The DM doesn’t need to trick the players into attacking if that’s exactly what is expected of them. This is no different from a trap in a dungeon. If the players’ first reaction to anything is killing and looting (and the game wasn’t about that from the get go), it’s a valid reminder that they better watch out for consequences.
“We attack this random old man!”
“Gotcha! It was a Dragon God in disguise!”
You see how it’s a trick? You see the deception?
If you live in a high-crime area and put a shotgun trap behind your door, then you are guilty for the murder of anyone who dies trying to break into your house. Should they have tried to break into your house? No. Should you have killed them? Also no. You’re not in the right just because they’re in the wrong. It doesn’t work that way.
Why is throwing Bahamut at the players knowing they’ll pick a fight with him a better solution than just talking to them?
Just in case this wasn’t clear, we’re talking about a meme. There’s no “full context” behind it, it’s a quick setup for a laugh. You can’t expect to take the meme at face value, that the party became muderhobo out of nowhere and that bahamut also comes out of nowhere because the DM is a bitch.
In a real situation, the more likely thing to happen is that the many other things the DM threw to get the players back in line failed, so it’s time to bring the big guns. It’s likely that the group had a talk out of the game discussing their situation and their possible future. Likely being the keyword here because, again, you’re assuming that this comes out of nowhere, but there’s no “real” table being discussed
Why is throwing Bahamut at the players knowing they’ll pick a fight with him a better solution than just talking to them?
Because it gives the players an opportunity to acknowledge that in game.
TLDR - you’re missing the point because you’re assuming a lot of stuff that isn’t even hinted at anywhere.
You assumed my assumption, but it honestly doesn’t matter if it came out of nowhere or not. Step one is talking to the players like adults about the problem. Step two is removing a player from the game, possibly yourself. There is never enough buildup to justify introducing an OP enemy to guaranteed kill your players as a punishment. Even if there was, you should have left the game long before that point, and should leave the game now instead of firing that big gun.
Why do players need to acknowledge it in game? That’s not where the problem is. The problem is among the players, not the characters. You don’t solve OOC problems within the game.
I don’t think I’m the one assuming a lot of stuff and missing the point here.
Nobody said “hey, maybe turn down the murdurhoboing?”, they chose to trick the players into attacking a god.
2 assumptions here, one that “nobody said…” and also one that the DM “chose to trick the players”.
More importantly, there’s your implicit assumption that a chaotic murderhobo party facing bahamut in disguise can only be the result of “things going wrong”, that “someone” is making the experience bad for the DM. This is pretty clear from this bit:
Step two is removing a player from the game, possibly yourself
And how you’re replying elsewhere: “if it’s bad, just leave”. To reach such conclusion you have to assume that:
“something is going wrong”
nobody talked about it out of the game
nobody did anything else to try avoiding the “wrong” situation
there were zero “warnings” (nothing else happening in game could be said to be a hint of escalation of a problem to godly level)
all players are completely oblivious to any traps or tricks the DM could set up
setting up bahamut in disguise like is meant solely to kill the characters, ignoring the many different possibilities as to why he could show up (“teach a lesson”, give a warning, setup for plot)
There is never enough buildup to justify introducing an OP enemy to guaranteed kill your players as a punishment. Even if there was, you should have left the game long before that point, and should leave the game now instead of firing that big gun.
Just because you cannot think of an escalation that leads to a god showing up in a game doesn’t mean that nobody else can. Just because you can only see this setup as “rock falls, everyone dies” doesn’t mean that everybody else will use it exactly for that.
What the hell is the meme you’re looking at? In the meme I see, the DM is annoyed by the current environment of murderhoboing and responds by introducing a Bahomet in a way where the players clearly don’t know who he is and haven’t met him before. The DM chose to add him, just like they chose every element of the campaign thus far and they chose to continue playing among murderhobos. The only reason Bahomet was included was as a punishment, and it’s fucking baffling you insist that’s not what’s happening.
I can think of several reasons to have a god show up in a game. I can only think of one reason to respond to the players being murderhobos by introducing a god in an innocent disguise and saying “try it, bitch”. What do you think is the point of the meme if not “the players are being murderhobos, so I’m going to punish them by making them pick a fight with a god”?
The DM doesn’t need to trick the players into attacking if that’s exactly what is expected of them. This is no different from a trap in a dungeon. If the players’ first reaction to anything is killing and looting (and the game wasn’t about that from the get go), it’s a valid reminder that they better watch out for consequences.
You see how it’s a trick? You see the deception?
If you live in a high-crime area and put a shotgun trap behind your door, then you are guilty for the murder of anyone who dies trying to break into your house. Should they have tried to break into your house? No. Should you have killed them? Also no. You’re not in the right just because they’re in the wrong. It doesn’t work that way.
Why is throwing Bahamut at the players knowing they’ll pick a fight with him a better solution than just talking to them?
Just in case this wasn’t clear, we’re talking about a meme. There’s no “full context” behind it, it’s a quick setup for a laugh. You can’t expect to take the meme at face value, that the party became muderhobo out of nowhere and that bahamut also comes out of nowhere because the DM is a bitch.
In a real situation, the more likely thing to happen is that the many other things the DM threw to get the players back in line failed, so it’s time to bring the big guns. It’s likely that the group had a talk out of the game discussing their situation and their possible future. Likely being the keyword here because, again, you’re assuming that this comes out of nowhere, but there’s no “real” table being discussed
Because it gives the players an opportunity to acknowledge that in game.
TLDR - you’re missing the point because you’re assuming a lot of stuff that isn’t even hinted at anywhere.
You assumed my assumption, but it honestly doesn’t matter if it came out of nowhere or not. Step one is talking to the players like adults about the problem. Step two is removing a player from the game, possibly yourself. There is never enough buildup to justify introducing an OP enemy to guaranteed kill your players as a punishment. Even if there was, you should have left the game long before that point, and should leave the game now instead of firing that big gun.
Why do players need to acknowledge it in game? That’s not where the problem is. The problem is among the players, not the characters. You don’t solve OOC problems within the game.
I don’t think I’m the one assuming a lot of stuff and missing the point here.
2 assumptions here, one that “nobody said…” and also one that the DM “chose to trick the players”.
More importantly, there’s your implicit assumption that a chaotic murderhobo party facing bahamut in disguise can only be the result of “things going wrong”, that “someone” is making the experience bad for the DM. This is pretty clear from this bit:
And how you’re replying elsewhere: “if it’s bad, just leave”. To reach such conclusion you have to assume that:
Just because you cannot think of an escalation that leads to a god showing up in a game doesn’t mean that nobody else can. Just because you can only see this setup as “rock falls, everyone dies” doesn’t mean that everybody else will use it exactly for that.
What the hell is the meme you’re looking at? In the meme I see, the DM is annoyed by the current environment of murderhoboing and responds by introducing a Bahomet in a way where the players clearly don’t know who he is and haven’t met him before. The DM chose to add him, just like they chose every element of the campaign thus far and they chose to continue playing among murderhobos. The only reason Bahomet was included was as a punishment, and it’s fucking baffling you insist that’s not what’s happening.
I can think of several reasons to have a god show up in a game. I can only think of one reason to respond to the players being murderhobos by introducing a god in an innocent disguise and saying “try it, bitch”. What do you think is the point of the meme if not “the players are being murderhobos, so I’m going to punish them by making them pick a fight with a god”?