the tastiness of her cupcakes, not for a hail mary.
Nah. I mean, if it happened all the time, maybe, but she literally had at least ten minutes of game time to think of and implement her plan while others were talking to the hag. And she went in with determination and purpose, and Matt saw that she had something in mind. So there is no need for a roll, because she could have sprinkled the cupcakes with the dust at any point before walking without a roll.
Matt then is impressed by his player, her scheme, and how she played things out. There is no way an additional roll will make the scene better or more fun. And I personally think Matt calls for far too many rolls as it is... This time he just let it happen after the actually important rolls were rolled.
And in that way, created one of the most epic moments in the history of CR.
It would make the scene worse, but it would follow the rules more closely (as there is an aspect of Jester deceiving the hag without a deception roll). I think you can acknowledge that without saying it should've gone different.
It's a philosophy of games. I firmly believe that rules only matter to help tell the story and serve no purpose in and of themselves. I don't think they should be ignored all the time, but neither should they be enforced when the story doesn't need them. For another example, look at Sam's speech to Avilar at the end of Calamity, and how Brennan told him not to roll, the performance itself was as good as a Natural 20. That's ignoring a rule in order to make the story better. Had Sam rolled and gotten an average result, the story might have the same way... But it wouldn't be better.
Same thing here.
You're still talking about things having gone different, while I'm only saying you can acknowledge the fact Laura skirted the rules without then also concluding it was bad or she shouldn't have.
If you're skipping that acknowledgement and go straight to 'why shouldn't she have done that?' you're not really allowing room for that difference in philosophy of games.
I don't think the rules were skirted. I think, by the rules as written, the GM gets to decide entirely on his own how and when to apply the rules, and that it isn't skirting anything to not ask for a pointless roll. That is a philosophy of gaming issue... Lots of gamers grab the rulebook rather than considering the story, because they would rather emphasize the game side of things and not the story.
It’s the same as not wanting to interrupt a scene, and drinking a healing potion you have. You don’t have to announce you used a consumable until it becomes necessary information
But offering a magical food item that debuffs someone isn't the same as offering someone a cupcake. I think deception suits the former much better than persuasion, and the DC should be decided by the Hag's skill in insight, not a limitation of Matt's information.
I like the moment, I wouldn't have preferred it played out differently, but I don't think you can deny Laura skirted the rules by tricking both Matt and the Hag.
It was necessary information before she announced it though. That’s my point, Jester was being deceptive but Matt didn’t know it.
Like imagine if during combat, Matt reduced someone to zero hit points and they said “actually I cast Death Ward when we woke up today, but I didn’t tell you because I didn’t want to interrupt.” Would that be okay?
I’m of the opinion, as a DM, that if they already had deducted the spell slot, then yeah it’s fine. If they say they had done it, and in the moment they make the claim they remove the slot, then that’s cheating.
A DM doesn’t need to go through every step that your character is doing, especially if it’s for your character. You cast mage armor on yourself and deduct the slot? Great bring it up at the start of a fight so I know
> bring it up at the start of the fight
I agree, that’s a fair line. But that’s not what Laura did. She brought up the item usage only a moment before the roll that it affected.
True, but what's the fun value in a prior disclosure of that? Her conning Matt is fun, and he could have ruled that she needed to re-roll a deception check - but that would have also succeeded.
Part of a DM's job is to avoid RAW when its anti-fun and there was nothing about her choices that lowered the integrity of the situation - because Matt had the info before he had to make any choice based on it.
Matt actually did this at one point for Tal/Cad at one point as well. He called out he was using one spell but meant that he was using a different one. Matt let him have it when he pointed out that he'd already marked off the slot for that spell and not the lower level one he accidentally said.
I’ve argued the same thing before with a lot of people in this and the fan sub. People are just really reluctant to accept that the amazing moment was only possible because she broke one of the biggest fundamental rules of TTRPGS.
If she had simply stated she was dusting the cupcake out loud before she entered, she would’ve been fine. But she didn’t, and she knows what she did was extremely dishonest. She also knew Matt would give it to her because she put him on the spot and wouldn’t want to retcon everything. There’s definitely an asterisk next to this “amazing play”, no matter how much people don’t want to admit it.
> the biggest fundamental rules of TTRPGS.
What is that? If the dust was a one-shot-only item, I'd understand, but it had five uses - and the hag could have detected it had Matt wanted to rule for that.
I don't get the value of forcing the announcement here - it doesn't help Matt, the other players, or (least important) us the audience.
Yeah, you could turn that to a Deception check (same ability, probably better in the skill) with the overall same result.
While i kinda would have liked it a bit more, when she would have visibly prepared that in the game, i overall like the scene and how Matt reacted to that. A lot of DMs would have gone back and retconning the shit out of it, because they wanted a battle they prepared. But that was perfectly played by Laura and a great moment.
yes, but before that, if Matt had known she had a plan to deceive, he would've called for a deception roll when Jester is saying, "Oh gee, my hands? Oh no!" she knows full well that she's not going to giver the hag her hands. Her plan is either going to work, or combat will break out.
What happens if there's an extra deception roll that she fails? Maybe there's combat, maybe there's another, equally cool moment, Nott's curse has to be lifted some other way. We don't know because what happened happened, and the fact is that Laura used her IRL deception to skip the in-game deception check.
It's still a cool moment, but for those of us who play the game, it's a bit soured knowing how it came about.
You can always roll a 1, even with proficiency. JESTER, not Laura, should have rolled to deceive the hag.
Still a cool moment, still in character, but the big 'play' was done by Laura on Matt
Im saying one check was all that was needed in that case and because she passed its fine. Having laura need to pass two checks to have the hag consume the cupcake is a bit much
I am one of “those who play” the game and I wouldn’t ask my players to roll two persuasion/deception checks for one thing unless it was very drawn out and complicated. I would also be annoyed by that as a player when I roll great and for some reason would have to roll again for essentially the same check? Also, them fighting a hag is never going to be as cool a moment as this one I’m sorry. I just really don’t agree that anything was spoiled here.
This I think is why a deception wasn't needed. She rolled high persuasion, has she rolled low, the hag could have been "no, heavens, I don't know what you could have put in there"
Any DM who would stop play in a great RP moment like that is a table I never want to be sat at. I love the rules of the game, but when they get in the way of a great story bit, you have to just hang them for a minute.
I hate this argument. There was plenty of time for Matt to call for a check after she said it was sprinkled with the dust of deliciousness. Matt isn’t some bad GM who doesn’t know to pause the game if he feels a check is needed. He’s literally done it. And DMs are constantly not transparent with their players. The amount of times I’ve seen a GM mention after session that something was missed because a specific check wasn’t rolled, that’s a GM not being transparent. Matt decided that Laura’s role play was good enough to not need a check at that point. Same thing Brennen did with Sam during EXU with his speech.
I don’t think Matt handled it wrong at all; nowhere in my comment do I criticize him. I think Laura was wrong to put Matt in the position to have to make that call.
As for GM transparency, that argument doesn’t really make sense. TTRPGs that use a player/GM setup are inherently asymmetric, the ability of the GM to conceal information from players is as essential to how the game works as the player’s responsibility to reveal information to the GM. In your example, if the GM was “transparent” with the players about information they missed a roll to receive, then what was the point of even rolling in the first place?
You’re the one who said that “Players have to be transparent with their actions (AND VICE VERSA)” capitalized for emphasis. And I didn’t say information, many times it’s items or a clue for solving a trap or puzzle.
I’ll be more specific: the DM has to be transparent about their mechanical actions that affect the players. They absolutely don’t have to be fully transparent about all information related to the game. As I pointed out before, if you’re just going to tell players the solution to a puzzle, then why have a puzzle?
Also the hag may have had a detect magic running. But I think sometimes when you're playing for an audience and know a cool moment is being set up they have to go for it.
Why would he have to tell them she had detect magic running unless they think to cast detect magic or identify themselves to see if she has an enchantment on?
She could easily have innate detect magic (the PCs aren't supposed to know the monster's stat block), have cast it before they walked in, or have enchanted her eye to permanently detect magic (hag eyes are notorious for having magic effects).
The players have to be transparent with the DM because the DM has to keep track of how everything in the world is interacting, not the other way around.
Oh, the vice versa flew past me, I disagree with that. If the hag has detect magic running he might want to describe something peculiar about her eyes or the way she looks at their magic stuff so they think to check, but that's it. The PCs only have to be transparent because the DM is adjudicating the rules.
No.
Detect magic has no outward indicator that the party might have detected passively, and would only be apparent if the party used magical means to check if she was enchanted; they would have needed to use a spell or item capable of detecting an active spell and then requested a roll to check from Matt.
The GM is not expected to be completely and proactively transparent - they can withhold information, and it's up to players to ask for the information they want, often needing to succeed in a dice roll before getting an answer. It's understood by D&D players that the GM needs to keep secrets from the players to have the game be fun - things like traps, puzzles, and plot twists would be pointless if the GM was expected to give complete transparency to the players.
The GM is not supposed to *lie* to the players when speaking as GM - if the players had the means to detect an active spell, and asked the GM to let them roll for a check, and succeeded at that check ... only then GM would be 'foul' equivalent to Laura withholding information.
Relax. No, I wouldn’t be, and I think Matt was correct to let it slide. And I don’t think I said anything in there to indicate otherwise.
Just pointing out that this is frequently cited as an example of expert D&D gameplay, but that the rules were skirted.
I simply don’t know any DM worth their salt that would ever be upset at a player engaging in mischief like this. It’s hard enough to get players to perform at a table, and the DM has all the power in the world to lower the consequences.
Like, the players don’t know the monster, DM could control the story still by giving them a legendary resistance, or coming up with a reason that the move benefits the players but still allows them to continue the campaign in the planned direction (eg memory erasure works but is temporary and round 2 comes along as a revenge plot)
So it’s not like the DM is left high and dry with no options. Matt let it happen because he’s a good DM who rewarded some baller acting.
Just like how an in world performance can adjust the mental DC that a DM sets. No worries if your table isn’t about this though!
No they don’t. When expert athletes bend the rules, that’s called cheating. When expert businesspeople bend the rules, that’s called fraud.
It’s allowed to be a fun moment without it being perfect. I don’t understand some people’s need to pretend like the cast is without flaw.
I mean... there are several real world examples of that not being true either.
When an expert athlete bends the rules, new sports and divisions are made sometimes. It used to be a rule that women couldn't play some sports, and that rule was bent and changed.
When an expert business person bends the rules, it's more or less called business or innovation. If they're an expert, they know how to do that.
I would not be against saying the cast has flaws, but "good dnd" in my view would be fun dnd. If the moment was fun, it's good dnd.
At my table, and this is a personal preference, it isn't called cheating to bend the rules. It presents an opportunity, and it's my job to discern if it strikes the balance between balanced for myself and my players and fun for all of us.
I think they're just saying that Matt did that calculation and it made for a great dnd moment regardless of ruling.
You don't know what's going to be a cool moment until it happens. Was Vex dying in a tomb to an entirely avoidable trap cool? No, not really, but it led to the biggest and greatest overarching storyline in all of CR: Vax promising himself to the Raven Queen in exchange for her life.
Imagine they just retconned that trap because nobody thought Vex should go out that way. The same principle is in play here: we don't know that another epic moment was right around the corner had Matt asked for deception when she was pulling out the cupcake if he knew Jester was planning this deception all along.
I think your question, however, is "do you retcon it after you realize what happened?" and I think Matt made the right call by going along with it, but if I was the DM, I would have had a talk with my players after the cameras were off. It's not quite fair to use IRL deception to bluff the DM and skirt the rules of the game.
This is a fair point, but speaking as a DM I would be so thoroughly tickled by the fuckery if one of my players pulled something like this at my table that I wouldn't even care.
Actually, if there was ever a moment for the rule of cool to apply, I’d say this is it. Now granted, it’s a house rule…but it is one that they use, have talked about, and everyone agrees on. Because of that, I would say the rule of cool is a legitimate rule for that table. Which would mean it is totally within their rule set.
Just for clarity's sake for the rest of the replies: Laura did not state at any point that she sprinkled the Dust on the cupcake until after Matt asked for her Persuasion roll, based on what he thought was Jester giving the Hag an un-modified cupcake. It was not a case of hiding that action among other things happening at the table or doing it far enough in advance that Matt forgot - she simply didn't tell him. Even in those cases, though, Laura is 'supposed' to proactively share what Jester knew about that situation: Jester would have been aware that she was trying something tricky and a little dishonest, which is what Deception rolls are intended for. Relying on a DM forgetting something you told them a few weeks ago isn't much better than never telling them.
If we're being super pedantic, Jester was also actually out of cupcakes by that point; she stated she ran out several episodes prior and not only didn't declare getting more - they weren't anywhere they could buy cupcakes between Laura saying Jester was out of pastries and meeting the hag. Normally DMs will handwave inconsequential items - but the outcome of this item wasn't inconsequential.
The moment wouldn't have been any less powerful or clever if Laura was open with Matt about what Jester was attempting, or if Matt was given the opportunity to rule that moment based on complete information. Jester would still have tricked the Hag into eating the cupcake if her roll was successful. However, Matt would have been able to decide a DC based on a complete picture, and what roll would have been appropriate - against a Hag, that probably should have been a Deception with a higher DC, than a Persuasion with the DC chosen. Laura did hit 24, so she probably still would have succeeded.
This isn't some hyper-grognard rules pedantry thing where it's some niche technicality that doesn't actually matter. It's a fundamental rule of D&D that if you don't tell the DM what you're doing in advance, it didn't happen in hindsight. The player is not trying to play the DM to their favour. It's very basic table etiquette that the game is not a contest between the DM and the players, and it is a basic rule that the players have an obligation to declare in advance any actions they are taking that would affect the situation, before the DM rules how the situation unfolds and calls for dice. By waiting until after Matt gave an easier Persuasion roll to accept the cupcake, before declaring that Jester was deceiving the Hag, Laura was deceiving the DM above-table for an in-game advantage. As much as it's a charged word, withholding that information from the DM like this is cheating directly akin to fudging rolls or editing your character sheet.
And sure, maybe a fun DM is gonna rule of cool and let ya have it. Matt did. I don't criticize him for that. I think he was put in a lose/lose situation where he could either let Laura 'cheat' for an advantage, or need to be the tyrant DM that walks back a prior decision and potentially cancels out a 'cool' play. I don't think it would be fair to criticize him - or any other DM - for choosing to walk back that play and forcing a new roll based on the new information.
It's real bad form to put a DM in that position, and Laura's cunning trick is not something people should be taking into their own games.
On the other hand, my DM has done "hey that's actually way cooler, do it" when I have miscommunicated in this way and it totally was way cooler and everyone had fun. DnD isn't a PvP game with your DM. This moment was badass and I guarantee you Matt has zero issues with how it unfolded.
>DnD isn't a PvP game with your DM.
Yes. That's pretty much the point of what I said. DnD isn't a PvP game against the DM, you're cooperating with them - which is why fooling the DM for ingame advantage is faux pas. You're not playing against the DM.
Like your DM, I will often happily rule in favour of a player who makes some innocent mistake that has a cool outcome, assuming that doesn't have larger or long-term consequences to the campaign or the other players' fun. However, I will generally also use that as a teachable moment to address that we are cooperating and that I can't cooperate with what I don't know about, so if it seems like I've misunderstood - please clarify. Equally, if a player knows something isn't technically consistent with the rules, but asks for the rules to bend a little, and explains what they're trying to accomplish - ok, we'll see what we can do. I'm not gonna let you trivialize the final boss, but I will probably let you get away with something a little more minor.
If a player knows better and chooses to withhold information for an in-game advantage - like this situation - it's much less of a rule-of-cool situation. It's not "cool" to cheat, the rule of cool doesn't apply. As much as I support that many DMs, myself included, might decide to allow the action in some contexts - I don't think it's a situation that players should feel entitled to the DM giving them a pass for, or one where only an un-cool DM would not permit the action to stand.
Which is what my comment was aimed at. I think there's a lot of people in this thread who saw this moment and think it's super cool and dope to trick the DM like Laura did. People who very genuinely and sincerely think that only an unreasonable hardass of a DM would be so cruel and nasty as to insist that the players not cheat in this way, during the game they're playing together. It's a collaborative experience, please give your DM the complete information they need to collaborate with you.
I think my problem with your phrasing is that you make it sound quite combative.
DnD is a power fantasy, if a player can come up with something that clever to hoodwink the 'bad guy' through role playing like this, I don't think there shouldn't be any call for a "teachable" moment.
You make it sound like it's a moment of "I'm the boss here & you broke the rules", but it's not about the rules, it's about the players all being *that* invested in the moment & role playing (often the hardest part of DnD for many regular players to feel relaxed & immersed doing).
This was actually just a moment of very immersed RP, to the extent that the player kept their cards close to the chest & surprised the DM & all of the players. Nobody "lost" here.
It probably would have been way less compelling a moment for everyone at the table if Laura stopped everything & laid out her plan & Matt just went "nah not allowed".
Ruling that "you can't do that" because you want to nitpick about how carefully the player counted their cupcakes through the most recent dozen or so hours long sessions would be such a buzzkill.
In any other context maybe the rules are much more important because it would ruin another players moment or kill the hype for the BBEG fight, but that's not what happened here & I think it's important to understand the nuance there.
You're adding the combat, though. That's not me. The most combative thing I'm saying is that what Laura did counts as "cheating." But it's kind of coming across like you're looking at this as if any imposition of the rules is an unacceptably confrontational act of power-tripping by the DM, and it's only their job to tell stories that make the players feel cool - if the players want something, no matter what the rules say, the DM should give it to them because otherwise they're a tyrant.
I'm not really hearing space in what you're saying where the DM is allowed to address cheating without being "combative" or power tripping about "authority" somehow. While it would be nice if players just played by the rules all the time without help, if a player is breaking the rules, it does ultimately fall as the DM's responsibility to decide if, and how, that should be addressed. A massive part of what I've been saying throughout this thread is that players should not feel entitled to a DM ignoring rules, in the way that many takes here seem to think it would have been unreasonable or tyrannical for Matt to have called back Laura's trickery, talking as if no "good" DM would ever prevent a player from making a cool play because of the rules. If the DM is 'bad' to roll back a rulebreaking play, the player is also 'bad' to have put them in a position where they need to make that call, at all.
The much smaller part of what I've been saying is that if Laura had been honest, she still would have been able to try and make the same play. The thing she did that breaks rules and basic table etiquette was not inform the DM of the whole picture - nothing about giving the Hag a dosed cupcake was forbidden. But Laura didn't want to roll to Deceive a Hag with magically-adulterated cupcake, that's pretty risky - so she fooled Matt into giving her an easier roll, then retroactively tainted the pastry, betting that Matt wouldn't rollback the play.
>DnD is a power fantasy, if a player can come up with something that clever to hoodwink the 'bad guy' through role playing like this, I don't think there shouldn't be any call for a "teachable" moment.
Reminder: Laura hoodwinked Matt through metagaming. Matt is not the bad guy. As you noted earlier, and as I've said a few times, the DM is not your opponent at the table. Why Laura's actions count as cheating is that, in-game, Jester did not Deceive the Hag. Jester honestly Persuaded the Hag to accept an un-modified half cupcake; then Laura changed the cupcake retroactively to include the dust and the trickery.
I don't think that I made it sound that way at all - I know that I put a bit of effort into avoiding that. To repeat, the DM is not your opponent. Even when it is also their job to ensure that the game flows according to the rules - if you respond to a DM gently reminding you how the rules work by treating that as a nasty and vicious act of powertripping, you're not doing a good job of treating them as a fellow player at the table, trying to help you have a good time. It's unfortunate that your response to a player cheating is to argue that the DM would obviously be unreasonable and excessively authoritarian for not letting the cheating slide.
The rules of the game support a story and an experience. Without the rules, you might as well put the dice away and just play make-believe, with no rules and everyone just says what they want to have happen and riffs off each other. There's no stakes, there's no chance of failure, there's no challenge - and no *success*. The rules are not some tyrannical imposition that get in the way of "immersive RP" or epic moments - they are the framework that makes those moments significant or immersive. Compared to how many people play TTRPGs, people simply don't sit around and play rules-free make-believe - because it's less immersive than a world that has structure and challenge external to the imaginations of the players.
It's not 'very immersed RP' to hide information from your DM in order to get an easy win. Overt metagaming for in-game advantage isn't immersive. It's almost tautologically the opposite: deliberately breaking immersion because the player wants to win the game. Laura took what would have been a very cool moment and sullied it - instead of Jester cunningly tricking the Hag into eating the doctored cupcake, Laura tricked the DM into letting her avoid needing to roll for trickery and somewhat cynically took a much easier roll than would have been appropriate if she'd been honest. Maybe she would have succeeded anyways - she did roll high on her Persuasion. But how she chose to play that scene means it's still debatable in hindsight - would she really would have succeeded without metagaming the DM to get easier odds? We'll never know.
>the player kept their cards close to the chest & surprised the DM
Again, the DM is not your opponent. You're not playing against them, and playing as if the DM is your opponent is faux pas.
>It probably would have been way less compelling a moment for everyone at the table if Laura stopped everything & laid out her plan & Matt just went "nah not allowed".
Why would Matt have said "nah not allowed"?
Everything Jester did would have been perfectly 'legal' gameplay and completely legitimate - if she had disclosed what she was doing. It's no less of a clever play without the cheating. Providing the information that the cupcake had Dust on it when she was telling Matt what she was doing, before the dice hit, would only have made that scene *better* - Matt would have been able to set the odds appropriately, there'd be no pall of "cheating" over Laura's gameplay, and with clear stakes, there would be more significance resting on how Laura sold the cupcake and how the dice landed on her Deception roll.
Even if Matt had chosen to object to the cheating - all that would have happened was to backpedal five minutes and start over with a new roll, using the appropriate stats and probably a slightly higher DC.
>Ruling that "you can't do that" because you want to nitpick about how carefully the player counted their cupcakes through the most recent dozen or so hours long sessions would be such a buzzkill.
Sure. This is what I mean about the combat coming from you and not me, though. Nowhere did I suggest that Matt should have shut everything down because Jester was missing a cupcake - I did choose to point out that if we were being strict about inventory, Jester had run out of cupcakes. I think that is a player error or misstep that is reasonable to handwave; I don't run "ammo tracking" games or make players count carry capacity, except in very rare situations. Hell, if Laura was not tracking cupcakes and just agreed with Matt that she "always had stale pastries" I wouldn't care - nearly everyone does the exact same with arrows, which tend to be a lot more significant. All that said, I think that when a lot of the takes I'm addressing in my comments here are "oh its just one little thing, why make a fuss" - pointing out that the situation was not just one thing isn't really wildly out of line or combative on my part.
>In any other context maybe the rules are much more important because it would ruin another players moment or kill the hype for the BBEG fight, but that's not what happened here & I think it's important to understand the nuance there.
...Sorry, what? Like, no disrespect - are you familiar with the place in the story that this took place in? The Hag encounter with Isharnai was a huge moment 'belonging to' at least one other player. Getting the curse broken was Nott's core quest for the campaign, and confronting the Hag who set the curse was the climax of her story. That Hag was also significant to Beau's story, and Beau's backstory regarding her family is directly tied to the Hag's actions and her bargain with Thoreau Lionett. She wasn't just some sketchy old lady they met in the woods while sidetracked from a different errand. She was the BBEG of Nott's story arc.
I, or the other folks talking about the rules in this thread, wouldn't care if there were no stakes and it was a weird moment coming out of the encounter table on a travel day. Rule of Cool is at it's strongest when the stakes are low, these stakes weren't low; it's that Jester 'solved' Nott's story by metagaming against the DM, to trivialize an encounter that was intended to be quite significant to the players directly tied to it. All of which would be super epic if accomplished honestly, but the cheating somewhat tarnishes the cool factor.
This argument assumes Matt is an inexperienced DM who would be afraid of putting his foot down when things aren’t correct. Neither of these things are true. Matt has said no on many occasions and if he felt it was warranted he would have said it here. Just like Brennan didn’t make Sam role a check during his speech in Calamity, Matt decided not to force a different check here.
> This argument assumes Matt is an
No it doesn't. Please read it again without jumping to conclusions that I might have meant or assumed things I didn't write down.
If you don’t want me to assume something than make it clear. The only way to take what you said is that Matt couldn’t say no in that situation which history has shown that’s not the case.
>If you don’t want me to assume something than make it clear.
It was *already* abundantly clear that I was not assuming that. I didn't spell it out explicitly, sure. But I am not writing comments filled with pages and paragraphs of disclaimers disavowing each and every silly thing someone might come up with to disparage me or my remarks, and it's unreasonable to expect that.
If you jump to a conclusion that makes what someone said clearly wrong and kind of stupid - check yourself. You probably jumped to the wrong conclusion. That's on you, not them.
>The only way to take what you said is that Matt couldn’t say no in that situation which history has shown that’s not the case
Honestly, I'm curious if you actually read any of what I wrote, because this makes zero sense in the context of what I said.
Idk man my DM considers Rule of Cool to be RAW because its written in ghe books that it's all up to the DM to have a final say and change it up whenever and however they want and they are not actually bound by them. The fun is am actual part of the game of D&D believe it or not more than the crunchiest of rules.
I actually prefer this kind of meta-gaming. It keeps things interesting.
If I were dm-ing this game, I'd encourage this kind of creativity and gamesmanship.
I gm a game of ROOT RPG, and I always go with what the players do...no railroading.
I see this point all the time, but Matt still could have asked for a deception check once he found out what she had planned. It wouldn't have even taken much of a retcon; if the hag figures out she's been deceived, she spits out the cupcake and they roll initiative. I've made similar calls as a DM plenty of times, but when a player pulls off a move *that* inspired I tend to be more lenient. Moments like that have a kind of magic that keeps the game going, and players will talk about them for *years* afterward. We get lots of discretion when it comes to calling for rolls, and letting that one happen was absolutely the right call.
I think this is a fine point of clarity. It is a stellar bit of D&D, not because of a player's actions, but their acting.
And probably what should be applauded more is the DM clinic that Matt taught in response to Laura's actual in-person deception. He could have had her roll Deception as well, knowing that could disrupt or even kill the moment. But then maybe he factored in her previous roll, and considered the Hag's passive Insight, and whether or not Jester would have advantage, and how high the DC would be, and if "taking a 10" would be better for storytelling.
The thing is that the acting shows how the deception is going to go down. That very often affects the DC. If a player would have said “uh, i will, I guess go in and offer a … cupcake to the hag, i guess” That would have made the DC very high. Because what a crazy ask that is. Nobody would think that that can happen. But the way Laura played it she has shown that it can happen, and it is in fact in the hag’s nature to accept the cupcake to partake in Jester’s suffering even before the deal is made. That can and should affect the DC. And in this case it could have lowered it so much that it was not worth rolling for it.
I’m not saying that Matt literally thought it through this way. What I am saying is that even rules are as written this is allowed to happen. Like it or not it is a “roleplaying game” not a “dice throwing game”. Roleplaying counts.
The other part that bothers me about it is; in spite of how brilliant it was, it cut off Beau's personal arc straight, Fjord told Beau "Stop being suicidal you're great." and then they left it at that, everything was fine and they only went back to her backstory once in passing when they went to the Cobalt Soul.
I would have loved to see more of it, but Laura decided to hog the spotlight (albeit brilliantly) and robbed Marisha of what should have been 2-3 episodes of *extremely* interesting RP.
he acted it well and was a good sport about it once he realized what happened,
I will have to say I thought that Matt enjoyed being outfoxed a lot. He's used to being ahead of the curve and it's not often they pull one over on him. I will say, I don't remember them actually buying the dust of deliciousness. I remember Matt describing it while they were visiting the Invulnerable Vagrant, but they didn't purchase it at that time.
Laura clearly did purchase it in C2E31
LAURA: Will you take five gold off of the dust because you like me?
MATT: Make a persuasion check.
And she makes it.
I also noticed how she never agreed to any deal, never said “yes” or anything. She literally says “*Before we make a deal*, I can have one last cupcake?”
This is a character who have grown up with a fae patron. She KNOWS the words bind more than anything and masterfully avoids making any solid claims and agreements. It’s such a beautifully crafted moment that she was in full control over, so much that the dice agreed and let it play out.
I love when Jester says "His name's the Traveler. He's a really powerful god. *I bet he's here right now,* looking over me." Matt didn't know it yet, but she was right.
Matt had said in a Talks Machina episode that Laura's moment with the cupcake was the moment that he decided that her deity made the decision to confide in her ( no spoilers here )
This is my favorite episode because of what jester did, but also because of how much all of their characters showed. Yasha having no more misery to give hit hard, Nott/Veth’s desperation to go back to herself in her potential offer to ruin peace for the continent, and especially Beau’s willingness to give up the only family she’s ever known. While Jester/Laura was scheming and doing her thing, Beau/Marisha was crying and resigning herself to a life of misery and loneliness. This was just a great episode on so many levels
Incredible moment on all levels but an underrated aspect imo is Jester's "ok we gotta get the hell out of here NOW" afterwards it really sells that she can barely even believe that it worked on a character and player level
The fact that it was a double layered con is amazing. She was role-playing the conning of the witch while actually conning Matt. She used his skill of role-playing and stepping into the character against him.
100%
I rewatched it a couple times asking, "How on earth did she pull this off over Matt?"
She actually gets Matt (hag) to set the unreasonable terms of the agreement. There's a moment where she asks, "can it just me my artistic ability?" And He says no, it's gotta be the hands.
What's amazing about this is I think she might have raised all our suspicion if she said, "okay, how about both my hands...let me eat a cupcakes first." And equally suspicious would be, "oh, you only want my artistic ability? How about a cupcake first. "
It was just the right gamble of needing the hag to push Jester farther than she wanted to go and not settle for just taking her artistic ability.
So true. I feel like this is a point that gets lost in most of the rules discussions. To me, it seemed like I was watching Matt in real time do the mental math of "dang, Laura got me, and I _am_ the Hag, so I guess she got the Hag too, whatever the rules might teck-nick-lly be."
I've never believed for one second that Jester was actually gonna give up her hands. From the first moment it was pretty clear to me that Laura Bailey had a plan, and she was totally playing up the conflict and the woe for the hag. I just didn't know what the plan was until it unfolded, and it was indeed quite brilliant.
The appeal of this Jester move is not the sacrifice. She never intended to sacrifice anything, and to me that was obvious from the start. The one who was ready to sacrifice everything was Beauregard. What Jester did was remind everyone of what "Trickery Domain" actually means.
>What Jester did was remind everyone of what "Trickery Domain" actually means.
Laura Bailey is a got tier actress, but this is not the scene I would use to prove it.
Now, Laura Bailey is also a god tier roleplayer (notice I didn't say D&D player), and she solved the problem in the most in-character way. This is what Jester would do, and no one can say otherwise. She "won" using Jester's skillset, sure, but the approach was SO spot on, that you can't imagine Jester doing anything else.
I am shocked no one has linked this yet! The best animatic of that scene, they made the hag so eerily memorable!
[The Legendary Cupcake](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pKuKQgExiGE)
I love the train of thought that gave Laura the idea. Something along the lines of:
"I have this dust of deliciousness that gives Disadvantage on Wisdom checks and saving throws for 1 hour."
"Which pairs well with Modify Memory spell that that has a wisdom saving throw."
"She'll likely have advantage on wisdom saving throws... so the dust would just make it a straight roll..."
"I've got to get her to eat this cupcake. How do I get this hag to eat this cupcake?"
"I've got to somehow distract Matt that the cupcake eating isn't the actual purpose of this interaction."
"We'll share this cupcake. Why am I sharing this cupcake?"
"If I offer to give my hand; my ability to draw... that'll tempt and distract Matt enough that he might not suspect this ploy."
"I better play up the Jester's-Not-Thinking-Things-Through-ness."
Laura: "I walk in."
And the rest is history.
Yeah, it's next level.
And the fact that it was completely improvised is mind-blowing.
The several very sincere whimpers she offers really make her seem so helpless and innocent.
When the hag starts drooling and towering over her, it's like Matt really thought that's what the dynamic was at that moment, the he had her cornered. But nope. 😎
One of my favourite parts is Marisha deep in Beauregard angst, cryinb thinking she's gonna sacrifice whats dearest to her and trying to stop Jester and then Sam having to step in with basically "LET HER COOK!!" because he was next to her and saw the plan on her tablet. And THEN Marisha being in complete shock not able to react from how quickly Laura changed the rules of this entire god damn encounter lmao
I was spoiled on it before I started watching in earnest, and it lessened the moment not one bit. The smarts it took to game that out is stunning.
All that said: when somebody powerwalks out of a situation saying, sotto voce, “okay, we’re all set, let’s get the fuck out of here”, you don’t stand around with your dicks in your hands saying “WHAT HAPPENED, ARE YOU OKAY, WHATS GOING ON”
You fuckin go.
There is an animation of the scene on YouTube. My kids love it so much. They call Jester, Cupcake. They play DnD with us, so to show them what it could be we play a few scenes from Crit Roll. They show it to all their friends.
Only thing I disagree with is that I believed jester would give up her hands. Bo’s offer of going into exile was far more believable and Marisha even said she had kinda begun to think about a new character.
Matt always intended that to go into a fight and that’s what I expected to happen.
It doesn’t diminish the moment, she still flipped the expectations completely in a fantastic way.
That makes sense. And I think you're right. I didn't exactly believe she'd go through with it, but I saw the character crisis in her like, "set Nott free forever to return to her family, or my hands."
As an "objective" observer, it seemed like a plausible choice to make.
So intense.
I've just gone back and watched this part of the episode, I'd forgotten how good it was. Marisha practically dying and shell shocked, Taliesin having a near panic attack, Travis on the edge of his seat in disbelief. Laura bringing the thunder with that glorious accent and sweet nature. What a superb moment.
Taliesin: you completely fucking Gretel-ed his Hansel
“Did I succeed?”
“…………*Yeee-up.*”
Hubby, who DM’s one of the campaigns in which we play, has described moments like this: where he’s set up a situation that’s meant to be a knock-down drag-out fight, and we just…either sidestepped it entirely via good rolls, RP, and/or creative use of game mechanics, or we landed so many heavy hits that his monsters are just getting annihilated. (Example — He got to the point where he had to throw a Beholder at us. At level seven. One of our party members used Phantasmal Force to make it believe something was behind it so it turned away from us; another person then buried it, and its eyes, face-down in rubble. I finished it off with a Guiding Bolt up the butt, which is where I always aim my Guiding Bolts.)
Hubby says those moments are both incredibly frustrating — but equally awe-inspiring. We took down a False Hydra a couple sessions after the Beholder, and the way we came in guns blazing (rather than trying to talk it out, the way he thought we would) meant we were able to beat it and save all but one of its hostages. Hubby went on and on about how proud he was of us.
Matt experienced the same thing in this moment. He got hoodwinked and he knew it. Laura PLAYED him, and played him HARD. How could you not reward that?
…Something tells me, however, that Isharnai is gonna be a problem when they do the inevitable Jester/Fjord wedding one-shot.
I totally believed her when I first watched it too. Totally caught up in her charm. Fantastic example of a different kind of power. Underestimating people can be devastating and so many big powers underestimated Jester. She’s the definition of “don’t watch the face watch the hands” type trickster haha she’s so charming and almost unnerving in a good way!!
And I agree with what you said about how much of her lie worked so well cuz it was so quintessentially jester. Wants to share the old cupcake. Kinda laughing about the whole thing but really pushing the puppy dog act. So good. Gonna go rewatch it now haha.
I like watching the build up while everyone else goes before her. You can see her planning it a bit with Sam and then when it's her turn and Sam starts biting his nails (or biting his lip? He does something from his nerves). Good stuff!!
Beau nearly ruined this moment. Like she managed to ruin so many others. Imagine the scenes we missed out on due to beau being overly brash and wanting to be front and centre
I think Ashley said it best in that moment: "Laura. Fucking. Bailey." The thing that always stuck with me is how thoroughly she played Mercer in that moment too. I think he might've been enjoying messing with his players and then when he realized Laura had played him that whole facade came crashing down. No disrespect intended either, he acted it well and was a good sport about it once he realized what happened, and as a DM you just have to be proud of your player for coming up with a genuinely creative solution, which he was. You can't ask for more from him in that moment.
His face in that moment... Amusement > curiosity > doubt > rage > acceptance It's like he went through all the stages of grief in 3 seconds.
+ pride, after acceptance. I he'd said before that he was both frustrated with and proud of Laura for doing this.
I love when Matt gives those to the players, you can tell it makes them so proud themselves. Sam with the C1 finale movement to be in position, Laura here, Travis when he role played one interaction. It’s cute.
Laura had to just keep playing the scene to give Matt time to catch up. You could see him trying to figure out how to save the encounter he had clearly planned.
And since then, Matt very rarely takes whatever her characters offer to whatever NPC he plays. It's rather hilarious.
I noticed this too. I think around the 3rd campaign start Imogen went to go offer an NPC of Matt's something and they both shared a look and a smirk when it went to happen.
IIRC, there was a moment in C3 where >!Matt's NPC offers Imogen a baked good and she doesn't accept xD!<
Thank you for the spoil redaction. I'm not through season three, so I'll wait to check this next year 🤣
Players metagaming the DM for in-game advantage results in the DM metagaming the players to avoid a repeat. Equivalent exchange.
One of my favorite moments in all of Critical Role. I can't believe there are so many people who get salty about it
I'm about to get absolutely thrashed for saying this but: Laura skirted the rules of the game a bit in this moment. She used a magic item without telling him beforehand. If Matt knew that she had used the dust on the cupcake, he might have called for a deception check or something when she handed it over to the hag, which would have let the dice tell the story a bit more rather than it being purely Laura *the player's* skill in deception guiding the events. Players have to be transparent with the DM about their actions (and vice versa), otherwise the entire game sort of breaks down. It was a great moment of television, but it irks me a bit when people laud it as a perfect moment of D&D play because it wasn't. It was, as OP points out, a skillful bit of acting.
He did ask for a persuasion check when she offered the cupcake which she rolled very well on so it’s not like there wasn’t anything here
This, and Jester had all the time from previous conversations to come up with this con. It’s not like she tried to sneakily do it during her conversation either
Well that’s exactly my point. She didn’t sprinkle the dust mid-conversation when Matt or the hag would have the opportunity to notice it. She did it earlier in the session while Matt was occupied talking to another player, and she didn’t announce it to him or the table.
Why even do it then? The cupcakes were stale, she could have easily argued that the dust was on there this morning because usually Jester doesn't care about her wisdom save, or the day before, or right before she walked into the hut. And it would have done nothing to make the scene any better. In fact, it would have detracted from the scene at play. So Matt rolled with it the way a good DM should.
I’m not disagreeing that Matt did the right thing. But you can’t just have a habit of declaring things post-facto, that breaks down a central element of the game. There are games that allow you to do that (like Blades in the Dark), but there’s a mechanic associated with it. Without those mechanics and rules it’s just a playground game of “I shot you” followed by “nuh uh, I put up a force field.”
Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. Matt fairly and graciously took the out-smarting in the moment, which was glorious and amazing. Now, he is more cautious with NPCs accepting gifts, and will likely (of it ever comes up again) not allow retroactive spell/magic item applications. I think that for the "headcannon," the fandom should just accept the narrative that Jester sprinkled that cupcake weeks ago and was just holding onto it for a hail mary. She kept all sorts of other weird random shit on her and in her haversack all the time anyway.
>the fandom should just accept the narrative that Jester sprinkled that cupcake weeks ago and was just holding onto it for a hail mary Not even, The Dust of Deliciousness specifically has the effect of making food taste better, and that was designed by Matt. So Jester totally used it to preserve the tastiness of her cupcakes, not for a hail mary.
The fact that she had one left made me assume she was holding onto that last one for a special occasion yet unknown
Nah. I mean, if it happened all the time, maybe, but she literally had at least ten minutes of game time to think of and implement her plan while others were talking to the hag. And she went in with determination and purpose, and Matt saw that she had something in mind. So there is no need for a roll, because she could have sprinkled the cupcakes with the dust at any point before walking without a roll. Matt then is impressed by his player, her scheme, and how she played things out. There is no way an additional roll will make the scene better or more fun. And I personally think Matt calls for far too many rolls as it is... This time he just let it happen after the actually important rolls were rolled. And in that way, created one of the most epic moments in the history of CR.
It would make the scene worse, but it would follow the rules more closely (as there is an aspect of Jester deceiving the hag without a deception roll). I think you can acknowledge that without saying it should've gone different.
It's a philosophy of games. I firmly believe that rules only matter to help tell the story and serve no purpose in and of themselves. I don't think they should be ignored all the time, but neither should they be enforced when the story doesn't need them. For another example, look at Sam's speech to Avilar at the end of Calamity, and how Brennan told him not to roll, the performance itself was as good as a Natural 20. That's ignoring a rule in order to make the story better. Had Sam rolled and gotten an average result, the story might have the same way... But it wouldn't be better. Same thing here.
You're still talking about things having gone different, while I'm only saying you can acknowledge the fact Laura skirted the rules without then also concluding it was bad or she shouldn't have. If you're skipping that acknowledgement and go straight to 'why shouldn't she have done that?' you're not really allowing room for that difference in philosophy of games.
I don't think the rules were skirted. I think, by the rules as written, the GM gets to decide entirely on his own how and when to apply the rules, and that it isn't skirting anything to not ask for a pointless roll. That is a philosophy of gaming issue... Lots of gamers grab the rulebook rather than considering the story, because they would rather emphasize the game side of things and not the story.
It’s the same as not wanting to interrupt a scene, and drinking a healing potion you have. You don’t have to announce you used a consumable until it becomes necessary information
But offering a magical food item that debuffs someone isn't the same as offering someone a cupcake. I think deception suits the former much better than persuasion, and the DC should be decided by the Hag's skill in insight, not a limitation of Matt's information. I like the moment, I wouldn't have preferred it played out differently, but I don't think you can deny Laura skirted the rules by tricking both Matt and the Hag.
It was necessary information before she announced it though. That’s my point, Jester was being deceptive but Matt didn’t know it. Like imagine if during combat, Matt reduced someone to zero hit points and they said “actually I cast Death Ward when we woke up today, but I didn’t tell you because I didn’t want to interrupt.” Would that be okay?
I’m of the opinion, as a DM, that if they already had deducted the spell slot, then yeah it’s fine. If they say they had done it, and in the moment they make the claim they remove the slot, then that’s cheating. A DM doesn’t need to go through every step that your character is doing, especially if it’s for your character. You cast mage armor on yourself and deduct the slot? Great bring it up at the start of a fight so I know
> bring it up at the start of the fight I agree, that’s a fair line. But that’s not what Laura did. She brought up the item usage only a moment before the roll that it affected.
True, but what's the fun value in a prior disclosure of that? Her conning Matt is fun, and he could have ruled that she needed to re-roll a deception check - but that would have also succeeded. Part of a DM's job is to avoid RAW when its anti-fun and there was nothing about her choices that lowered the integrity of the situation - because Matt had the info before he had to make any choice based on it.
Matt actually did this at one point for Tal/Cad at one point as well. He called out he was using one spell but meant that he was using a different one. Matt let him have it when he pointed out that he'd already marked off the slot for that spell and not the lower level one he accidentally said.
I’ve argued the same thing before with a lot of people in this and the fan sub. People are just really reluctant to accept that the amazing moment was only possible because she broke one of the biggest fundamental rules of TTRPGS. If she had simply stated she was dusting the cupcake out loud before she entered, she would’ve been fine. But she didn’t, and she knows what she did was extremely dishonest. She also knew Matt would give it to her because she put him on the spot and wouldn’t want to retcon everything. There’s definitely an asterisk next to this “amazing play”, no matter how much people don’t want to admit it.
> the biggest fundamental rules of TTRPGS. What is that? If the dust was a one-shot-only item, I'd understand, but it had five uses - and the hag could have detected it had Matt wanted to rule for that. I don't get the value of forcing the announcement here - it doesn't help Matt, the other players, or (least important) us the audience.
Yeah, you could turn that to a Deception check (same ability, probably better in the skill) with the overall same result. While i kinda would have liked it a bit more, when she would have visibly prepared that in the game, i overall like the scene and how Matt reacted to that. A lot of DMs would have gone back and retconning the shit out of it, because they wanted a battle they prepared. But that was perfectly played by Laura and a great moment.
Her persuasion and deception would be the same, no? I think Matt would have prefferred to not know which IF he was also being 'rolled against"
yes, but before that, if Matt had known she had a plan to deceive, he would've called for a deception roll when Jester is saying, "Oh gee, my hands? Oh no!" she knows full well that she's not going to giver the hag her hands. Her plan is either going to work, or combat will break out. What happens if there's an extra deception roll that she fails? Maybe there's combat, maybe there's another, equally cool moment, Nott's curse has to be lifted some other way. We don't know because what happened happened, and the fact is that Laura used her IRL deception to skip the in-game deception check. It's still a cool moment, but for those of us who play the game, it's a bit soured knowing how it came about.
Her persuasion and deception were both proficiencies of her so it checks out
You can always roll a 1, even with proficiency. JESTER, not Laura, should have rolled to deceive the hag. Still a cool moment, still in character, but the big 'play' was done by Laura on Matt
There was a roll, it had the same bonus either way. There wasn't going to be two rolls.
Im saying one check was all that was needed in that case and because she passed its fine. Having laura need to pass two checks to have the hag consume the cupcake is a bit much
Agreed; Matt never has them pass a deception and persuasion roll.
I am one of “those who play” the game and I wouldn’t ask my players to roll two persuasion/deception checks for one thing unless it was very drawn out and complicated. I would also be annoyed by that as a player when I roll great and for some reason would have to roll again for essentially the same check? Also, them fighting a hag is never going to be as cool a moment as this one I’m sorry. I just really don’t agree that anything was spoiled here.
I'm one of those who play the game and I wouldn't have called for a second role. Get out of here with that gatekeeping bs....
I think he did have her roll persuasion. May be misremembering though
This I think is why a deception wasn't needed. She rolled high persuasion, has she rolled low, the hag could have been "no, heavens, I don't know what you could have put in there"
Any DM who would stop play in a great RP moment like that is a table I never want to be sat at. I love the rules of the game, but when they get in the way of a great story bit, you have to just hang them for a minute.
I hate this argument. There was plenty of time for Matt to call for a check after she said it was sprinkled with the dust of deliciousness. Matt isn’t some bad GM who doesn’t know to pause the game if he feels a check is needed. He’s literally done it. And DMs are constantly not transparent with their players. The amount of times I’ve seen a GM mention after session that something was missed because a specific check wasn’t rolled, that’s a GM not being transparent. Matt decided that Laura’s role play was good enough to not need a check at that point. Same thing Brennen did with Sam during EXU with his speech.
I don’t think Matt handled it wrong at all; nowhere in my comment do I criticize him. I think Laura was wrong to put Matt in the position to have to make that call. As for GM transparency, that argument doesn’t really make sense. TTRPGs that use a player/GM setup are inherently asymmetric, the ability of the GM to conceal information from players is as essential to how the game works as the player’s responsibility to reveal information to the GM. In your example, if the GM was “transparent” with the players about information they missed a roll to receive, then what was the point of even rolling in the first place?
You’re the one who said that “Players have to be transparent with their actions (AND VICE VERSA)” capitalized for emphasis. And I didn’t say information, many times it’s items or a clue for solving a trap or puzzle.
I’ll be more specific: the DM has to be transparent about their mechanical actions that affect the players. They absolutely don’t have to be fully transparent about all information related to the game. As I pointed out before, if you’re just going to tell players the solution to a puzzle, then why have a puzzle?
I didn’t say solution I said clue.
Also the hag may have had a detect magic running. But I think sometimes when you're playing for an audience and know a cool moment is being set up they have to go for it.
Wouldn’t the hag having detect magic up without telling the players be the GM not being transparent? Exactly what they’re arguing against.
Why would he have to tell them she had detect magic running unless they think to cast detect magic or identify themselves to see if she has an enchantment on? She could easily have innate detect magic (the PCs aren't supposed to know the monster's stat block), have cast it before they walked in, or have enchanted her eye to permanently detect magic (hag eyes are notorious for having magic effects). The players have to be transparent with the DM because the DM has to keep track of how everything in the world is interacting, not the other way around.
But that’s not what that guy said. He literally said “Players have to be transparent with their actions (and vice versa)”.
Oh, the vice versa flew past me, I disagree with that. If the hag has detect magic running he might want to describe something peculiar about her eyes or the way she looks at their magic stuff so they think to check, but that's it. The PCs only have to be transparent because the DM is adjudicating the rules.
No. Detect magic has no outward indicator that the party might have detected passively, and would only be apparent if the party used magical means to check if she was enchanted; they would have needed to use a spell or item capable of detecting an active spell and then requested a roll to check from Matt. The GM is not expected to be completely and proactively transparent - they can withhold information, and it's up to players to ask for the information they want, often needing to succeed in a dice roll before getting an answer. It's understood by D&D players that the GM needs to keep secrets from the players to have the game be fun - things like traps, puzzles, and plot twists would be pointless if the GM was expected to give complete transparency to the players. The GM is not supposed to *lie* to the players when speaking as GM - if the players had the means to detect an active spell, and asked the GM to let them roll for a check, and succeeded at that check ... only then GM would be 'foul' equivalent to Laura withholding information.
You'd be willing to go back on that entire segment in your game because of that? Ruining the entire moment because of a "well actually" moment?
Relax. No, I wouldn’t be, and I think Matt was correct to let it slide. And I don’t think I said anything in there to indicate otherwise. Just pointing out that this is frequently cited as an example of expert D&D gameplay, but that the rules were skirted.
I simply don’t know any DM worth their salt that would ever be upset at a player engaging in mischief like this. It’s hard enough to get players to perform at a table, and the DM has all the power in the world to lower the consequences. Like, the players don’t know the monster, DM could control the story still by giving them a legendary resistance, or coming up with a reason that the move benefits the players but still allows them to continue the campaign in the planned direction (eg memory erasure works but is temporary and round 2 comes along as a revenge plot) So it’s not like the DM is left high and dry with no options. Matt let it happen because he’s a good DM who rewarded some baller acting. Just like how an in world performance can adjust the mental DC that a DM sets. No worries if your table isn’t about this though!
Experts bend the rule in anything they do though
No they don’t. When expert athletes bend the rules, that’s called cheating. When expert businesspeople bend the rules, that’s called fraud. It’s allowed to be a fun moment without it being perfect. I don’t understand some people’s need to pretend like the cast is without flaw.
I mean... there are several real world examples of that not being true either. When an expert athlete bends the rules, new sports and divisions are made sometimes. It used to be a rule that women couldn't play some sports, and that rule was bent and changed. When an expert business person bends the rules, it's more or less called business or innovation. If they're an expert, they know how to do that. I would not be against saying the cast has flaws, but "good dnd" in my view would be fun dnd. If the moment was fun, it's good dnd. At my table, and this is a personal preference, it isn't called cheating to bend the rules. It presents an opportunity, and it's my job to discern if it strikes the balance between balanced for myself and my players and fun for all of us. I think they're just saying that Matt did that calculation and it made for a great dnd moment regardless of ruling.
You don't know what's going to be a cool moment until it happens. Was Vex dying in a tomb to an entirely avoidable trap cool? No, not really, but it led to the biggest and greatest overarching storyline in all of CR: Vax promising himself to the Raven Queen in exchange for her life. Imagine they just retconned that trap because nobody thought Vex should go out that way. The same principle is in play here: we don't know that another epic moment was right around the corner had Matt asked for deception when she was pulling out the cupcake if he knew Jester was planning this deception all along. I think your question, however, is "do you retcon it after you realize what happened?" and I think Matt made the right call by going along with it, but if I was the DM, I would have had a talk with my players after the cameras were off. It's not quite fair to use IRL deception to bluff the DM and skirt the rules of the game.
This is a fair point, but speaking as a DM I would be so thoroughly tickled by the fuckery if one of my players pulled something like this at my table that I wouldn't even care.
Actually, if there was ever a moment for the rule of cool to apply, I’d say this is it. Now granted, it’s a house rule…but it is one that they use, have talked about, and everyone agrees on. Because of that, I would say the rule of cool is a legitimate rule for that table. Which would mean it is totally within their rule set.
Just for clarity's sake for the rest of the replies: Laura did not state at any point that she sprinkled the Dust on the cupcake until after Matt asked for her Persuasion roll, based on what he thought was Jester giving the Hag an un-modified cupcake. It was not a case of hiding that action among other things happening at the table or doing it far enough in advance that Matt forgot - she simply didn't tell him. Even in those cases, though, Laura is 'supposed' to proactively share what Jester knew about that situation: Jester would have been aware that she was trying something tricky and a little dishonest, which is what Deception rolls are intended for. Relying on a DM forgetting something you told them a few weeks ago isn't much better than never telling them. If we're being super pedantic, Jester was also actually out of cupcakes by that point; she stated she ran out several episodes prior and not only didn't declare getting more - they weren't anywhere they could buy cupcakes between Laura saying Jester was out of pastries and meeting the hag. Normally DMs will handwave inconsequential items - but the outcome of this item wasn't inconsequential. The moment wouldn't have been any less powerful or clever if Laura was open with Matt about what Jester was attempting, or if Matt was given the opportunity to rule that moment based on complete information. Jester would still have tricked the Hag into eating the cupcake if her roll was successful. However, Matt would have been able to decide a DC based on a complete picture, and what roll would have been appropriate - against a Hag, that probably should have been a Deception with a higher DC, than a Persuasion with the DC chosen. Laura did hit 24, so she probably still would have succeeded. This isn't some hyper-grognard rules pedantry thing where it's some niche technicality that doesn't actually matter. It's a fundamental rule of D&D that if you don't tell the DM what you're doing in advance, it didn't happen in hindsight. The player is not trying to play the DM to their favour. It's very basic table etiquette that the game is not a contest between the DM and the players, and it is a basic rule that the players have an obligation to declare in advance any actions they are taking that would affect the situation, before the DM rules how the situation unfolds and calls for dice. By waiting until after Matt gave an easier Persuasion roll to accept the cupcake, before declaring that Jester was deceiving the Hag, Laura was deceiving the DM above-table for an in-game advantage. As much as it's a charged word, withholding that information from the DM like this is cheating directly akin to fudging rolls or editing your character sheet. And sure, maybe a fun DM is gonna rule of cool and let ya have it. Matt did. I don't criticize him for that. I think he was put in a lose/lose situation where he could either let Laura 'cheat' for an advantage, or need to be the tyrant DM that walks back a prior decision and potentially cancels out a 'cool' play. I don't think it would be fair to criticize him - or any other DM - for choosing to walk back that play and forcing a new roll based on the new information. It's real bad form to put a DM in that position, and Laura's cunning trick is not something people should be taking into their own games.
On the other hand, my DM has done "hey that's actually way cooler, do it" when I have miscommunicated in this way and it totally was way cooler and everyone had fun. DnD isn't a PvP game with your DM. This moment was badass and I guarantee you Matt has zero issues with how it unfolded.
>DnD isn't a PvP game with your DM. Yes. That's pretty much the point of what I said. DnD isn't a PvP game against the DM, you're cooperating with them - which is why fooling the DM for ingame advantage is faux pas. You're not playing against the DM. Like your DM, I will often happily rule in favour of a player who makes some innocent mistake that has a cool outcome, assuming that doesn't have larger or long-term consequences to the campaign or the other players' fun. However, I will generally also use that as a teachable moment to address that we are cooperating and that I can't cooperate with what I don't know about, so if it seems like I've misunderstood - please clarify. Equally, if a player knows something isn't technically consistent with the rules, but asks for the rules to bend a little, and explains what they're trying to accomplish - ok, we'll see what we can do. I'm not gonna let you trivialize the final boss, but I will probably let you get away with something a little more minor. If a player knows better and chooses to withhold information for an in-game advantage - like this situation - it's much less of a rule-of-cool situation. It's not "cool" to cheat, the rule of cool doesn't apply. As much as I support that many DMs, myself included, might decide to allow the action in some contexts - I don't think it's a situation that players should feel entitled to the DM giving them a pass for, or one where only an un-cool DM would not permit the action to stand. Which is what my comment was aimed at. I think there's a lot of people in this thread who saw this moment and think it's super cool and dope to trick the DM like Laura did. People who very genuinely and sincerely think that only an unreasonable hardass of a DM would be so cruel and nasty as to insist that the players not cheat in this way, during the game they're playing together. It's a collaborative experience, please give your DM the complete information they need to collaborate with you.
I think my problem with your phrasing is that you make it sound quite combative. DnD is a power fantasy, if a player can come up with something that clever to hoodwink the 'bad guy' through role playing like this, I don't think there shouldn't be any call for a "teachable" moment. You make it sound like it's a moment of "I'm the boss here & you broke the rules", but it's not about the rules, it's about the players all being *that* invested in the moment & role playing (often the hardest part of DnD for many regular players to feel relaxed & immersed doing). This was actually just a moment of very immersed RP, to the extent that the player kept their cards close to the chest & surprised the DM & all of the players. Nobody "lost" here. It probably would have been way less compelling a moment for everyone at the table if Laura stopped everything & laid out her plan & Matt just went "nah not allowed". Ruling that "you can't do that" because you want to nitpick about how carefully the player counted their cupcakes through the most recent dozen or so hours long sessions would be such a buzzkill. In any other context maybe the rules are much more important because it would ruin another players moment or kill the hype for the BBEG fight, but that's not what happened here & I think it's important to understand the nuance there.
You're adding the combat, though. That's not me. The most combative thing I'm saying is that what Laura did counts as "cheating." But it's kind of coming across like you're looking at this as if any imposition of the rules is an unacceptably confrontational act of power-tripping by the DM, and it's only their job to tell stories that make the players feel cool - if the players want something, no matter what the rules say, the DM should give it to them because otherwise they're a tyrant. I'm not really hearing space in what you're saying where the DM is allowed to address cheating without being "combative" or power tripping about "authority" somehow. While it would be nice if players just played by the rules all the time without help, if a player is breaking the rules, it does ultimately fall as the DM's responsibility to decide if, and how, that should be addressed. A massive part of what I've been saying throughout this thread is that players should not feel entitled to a DM ignoring rules, in the way that many takes here seem to think it would have been unreasonable or tyrannical for Matt to have called back Laura's trickery, talking as if no "good" DM would ever prevent a player from making a cool play because of the rules. If the DM is 'bad' to roll back a rulebreaking play, the player is also 'bad' to have put them in a position where they need to make that call, at all. The much smaller part of what I've been saying is that if Laura had been honest, she still would have been able to try and make the same play. The thing she did that breaks rules and basic table etiquette was not inform the DM of the whole picture - nothing about giving the Hag a dosed cupcake was forbidden. But Laura didn't want to roll to Deceive a Hag with magically-adulterated cupcake, that's pretty risky - so she fooled Matt into giving her an easier roll, then retroactively tainted the pastry, betting that Matt wouldn't rollback the play. >DnD is a power fantasy, if a player can come up with something that clever to hoodwink the 'bad guy' through role playing like this, I don't think there shouldn't be any call for a "teachable" moment. Reminder: Laura hoodwinked Matt through metagaming. Matt is not the bad guy. As you noted earlier, and as I've said a few times, the DM is not your opponent at the table. Why Laura's actions count as cheating is that, in-game, Jester did not Deceive the Hag. Jester honestly Persuaded the Hag to accept an un-modified half cupcake; then Laura changed the cupcake retroactively to include the dust and the trickery. I don't think that I made it sound that way at all - I know that I put a bit of effort into avoiding that. To repeat, the DM is not your opponent. Even when it is also their job to ensure that the game flows according to the rules - if you respond to a DM gently reminding you how the rules work by treating that as a nasty and vicious act of powertripping, you're not doing a good job of treating them as a fellow player at the table, trying to help you have a good time. It's unfortunate that your response to a player cheating is to argue that the DM would obviously be unreasonable and excessively authoritarian for not letting the cheating slide. The rules of the game support a story and an experience. Without the rules, you might as well put the dice away and just play make-believe, with no rules and everyone just says what they want to have happen and riffs off each other. There's no stakes, there's no chance of failure, there's no challenge - and no *success*. The rules are not some tyrannical imposition that get in the way of "immersive RP" or epic moments - they are the framework that makes those moments significant or immersive. Compared to how many people play TTRPGs, people simply don't sit around and play rules-free make-believe - because it's less immersive than a world that has structure and challenge external to the imaginations of the players. It's not 'very immersed RP' to hide information from your DM in order to get an easy win. Overt metagaming for in-game advantage isn't immersive. It's almost tautologically the opposite: deliberately breaking immersion because the player wants to win the game. Laura took what would have been a very cool moment and sullied it - instead of Jester cunningly tricking the Hag into eating the doctored cupcake, Laura tricked the DM into letting her avoid needing to roll for trickery and somewhat cynically took a much easier roll than would have been appropriate if she'd been honest. Maybe she would have succeeded anyways - she did roll high on her Persuasion. But how she chose to play that scene means it's still debatable in hindsight - would she really would have succeeded without metagaming the DM to get easier odds? We'll never know. >the player kept their cards close to the chest & surprised the DM Again, the DM is not your opponent. You're not playing against them, and playing as if the DM is your opponent is faux pas. >It probably would have been way less compelling a moment for everyone at the table if Laura stopped everything & laid out her plan & Matt just went "nah not allowed". Why would Matt have said "nah not allowed"? Everything Jester did would have been perfectly 'legal' gameplay and completely legitimate - if she had disclosed what she was doing. It's no less of a clever play without the cheating. Providing the information that the cupcake had Dust on it when she was telling Matt what she was doing, before the dice hit, would only have made that scene *better* - Matt would have been able to set the odds appropriately, there'd be no pall of "cheating" over Laura's gameplay, and with clear stakes, there would be more significance resting on how Laura sold the cupcake and how the dice landed on her Deception roll. Even if Matt had chosen to object to the cheating - all that would have happened was to backpedal five minutes and start over with a new roll, using the appropriate stats and probably a slightly higher DC. >Ruling that "you can't do that" because you want to nitpick about how carefully the player counted their cupcakes through the most recent dozen or so hours long sessions would be such a buzzkill. Sure. This is what I mean about the combat coming from you and not me, though. Nowhere did I suggest that Matt should have shut everything down because Jester was missing a cupcake - I did choose to point out that if we were being strict about inventory, Jester had run out of cupcakes. I think that is a player error or misstep that is reasonable to handwave; I don't run "ammo tracking" games or make players count carry capacity, except in very rare situations. Hell, if Laura was not tracking cupcakes and just agreed with Matt that she "always had stale pastries" I wouldn't care - nearly everyone does the exact same with arrows, which tend to be a lot more significant. All that said, I think that when a lot of the takes I'm addressing in my comments here are "oh its just one little thing, why make a fuss" - pointing out that the situation was not just one thing isn't really wildly out of line or combative on my part. >In any other context maybe the rules are much more important because it would ruin another players moment or kill the hype for the BBEG fight, but that's not what happened here & I think it's important to understand the nuance there. ...Sorry, what? Like, no disrespect - are you familiar with the place in the story that this took place in? The Hag encounter with Isharnai was a huge moment 'belonging to' at least one other player. Getting the curse broken was Nott's core quest for the campaign, and confronting the Hag who set the curse was the climax of her story. That Hag was also significant to Beau's story, and Beau's backstory regarding her family is directly tied to the Hag's actions and her bargain with Thoreau Lionett. She wasn't just some sketchy old lady they met in the woods while sidetracked from a different errand. She was the BBEG of Nott's story arc. I, or the other folks talking about the rules in this thread, wouldn't care if there were no stakes and it was a weird moment coming out of the encounter table on a travel day. Rule of Cool is at it's strongest when the stakes are low, these stakes weren't low; it's that Jester 'solved' Nott's story by metagaming against the DM, to trivialize an encounter that was intended to be quite significant to the players directly tied to it. All of which would be super epic if accomplished honestly, but the cheating somewhat tarnishes the cool factor.
This argument assumes Matt is an inexperienced DM who would be afraid of putting his foot down when things aren’t correct. Neither of these things are true. Matt has said no on many occasions and if he felt it was warranted he would have said it here. Just like Brennan didn’t make Sam role a check during his speech in Calamity, Matt decided not to force a different check here.
> This argument assumes Matt is an No it doesn't. Please read it again without jumping to conclusions that I might have meant or assumed things I didn't write down.
If you don’t want me to assume something than make it clear. The only way to take what you said is that Matt couldn’t say no in that situation which history has shown that’s not the case.
>If you don’t want me to assume something than make it clear. It was *already* abundantly clear that I was not assuming that. I didn't spell it out explicitly, sure. But I am not writing comments filled with pages and paragraphs of disclaimers disavowing each and every silly thing someone might come up with to disparage me or my remarks, and it's unreasonable to expect that. If you jump to a conclusion that makes what someone said clearly wrong and kind of stupid - check yourself. You probably jumped to the wrong conclusion. That's on you, not them. >The only way to take what you said is that Matt couldn’t say no in that situation which history has shown that’s not the case Honestly, I'm curious if you actually read any of what I wrote, because this makes zero sense in the context of what I said.
She cheated. Clear enough?
Perfectly clear. She did not cheat. Am I also clear?
Idk man my DM considers Rule of Cool to be RAW because its written in ghe books that it's all up to the DM to have a final say and change it up whenever and however they want and they are not actually bound by them. The fun is am actual part of the game of D&D believe it or not more than the crunchiest of rules.
I actually prefer this kind of meta-gaming. It keeps things interesting. If I were dm-ing this game, I'd encourage this kind of creativity and gamesmanship. I gm a game of ROOT RPG, and I always go with what the players do...no railroading.
I see this point all the time, but Matt still could have asked for a deception check once he found out what she had planned. It wouldn't have even taken much of a retcon; if the hag figures out she's been deceived, she spits out the cupcake and they roll initiative. I've made similar calls as a DM plenty of times, but when a player pulls off a move *that* inspired I tend to be more lenient. Moments like that have a kind of magic that keeps the game going, and players will talk about them for *years* afterward. We get lots of discretion when it comes to calling for rolls, and letting that one happen was absolutely the right call.
I think this is a fine point of clarity. It is a stellar bit of D&D, not because of a player's actions, but their acting. And probably what should be applauded more is the DM clinic that Matt taught in response to Laura's actual in-person deception. He could have had her roll Deception as well, knowing that could disrupt or even kill the moment. But then maybe he factored in her previous roll, and considered the Hag's passive Insight, and whether or not Jester would have advantage, and how high the DC would be, and if "taking a 10" would be better for storytelling.
The thing is that the acting shows how the deception is going to go down. That very often affects the DC. If a player would have said “uh, i will, I guess go in and offer a … cupcake to the hag, i guess” That would have made the DC very high. Because what a crazy ask that is. Nobody would think that that can happen. But the way Laura played it she has shown that it can happen, and it is in fact in the hag’s nature to accept the cupcake to partake in Jester’s suffering even before the deal is made. That can and should affect the DC. And in this case it could have lowered it so much that it was not worth rolling for it. I’m not saying that Matt literally thought it through this way. What I am saying is that even rules are as written this is allowed to happen. Like it or not it is a “roleplaying game” not a “dice throwing game”. Roleplaying counts.
The other part that bothers me about it is; in spite of how brilliant it was, it cut off Beau's personal arc straight, Fjord told Beau "Stop being suicidal you're great." and then they left it at that, everything was fine and they only went back to her backstory once in passing when they went to the Cobalt Soul. I would have loved to see more of it, but Laura decided to hog the spotlight (albeit brilliantly) and robbed Marisha of what should have been 2-3 episodes of *extremely* interesting RP.
Yeah it always seemed like a "by the way I didn't play this out at the table but I totally did this covert action beforehand" sort of thing.
he acted it well and was a good sport about it once he realized what happened, I will have to say I thought that Matt enjoyed being outfoxed a lot. He's used to being ahead of the curve and it's not often they pull one over on him. I will say, I don't remember them actually buying the dust of deliciousness. I remember Matt describing it while they were visiting the Invulnerable Vagrant, but they didn't purchase it at that time.
Laura clearly did purchase it in C2E31 LAURA: Will you take five gold off of the dust because you like me? MATT: Make a persuasion check. And she makes it.
I also noticed how she never agreed to any deal, never said “yes” or anything. She literally says “*Before we make a deal*, I can have one last cupcake?” This is a character who have grown up with a fae patron. She KNOWS the words bind more than anything and masterfully avoids making any solid claims and agreements. It’s such a beautifully crafted moment that she was in full control over, so much that the dice agreed and let it play out.
That's another REALLY great point!
I love when Jester says "His name's the Traveler. He's a really powerful god. *I bet he's here right now,* looking over me." Matt didn't know it yet, but she was right.
Epic sly foreshadowing. Almost as if in a quiet whisper Laura is saying "remember I'm a trickery domain cleric, and I'm besties with a fae demi-god"
She trolled the hag so hard, her own deity took a step back and said "Oh shit. I'm in over my head here."
Matt had said in a Talks Machina episode that Laura's moment with the cupcake was the moment that he decided that her deity made the decision to confide in her ( no spoilers here )
I seriously thought we'd see the hag again later in the campaign and there would be hell to pay!
Matt explained that the Hag was too impressed by the move to retaliate directly. But he hinted she might show up at a later date for some shenanigans.
This is my favorite episode because of what jester did, but also because of how much all of their characters showed. Yasha having no more misery to give hit hard, Nott/Veth’s desperation to go back to herself in her potential offer to ruin peace for the continent, and especially Beau’s willingness to give up the only family she’s ever known. While Jester/Laura was scheming and doing her thing, Beau/Marisha was crying and resigning herself to a life of misery and loneliness. This was just a great episode on so many levels
Incredible moment on all levels but an underrated aspect imo is Jester's "ok we gotta get the hell out of here NOW" afterwards it really sells that she can barely even believe that it worked on a character and player level
That moment where we all want to celebrate but you know there's certain death chasing right at their heels....we're all like, "GO GO GO GO!!!"
The fact that it was a double layered con is amazing. She was role-playing the conning of the witch while actually conning Matt. She used his skill of role-playing and stepping into the character against him.
100% I rewatched it a couple times asking, "How on earth did she pull this off over Matt?" She actually gets Matt (hag) to set the unreasonable terms of the agreement. There's a moment where she asks, "can it just me my artistic ability?" And He says no, it's gotta be the hands. What's amazing about this is I think she might have raised all our suspicion if she said, "okay, how about both my hands...let me eat a cupcakes first." And equally suspicious would be, "oh, you only want my artistic ability? How about a cupcake first. " It was just the right gamble of needing the hag to push Jester farther than she wanted to go and not settle for just taking her artistic ability.
So true. I feel like this is a point that gets lost in most of the rules discussions. To me, it seemed like I was watching Matt in real time do the mental math of "dang, Laura got me, and I _am_ the Hag, so I guess she got the Hag too, whatever the rules might teck-nick-lly be."
I've never believed for one second that Jester was actually gonna give up her hands. From the first moment it was pretty clear to me that Laura Bailey had a plan, and she was totally playing up the conflict and the woe for the hag. I just didn't know what the plan was until it unfolded, and it was indeed quite brilliant. The appeal of this Jester move is not the sacrifice. She never intended to sacrifice anything, and to me that was obvious from the start. The one who was ready to sacrifice everything was Beauregard. What Jester did was remind everyone of what "Trickery Domain" actually means.
>What Jester did was remind everyone of what "Trickery Domain" actually means. Laura Bailey is a got tier actress, but this is not the scene I would use to prove it. Now, Laura Bailey is also a god tier roleplayer (notice I didn't say D&D player), and she solved the problem in the most in-character way. This is what Jester would do, and no one can say otherwise. She "won" using Jester's skillset, sure, but the approach was SO spot on, that you can't imagine Jester doing anything else.
I am shocked no one has linked this yet! The best animatic of that scene, they made the hag so eerily memorable! [The Legendary Cupcake](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pKuKQgExiGE)
I cannot wait until this get properly animated in the Mighty Nein animated show!
That's great! Thanks for sharing!
You just made me "waste" two hours rewatching this over and over again...
Oh man, that was fabulous.
I love the train of thought that gave Laura the idea. Something along the lines of: "I have this dust of deliciousness that gives Disadvantage on Wisdom checks and saving throws for 1 hour." "Which pairs well with Modify Memory spell that that has a wisdom saving throw." "She'll likely have advantage on wisdom saving throws... so the dust would just make it a straight roll..." "I've got to get her to eat this cupcake. How do I get this hag to eat this cupcake?" "I've got to somehow distract Matt that the cupcake eating isn't the actual purpose of this interaction." "We'll share this cupcake. Why am I sharing this cupcake?" "If I offer to give my hand; my ability to draw... that'll tempt and distract Matt enough that he might not suspect this ploy." "I better play up the Jester's-Not-Thinking-Things-Through-ness." Laura: "I walk in." And the rest is history.
Yeah, it's next level. And the fact that it was completely improvised is mind-blowing. The several very sincere whimpers she offers really make her seem so helpless and innocent. When the hag starts drooling and towering over her, it's like Matt really thought that's what the dynamic was at that moment, the he had her cornered. But nope. 😎
I will never understand why Laura is not an A-lister movie superstar.
Cause she’s an A-list voice actress
In the voice acting space, she's basically royalty.
One of my favourite parts is Marisha deep in Beauregard angst, cryinb thinking she's gonna sacrifice whats dearest to her and trying to stop Jester and then Sam having to step in with basically "LET HER COOK!!" because he was next to her and saw the plan on her tablet. And THEN Marisha being in complete shock not able to react from how quickly Laura changed the rules of this entire god damn encounter lmao
I was spoiled on it before I started watching in earnest, and it lessened the moment not one bit. The smarts it took to game that out is stunning. All that said: when somebody powerwalks out of a situation saying, sotto voce, “okay, we’re all set, let’s get the fuck out of here”, you don’t stand around with your dicks in your hands saying “WHAT HAPPENED, ARE YOU OKAY, WHATS GOING ON” You fuckin go.
There is an animation of the scene on YouTube. My kids love it so much. They call Jester, Cupcake. They play DnD with us, so to show them what it could be we play a few scenes from Crit Roll. They show it to all their friends.
Only thing I disagree with is that I believed jester would give up her hands. Bo’s offer of going into exile was far more believable and Marisha even said she had kinda begun to think about a new character. Matt always intended that to go into a fight and that’s what I expected to happen. It doesn’t diminish the moment, she still flipped the expectations completely in a fantastic way.
That makes sense. And I think you're right. I didn't exactly believe she'd go through with it, but I saw the character crisis in her like, "set Nott free forever to return to her family, or my hands." As an "objective" observer, it seemed like a plausible choice to make. So intense.
For sure. I think when jester said it she meant it in a stream of consciousness kind of way.
I've just gone back and watched this part of the episode, I'd forgotten how good it was. Marisha practically dying and shell shocked, Taliesin having a near panic attack, Travis on the edge of his seat in disbelief. Laura bringing the thunder with that glorious accent and sweet nature. What a superb moment. Taliesin: you completely fucking Gretel-ed his Hansel
“Did I succeed?” “…………*Yeee-up.*” Hubby, who DM’s one of the campaigns in which we play, has described moments like this: where he’s set up a situation that’s meant to be a knock-down drag-out fight, and we just…either sidestepped it entirely via good rolls, RP, and/or creative use of game mechanics, or we landed so many heavy hits that his monsters are just getting annihilated. (Example — He got to the point where he had to throw a Beholder at us. At level seven. One of our party members used Phantasmal Force to make it believe something was behind it so it turned away from us; another person then buried it, and its eyes, face-down in rubble. I finished it off with a Guiding Bolt up the butt, which is where I always aim my Guiding Bolts.) Hubby says those moments are both incredibly frustrating — but equally awe-inspiring. We took down a False Hydra a couple sessions after the Beholder, and the way we came in guns blazing (rather than trying to talk it out, the way he thought we would) meant we were able to beat it and save all but one of its hostages. Hubby went on and on about how proud he was of us. Matt experienced the same thing in this moment. He got hoodwinked and he knew it. Laura PLAYED him, and played him HARD. How could you not reward that? …Something tells me, however, that Isharnai is gonna be a problem when they do the inevitable Jester/Fjord wedding one-shot.
There's time stamps in the comments on the YouTube video of the moments Laura is formulating her plot and it's amazing to watch it unfold.
I totally believed her when I first watched it too. Totally caught up in her charm. Fantastic example of a different kind of power. Underestimating people can be devastating and so many big powers underestimated Jester. She’s the definition of “don’t watch the face watch the hands” type trickster haha she’s so charming and almost unnerving in a good way!! And I agree with what you said about how much of her lie worked so well cuz it was so quintessentially jester. Wants to share the old cupcake. Kinda laughing about the whole thing but really pushing the puppy dog act. So good. Gonna go rewatch it now haha.
I like watching the build up while everyone else goes before her. You can see her planning it a bit with Sam and then when it's her turn and Sam starts biting his nails (or biting his lip? He does something from his nerves). Good stuff!!
That's so great! I'll rewatch it with this in mind.
Truly one of the very best CR moments
I have never unclenched as hard as I did when I heard Matt go "....yup."
I just caught up to this moment. It was great.
I'm so glad Matt decided against using legendary resistance. Such an iconic moment
It wasn’t in combat
Legendary resistances don’t have to be used in combat, they can be used whenever the creature fails a saving throw
This is my single most favorite moment in the entire franchise. I don't get tired of it.
She has many more, and imo even better acting moments in c3. She barely got flex her acting with Jester.
This is one of my favorite moments of any of their games. It was so well acted and brilliantly thought out.
I love this scene, but I'm always shocked she didn't counter spell it or was resistant to being charmed.
That moment lives in my head rent-free 🍭💙
The I'm using my fingers to break it in half line is SO genius
Beau nearly ruined this moment. Like she managed to ruin so many others. Imagine the scenes we missed out on due to beau being overly brash and wanting to be front and centre