Limitations You Would Like to See More Often

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Limitations You Would Like to See More Often

 

But what are the odds that a supercrime is going to occur where the superhero is patrolling? Darn slim, realistically. Cops patrol because (a) that's their jobs, they don't have Secret IDs to worry about, ( there are a lot of them, so they have a chance of being able to spot a crime in progress and act as visible deterrence in the area a criminal might be wanting to commit a crime, and © so that when a crime does happen, at least one cop might be somewhere nearby.

 

Superheroes are different on all three points -- being a super is usually not their dayjob so they have limited time for their work, there aren't many of them so they can't be everywhere, and they can often get around the city faster than a cop, in some cases much faster.

 

Even the cops would probably tell you that if you can work on the basis of tips and investigations rather than random patrols, you'll probably get more crimes solved. Patrolling is about deterrence, not about stopping crimes in progress. If you're playing Superman and you can move about town fast enough to be useful from a deterrence point of view, then maybe patrolling makes sense... but I notice that even Supes spends most of the day at his day job, and keeps an eye/ear out for incoming news that gives him a clue where his services might be needed.

 

"Super on Patrol" is a genre trope. One might just as easily question why Supers wear colorful costumes with their underwear on the outside rather than a stocking mask. Either protects their identity just as well.

 

Who makes and maintains those costumes? None of the PC's in my game have purchased any skill in sewing. Do the fabric stores stock a lot of bright red FlashSuit Fabric, or is the guy buying it every three weeks getting noticed?

 

How do they clean those suits? Taking them to the dry cleaners seems unlikely.

 

They don't generally have pockets, and they'd be pretty visible in the typical skintight Super suit. Where does he leave his wallet and his car/house keys?

 

Most genre tropes don't stand up well to close scrutiny, so I'd be careful peeling back the curtain too much. Would a normal, sane person granted powers and abilities more likely:

 

(a) dress up in a spandex suit and rush out to fight crime?

 

( dress up in a spandex suit and rush out to commit crimes (or rule the world)?

 

© capitalize on these powers in the entertainment industry or some entrepreneurial venture suited to his abilities, such as (for a Brick):

- entertainment - "watch as I leap from the high dive into a pool of razor blades"; "I will now lift four elephants"

- moving - "No problem, Ma'am - I'll just carry your grand piano out to the truck and be back in a minute for your bedroom suite"

- demolition work - "Why rent a crane? I can demolish that skyscraper in an hour!"

 

There could be any number of reasons for being on patrol. Did your character suit up specifically to fight costumed megalomaniacs, or to help people in general? "Helping" can include assisting the guy whose car broke down in rush hour, provioding assistance with a medical emergency or a fire, or stopping a very "normal" crime that's "beneath his abilities" because John Q Public shouldn't get mugged if I can be there to do something about it. All of these made the world a better place for someone, to a greater extent than sitting in the Justice Cave waiting for a newsflash.

 

[Frankly, Blue Bolt has very little in the way of a "life". He patrols looking for matters of interest and people to talk to as much as crime to stop. If he finds somethging fun to do, or interesting to watch, great. If he stops a mugger ior gets a cat down from a tree, that's fine too. I suppose he could alternatively sit at home and watch TV, waiting for the next crime to be reported, but, while he does watch a lot of TV, it's because he wants to watch TV, not because he wants an annoying news broadcast to cut in and tell him about panic at the local mall. His answer to why he patrols? Probably because it's less boring than sitting around doing nothing.]

[prestidigitator]

Re: Limitations You Would Like to See More Often

 

I played in a game where one player's charactrers always seemed to have this issue. It was a fantasy game. When we met his latest character in the local tavern, and one of the other characters spoke with him and felt him out, we quickly learned this was yet another "not interested in adventuring" character.

 

So the PC already in the group told us "no one here looks like a goiod prospect - they either have no real skills, or aren't interested",. The next day, we hired a crier to solicit applicants to join an adventuring company.

 

The look on the "reluctant hero" player's face was indescribable. The other player then told him, flat out, "I'm tired of having top twist the arm of evrey one of your characters. Our characters don't know yours are PC's, so we'll recruit from people interested in adventuring. You want to be part of the game, give your character a reason to be part of the game."

 

I believe his (quite religious) character had a player-instigated prophetic dream which told him to join the group.

 

I don't care if your character is a stay at home coward or a Superhero Wannabe. But if you want him to be in on the action, it's YOUR job to give him a reason to be in on the action.

Good story! Not only can this be a pain in the a** for the other players, but it can give the GM a screaming headache! I've had games in which like half the party wanted to go off and do their own thing, even when there was obviously something pressing to take care of. It seems players feel that not only must the GM provide something interesting to do, (s)he must also somehow tailor every single situation to be personally appealing to every PC.

 

"Garik isn't interested because it doesn't look like it will earn him any money." "Bob doesn't like Linda, so he's going to go prowl bars instead." "Thimbul would rather do some research than help those people escape the burning building." Not real examples, but that's how it feels. How many times does a GM have to explain the term, "heroic?" Gaaaaaa! It's not as bad as it sounds probably, but it sure takes a lot of energy!

[prestidigitator]

Re: Limitations You Would Like to See More Often

 

"Super on Patrol" is a genre trope. One might just as easily question why Supers wear colorful costumes with their underwear on the outside rather than a stocking mask. Either protects their identity just as well.

 

Who makes and maintains those costumes? None of the PC's in my game have purchased any skill in sewing. Do the fabric stores stock a lot of bright red FlashSuit Fabric, or is the guy buying it every three weeks getting noticed?

 

How do they clean those suits? Taking them to the dry cleaners seems unlikely.

 

They don't generally have pockets, and they'd be pretty visible in the typical skintight Super suit. Where does he leave his wallet and his car/house keys?

 

Most genre tropes don't stand up well to close scrutiny, so I'd be careful peeling back the curtain too much. Would a normal, sane person granted powers and abilities more likely:

 

(a) dress up in a spandex suit and rush out to fight crime?

 

( dress up in a spandex suit and rush out to commit crimes (or rule the world)?

 

© capitalize on these powers in the entertainment industry or some entrepreneurial venture suited to his abilities, such as (for a Brick):

- entertainment - "watch as I leap from the high dive into a pool of razor blades"; "I will now lift four elephants"

- moving - "No problem, Ma'am - I'll just carry your grand piano out to the truck and be back in a minute for your bedroom suite"

- demolition work - "Why rent a crane? I can demolish that skyscraper in an hour!"

 

There could be any number of reasons for being on patrol. Did your character suit up specifically to fight costumed megalomaniacs, or to help people in general? "Helping" can include assisting the guy whose car broke down in rush hour, provioding assistance with a medical emergency or a fire, or stopping a very "normal" crime that's "beneath his abilities" because John Q Public shouldn't get mugged if I can be there to do something about it. All of these made the world a better place for someone, to a greater extent than sitting in the Justice Cave waiting for a newsflash.

 

[Frankly, Blue Bolt has very little in the way of a "life". He patrols looking for matters of interest and people to talk to as much as crime to stop. If he finds somethging fun to do, or interesting to watch, great. If he stops a mugger ior gets a cat down from a tree, that's fine too. I suppose he could alternatively sit at home and watch TV, waiting for the next crime to be reported, but, while he does watch a lot of TV, it's because he wants to watch TV, not because he wants an annoying news broadcast to cut in and tell him about panic at the local mall. His answer to why he patrols? Probably because it's less boring than sitting around doing nothing.]

Well said. Two posts in a row I'd like to give rep for. Ah well.

 

Isn't it better that PCs offer the GM such a delicious opportunity to drop plot hooks on them than that they be realistic? The PCs want to spend their free time going on patrol so I can easily invite them to adventure any second of the day, instead of using their free time to cheat at craps in the casinos? Fine with me! I'm not going to complain. In fact, extra experience, perhaps.

[Zed-F]

Re: Limitations You Would Like to See More Often

 

"Super on Patrol" is a genre trope.

I'll give you that, for a 4-color game. I don't generally play in 4-color games, however. IMHO, it doesn't really fit in a more realistic game.

 

There could be any number of reasons for being on patrol. Did your character suit up specifically to fight costumed megalomaniacs, or to help people in general? "Helping" can include assisting the guy whose car broke down in rush hour, provioding assistance with a medical emergency or a fire, or stopping a very "normal" crime that's "beneath his abilities" because John Q Public shouldn't get mugged if I can be there to do something about it. All of these made the world a better place for someone, to a greater extent than sitting in the Justice Cave waiting for a newsflash.

Who said anything about waiting in the Justice Cave for a newsflash? As a GM, I always make sure there is lots of stuff going on in the gameworld for the players to investigate, if they so choose. There's never a shortage of useful things to do. But I do expect them to specify what they are investigating, if they want to find out about it.

 

As a player, I expect the GM to do the same. I make every effort to make the job as easy as possible for the GM, too. I try to recall past events that were never satisfactorily resolved or explained, and follow up on them. When my PCs have contacts, I use them to uncover avenues of investigation and/or things to investigate that my PC would otherwise never find out about. I don't spend superheroing time patrolling at random, hoping something will pop up, unless I have nothing better to do, and if I have nothing better to do, that's a sign to me that I'm probably either at the end of a story arc or else I'm missing something important. But nowhere in there do I have a PC sitting around waiting for something to happen.

 

[Frankly, Blue Bolt has very little in the way of a "life". He patrols looking for matters of interest and people to talk to as much as crime to stop. If he finds somethging fun to do, or interesting to watch, great. If he stops a mugger ior gets a cat down from a tree, that's fine too. I suppose he could alternatively sit at home and watch TV, waiting for the next crime to be reported, but, while he does watch a lot of TV, it's because he wants to watch TV, not because he wants an annoying news broadcast to cut in and tell him about panic at the local mall. His answer to why he patrols? Probably because it's less boring than sitting around doing nothing.]

My characters *do* tend to have a life. Soulbarb has high school to attend. Other characters have to support themselves somehow with jobs that earn actual money -- the rewards of superhero work are usually not measured in dollar bills. What time they have available for superhero work would only go into patrolling if they had literally no other leads worth following up on -- and they generally do have such leads, whether they found out about it the previous time they were out in hero ID, or whether they heard about it during the course of time spent in secret ID.

[archermoo]

Re: Limitations You Would Like to See More Often

 

I played in a game where one player's charactrers always seemed to have this issue. It was a fantasy game. When we met his latest character in the local tavern, and one of the other characters spoke with him and felt him out, we quickly learned this was yet another "not interested in adventuring" character.

 

So the PC already in the group told us "no one here looks like a goiod prospect - they either have no real skills, or aren't interested",. The next day, we hired a crier to solicit applicants to join an adventuring company.

 

The look on the "reluctant hero" player's face was indescribable. The other player then told him, flat out, "I'm tired of having top twist the arm of evrey one of your characters. Our characters don't know yours are PC's, so we'll recruit from people interested in adventuring. You want to be part of the game, give your character a reason to be part of the game."

 

I believe his (quite religious) character had a player-instigated prophetic dream which told him to join the group.

 

I don't care if your character is a stay at home coward or a Superhero Wannabe. But if you want him to be in on the action, it's YOUR job to give him a reason to be in on the action.

 

Heh. I've done similar stuff as Ref to some people a few times. In general, I'll get the basics of the campaign out to the players before they make up characters, and tell them to make sure they make a character that has a reason to participate. Assuming of course that the Players want to participate (if they don't I or someone else will run something different). I always get confused by people that profess to be interested in a campaign and then come into it with a character that has no reason to participate. And then expect the other players or the Ref to continually work at interesting their character.

[AliceTheOwl]

Re: Limitations You Would Like to See More Often

 

I played in a game where one player's charactrers always seemed to have this issue. It was a fantasy game. When we met his latest character in the local tavern, and one of the other characters spoke with him and felt him out, we quickly learned this was yet another "not interested in adventuring" character.

 

So the PC already in the group told us "no one here looks like a goiod prospect - they either have no real skills, or aren't interested",. The next day, we hired a crier to solicit applicants to join an adventuring company.

 

The look on the "reluctant hero" player's face was indescribable. The other player then told him, flat out, "I'm tired of having top twist the arm of evrey one of your characters. Our characters don't know yours are PC's, so we'll recruit from people interested in adventuring. You want to be part of the game, give your character a reason to be part of the game."

 

I believe his (quite religious) character had a player-instigated prophetic dream which told him to join the group.

 

I don't care if your character is a stay at home coward or a Superhero Wannabe. But if you want him to be in on the action, it's YOUR job to give him a reason to be in on the action.

That kind of thing happens so often to a friend of mine, he has a word for it: "Hobbiting."

 

As in, going up to Bilbo Baggins' house and dragging him out of it to go on an adventure, while he whines the entire time about how much it sucks that he's away from his nice, warm hobbit-hole and 6 meals a day.

 

This friend now forbids any hobbits from playing in his games, but he still gets stuck with one, only because she's a close friend and would be hurt if he forbade her from playing in any of his games.

 

Friendship is more important to him than GMing.

 

But it's frustrating to be a player with that type, as well.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Limitations You Would Like to See More Often

 

I'll give you that' date=' for a 4-color game. I don't generally play in 4-color games, however. IMHO, it doesn't really fit in a more realistic game.[/quote']

 

Depends on what you call a "realistic" Supers game. [To me, people running around with their underwear on the outside battling with magic, superscience and mutant powers is tough to consider "realistic", but there's lots of gamers out there who grade fantasy games on the "realism" of their magic system, so to each his own.]

 

I would note that Batman, Daredevil and Punisher all spend time "on patrol", and these are pretty street-level supers in my opinion. [Coming back to realism, how many times has each bone in the Punisher's body been broken? How many bullet wounds has he taken? What percentage have been properly treated, medically, and what percentage were incurred in a fetid swamp or a sewer? Yet he remains in p[eak human physical condition with no lasting damage other than a scar or two. "Realism"?]

[Zed-F]

Re: Limitations You Would Like to See More Often

 

As it turned out, this got covered in the other thread. It depends in part on one's definition of 'patrol' -- things that some others call patrolling, I call investigation. For instance, if you're roaming around the city with some specific objective in mind, do you call that patrolling, investigation, or both?

 

The definition of patrolling I had been using was 'roaming around the city with no specific objective in mind.' I don't think supers would do that very much unless they had no leads of any sort to follow up on (e.g. between adventures or at the very start of an adventure,) or they were just doing it to get out of the house and blow off a bit of steam or have some fun, without any expectation of accomplishing anything particularily useful beyond that. However, during the course of an investigation they might well roam around with the intent to follow up on leads they'd uncovered via other mechanisms, such as tips from contacts, having little chats with hoods, and so forth. Even Batman, Daredevil, and Punisher have an objective in mind when they patrol: intimidation and deterrence. They go out on patrol looking for trouble: specifically, to beat people up, threaten them, and remind them that they're watching. It doesn't even matter whether there's any significant criminal activity involved or not, though that's always a bonus.

 

So, by the definition of patrolling I was using, I still don't think that happens a lot except for fun -- but you could certainly argue that the definition of patrolling I was using is overly narrow, and I'd have to concede you might be right.

[Vanguard00]

Re: Limitations You Would Like to See More Often

 

Hmmm...Social limitation: Knowing when to STOP role playing.

I don't understand this one...

[prestidigitator]

Re: Limitations You Would Like to See More Often

 

That kind of thing happens so often to a friend of mine, he has a word for it: "Hobbiting."

 

As in, going up to Bilbo Baggins' house and dragging him out of it to go on an adventure, while he whines the entire time about how much it sucks that he's away from his nice, warm hobbit-hole and 6 meals a day.

 

This friend now forbids any hobbits from playing in his games, but he still gets stuck with one, only because she's a close friend and would be hurt if he forbade her from playing in any of his games.

 

Friendship is more important to him than GMing.

 

But it's frustrating to be a player with that type, as well.

Dude! Bilbo was easy to persuade compared to some PCs! The dwarves told him their sympathy story, and he was basically told, "We need you. You're coming with us." He then did. He grumbled the whole time, sure, but that's just roleplaying. He didn't turn around a ways in and say, "Nah. I'll stay in Rivendell and live like a king. Maybe I'll even rip off some of these trusting elves while I'm here." That's what many PCs would have done! I'd be happy to get some Bilbos in my games. They may have big mouths, but they don't take a crud-load of work (on either the players' or GM's part) to keep in the adventure!

 

Grumble, grumble.

[ghost-angel]

Re: Limitations You Would Like to See More Often

 

I think most people mistake the Reluctant Hero archetype for the "But I don't wanna go!" archetype. The Reluctant Hero will go, often with little persuasion, but are more unsure of themsleves and their ability to accomplish the task than they are against just plain going. Which is how most Players play the Reluctnat Hero - that and many players secretly want to be put in the "Nothing Left To Lose" category I think.

[Karmakaze]

Re: Limitations You Would Like to See More Often

 

We haven't had the "why are you here" problem so much as the "why would anyone put up with you" problem. We have a player now on probation that if *this* character aggravates the other PCs to the point that he gets fired, he's out of the game. He already got chucked from a Star Hero game because not one other PC could come up with a reason not to throw his character out of an airlock, and we were pretty convinced we'd feel the same way about any replacement he might come up with.

 

Wolverine only works in the comic books because the writers want him there. Act like that in a real campaign...

[AliceTheOwl]

Re: Limitations You Would Like to See More Often

 

Dude! Bilbo was easy to persuade compared to some PCs! The dwarves told him their sympathy story' date=' and he was basically told, "We need you. You're coming with us." He then did. He grumbled the whole time, sure, but that's just roleplaying. He didn't turn around a ways in and say, "Nah. I'll stay in Rivendell and live like a king. Maybe I'll even rip off some of these trusting elves while I'm here." [i']That's[/i] what many PCs would have done! I'd be happy to get some Bilbos in my games. They may have big mouths, but they don't take a crud-load of work (on either the players' or GM's part) to keep in the adventure!

 

Grumble, grumble.

True, true . . .

 

Perhaps he meant the OTHER hobbits?

 

(And I don't mean the ones on the Ring quest. They, too, were bizarrely easy to persuade. "Oh, you mean an adventure, like Bilbo's? I'll go! And if you don't take me, I'll just follow you, anyway!")

 

You get the idea, anyway . . .

[prestidigitator]

Re: Limitations You Would Like to See More Often

 

I think most people mistake the Reluctant Hero archetype for the "But I don't wanna go!" archetype. The Reluctant Hero will go' date=' often with little persuasion, but are more unsure of themsleves and their ability to accomplish the task than they are against just plain going. Which is how most Players play the Reluctnat Hero - that and many players secretly want to be put in the "Nothing Left To Lose" category I think.[/quote']

Exactly! Well said! I'll rep if I can, but I think I gave you some recently.

 

Why do so many players want so badly to play, "heros," that are actually exactly the opposite? These are not the characters out of which legends are made (well, at least they are not the protagonists)!

[prestidigitator]

Re: Limitations You Would Like to See More Often

 

We haven't had the "why are you here" problem so much as the "why would anyone put up with you" problem. We have a player now on probation that if *this* character aggravates the other PCs to the point that he gets fired, he's out of the game. He already got chucked from a Star Hero game because not one other PC could come up with a reason not to throw his character out of an airlock, and we were pretty convinced we'd feel the same way about any replacement he might come up with.

 

Wolverine only works in the comic books because the writers want him there. Act like that in a real campaign...

Ouch! Yeah, I've run into this problem a few times. It's a hard one for me to deal with, as I am generally reluctant to be confrontational (at least on a personal level with friends).

[prestidigitator]

Re: Limitations You Would Like to See More Often

 

True, true . . .

 

Perhaps he meant the OTHER hobbits?

 

(And I don't mean the ones on the Ring quest. They, too, were bizarrely easy to persuade. "Oh, you mean an adventure, like Bilbo's? I'll go! And if you don't take me, I'll just follow you, anyway!")

 

You get the idea, anyway . . .

Oh! You mean the ones who are the equivalent of NPCs that the GM would rather not have along because it is a pain to keep track of them and the PCs should not be getting free help anyway?

 

Yeah, I hate it when PCs act like good-for-nothing NPCs.

[AliceTheOwl]

Re: Limitations You Would Like to See More Often

 

Yep.

 

I have 2 examples. One is of a character who just recently embraced this phenomenon; the second is a lifelong hobbit.

 

In Josh's game, to reduce his headache, give him a bit of a break, and let him see the side of his game that's enjoyable and fun to be in, I took over as GM. I NPCed my character and sent her off elsewhere, while he inserted his own PC in.

 

Now, we have one player who wanted to play a prostitute. In a Fantasy Hero game. Josh talked to her way back at character creation, figured she had a good concept, and allowed it.

 

So I had various and assorted plot threads for each of the characters, and plenty of things for each of them to do. They divvied up all this stuff amongst themselves after some discussion.

 

They assigned her to go to the brothel, to see if she could find anything out there.

 

"No. I don't want to, and there's nothing there."

 

Sigh.

 

So instead, I threw her plot thread her way.

 

She slapped the NPC. For behaving like the respectful patron of a prostitute. "I'm retired!" she snapped at him, and flounced off.

 

This is when I docked experience from her for needing to be asked SIX times what her character was doing for the next 3 days, while the rest of the characters did, y'know, investigation. She finally said that she'd been looking for the other party members during all that time.

 

Aggggggggh.

 

The second example was a 3rd edition D&D game, with one character playing a werewolf. She decided that it was really, really important and a part of her core character concept that she stay away from cities.

 

She went along with our travels through cities, sighing and dragging her feet and rolling her eyes. At the end of the game, she offered to "turn" my character's daughter (an NPC) so they could have their own little family off in the woods. And was offended and hurt when the girl said no thanks, I want to be with my biological mother, now that I found her.

 

We had a pretty heated argument about this OOC, and finally just dropped it.

 

Which probably isn't the greatest example of hobbiting, but they are 2 examples of players I wanted to smack upside the head.

[Dynamo]

Re: Limitations You Would Like to See More Often

 

After a "Last Straw" incident back in the days of 4e, I added the following to a character's disad list:

 

0 Player will be thrown bodily out the front door upon failure of randomly scheduled Calculator Audit

 

Three weeks later, he RAN out the front door halfway through my audit. I finished the gruesome task and calmly threw his stuff out on the front lawn. His character totalled over 900 points in a 150 base + 150 disad + ~75 xp game.

[radioKAOS]

Re: Limitations You Would Like to See More Often

 

After a "Last Straw" incident back in the days of 4e, I added the following to a character's disad list:

 

0 Player will be thrown bodily out the front door upon failure of randomly scheduled Calculator Audit

 

Three weeks later, he RAN out the front door halfway through my audit. I finished the gruesome task and calmly threw his stuff out on the front lawn. His character totalled over 900 points in a 150 base + 150 disad + ~75 xp game.

 

lmao!

 

Nice...

[Sean Waters]

Re: Limitations You Would Like to See More Often

 

I don't understand this one...

 

 

Designed to deal with both the limelight hog and the player-with-no-friends who won't go home at the end of the evening

[ghost-angel]

Re: Limitations You Would Like to See More Often

 

After a "Last Straw" incident back in the days of 4e, I added the following to a character's disad list:

 

0 Player will be thrown bodily out the front door upon failure of randomly scheduled Calculator Audit

 

Three weeks later, he RAN out the front door halfway through my audit. I finished the gruesome task and calmly threw his stuff out on the front lawn. His character totalled over 900 points in a 150 base + 150 disad + ~75 xp game.

wtf was his deal... there's munchkin and then there's the crossover into stupid... wow.

[archermoo]

Re: Limitations You Would Like to See More Often

 

After a "Last Straw" incident back in the days of 4e, I added the following to a character's disad list:

 

0 Player will be thrown bodily out the front door upon failure of randomly scheduled Calculator Audit

 

Three weeks later, he RAN out the front door halfway through my audit. I finished the gruesome task and calmly threw his stuff out on the front lawn. His character totalled over 900 points in a 150 base + 150 disad + ~75 xp game.

 

So I guess the question is, was he just THAT bad at math, or was he just cheating scum?

[prestidigitator]

Re: Limitations You Would Like to See More Often

 

So I guess the question is' date=' was he just THAT bad at math, or was he just cheating scum?[/quote']

Err...I'll answer that with a prediction: cheating scum. 400 vs. over 900? Ran out while the calculator was being excercised? [Had obviously happened in the past to cause this rule?]

[Duke Bushido]

Re: Limitations You Would Like to See More Often

 

-1DC whenever player quotes Monty Python.

 

Wow!

 

So it's not just this area? This is a recurring problem throughout role-playing?

 

Well, at least my degenerates are in good company, then.

[Duke Bushido]

Re: Limitations You Would Like to See More Often

 

Conditional Limitation: INT only works if player keeps OOC information OOC' date=' and only acts on IC info.[/quote']

 

 

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHA!!

 

Oh, thanks, Alice! I needed that! You're a riot!

 

I mean, just imagine if that _really_ happened........