"****... You!!" (Speculations and Spoilers and Stuff)

well. seems like parson broke the game.
or a piece of the game.
or whatever allows him now to swear.

so that's the last scene. parson stepping over the bondaries of the rules.

awesome.
but also a very juice bit of information to build speculations on.

me for one goes with the hippiemancer. if parson breaks enough.
seems he broke something.

long shot: it's going to end with that 'well, now we are a real world with obscenity and death and the chance of freedom and peace, for the better or worse, it's up to us inhabitants now' moral.

but before a long, long time and alot of other books. :smallbiggrin:

Nah. You see, my theory is (not really) that Rob and Jamie love having lots of swearing in their comic but because they were being hosted on a website that was very anti-cussing, therefore they have been unable to enjoy doing this. However, now that they got their own website they can swear all they want. To celebrate, they made a big, swear word, splash page. Hurray! :)

Looking at the number of times Parson has said boop in the past, the level of cuss words is about to go way, way up.

Seriously though, I really want to know this. Parson has been cast as a person that uses a fair amount of profanity. Was this f-bomb a one time thing or is he now able to swear all he wants and what does that mean for marketing the future installments of the comic? Is that going to be a story line? Will other people be able to swear if they hear parson do it? Will it hurt other people to hear parson swear? Is it like Shockomancy? I don't see how we can avoid more swearing at this point, there are too many questions arising from this break.

Personally, I believe it was more of the 'game' perspective -- here we have a universe that actually works in hexes, unit/leader strengths, synergy and defined magic. Sure, you can be clever with the rules but they're still there. Very few computer games have vulgarity, and I've never read a tabletop instruction manual with swear words :smallamused:

Here we see Parson in a new way -- he's had to deal with a lot, mass murder and a very real prospect of death for starters. Now he's come a full circle from claiming he would go to a game instantly (with a snap and a PLOT) if he could. He even does something a real player might to prove a point -- gets rid of a magic item.

Your average d&d munchkin won't do that ever. I can imagine the horror "He got rid of a magic item!? WTF!? Is he stupid!?" He's broken a lot -- the way combat is perceived, the rules about casters leading units (though it's implied this has happened sometimes), used magic in new and interesting ways (uncroaking a volcano? I still get shudders when I think about that), and now with Wanda breaking the concept of death/Croaking (If they come back 1:1 with just their loyalty and priorities changed, is it really death?) the Erfworld stands at the brink of some very interesting changes.

And of course, now that Parson has broken the language barrier (pun intended), we can expect to see something interesting in the near future.

The question is: "Is Parson even aware that he just broke the profanity filter?"
That's an epic achievement, like making a perpetual motion device, or breaking free of Earth's gravity, even just for an instant.
And yet he just walks away, brooding. Or is he really brooding? It's hard to say with the comic's resolution.
Maybe that's his determined face.

I am reminded of the Marlon Brando rant just before he gets it in "Apocalypse Now", where he agrily points out that "[USAF] teaches our young boys to burn eople to death with napalm... but forbids them to paint the word **** on their airplanes... BECAUSE IT IS OBSCENE!!!"

I guess Parsons character development has gone full circle from munchkin, number crunching min/max-er gamer to one of a dissobeying unit. Like those broken morale units that flat out refuse to follow you ordes when you boop up...

The question remains: Will he change the rules? End conflict? lead a rebellion against the very rules of the game/world? Or is he a pawn of someone who also uses Wanda as a pawn... Someone like the Hippiemancers?

I know I will still cruise giantp (I mean I still think OOTS is the boop) but I will follow the story arc on the new website. And I booping hope they find a printer soon!

You guys have it all wrong. He's a hippymancer, remember? Waxing on about how profane all this slaughter is, he's unlocked one of the most basic uses of flower-power. He has demanded (With a common second-person imperative Verb of Power) that the universe make love, not war.

Um, what? It's clearly an error on Rob's part.

Can't believe he forgot to censor that f-bomb into 'boop'.

Haha, this comic has made me rethink our own reality. What if we are following ridiculous rules like the boop filter? Maybe I'll brake some rules of our universe and become a player instead of a game piece. Lets see if I can walk through this wall here. Nope didn't work. I guess I'm still just a game piece. Boop.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cloudbreaker

Haha, this comic has made me rethink our own reality. What if we are following ridiculous rules like the boop filter? Maybe I'll brake some rules of our universe and become a player instead of a game piece. Lets see if I can walk through this wall here. Nope didn't work. I guess I'm still just a game piece. Boop.

---

I loled at this :P Have some virtual bandaids? :D

Really, I think what happened here is that he made a crack in his current reality. A small one, almost unable to be noticed, but by shear emotion and will, he cracked whatever fate is binding him to the Erf. A perfect way to end the first chapter: not only does it confirm that Parson does have SOME pull on his fate and has a chance to escape it, but it leaves everyone wondering how many more tiny chinks he must make in Erf's armor to discover the truth?

(Oh, and the whole idea that IRL Parson is doing nothing but coasting through life, and in Erf he actually shattered a piece of reality speaks volumes to his own self-worth, and his growth as a character. Just wanted to say that didn't escape me.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Renx

Your average d&d munchkin won't do that ever. I can imagine the horror "He got rid of a magic item!? WTF!? Is he stupid!?" He's broken a lot -- the way combat is perceived, the rules about casters leading units (though it's implied this has happened sometimes), used magic in new and interesting ways (uncroaking a volcano? I still get shudders when I think about that), and now with Wanda breaking the concept of death/Croaking (If they come back 1:1 with just their loyalty and priorities changed, is it really death?) the Erfworld stands at the brink of some very interesting changes.

---

A munchkin character, even a power-gamer is probably the antithesis of any good storytelling.

If Gandalf would have been a Munchkin, he would have chucked fireballs at the Nazgul and the Catapults, made the ceiling collapse on the Balrog, etc...

If Merlin would have been a Munchkin, he would have killed Mordreid as soon as he shown up. He would have blasted Arthur's opponents into Oblivion, and charmed Arthur's mother so she'd be perfectly happy to live with Uther.

But people usually forget that the Wizard, in any good fantasy story, isn't there to solve the problem and win the day. He is there to make sure the Hero learns to do these things himself. Gandalf only was there to make sure humanity would stand up and fight for itself, and win the day for itself (except maybe vs surnatural ennemies). Merlin wanted to make sure there would be a decent king on the throne.

Well, I'd say that Parson DEFINITELY knows that he's broken the profanity filter.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Parson -- Page 18

Wait... What is this "booping" boop? I can't say boop?

---

Therefore he knows when he's being filtered. If he isn't, it's safe to assume that he knows that too.

Still, interesting how there's exactly one obscenity in the entire book, and it's the last line...

I think that we'll get to learn a lot more about how Erfworld operates as things start to get broken...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SolkaTruesilver

A munchkin character, even a power-gamer is probably the antithesis of any good storytelling.

---

That's pretty damn small-minded. Powergaming is a mechanical issue, and does not directly interact with roleplaying/storytelling. The antithesis of good storytelling is bad storytelling, not 'powergaming,' the same way the antithesis of love is hate and not apathy.

Great comic, can't wait to keep reading.

I'd call powergaming the antithesis of good storytelling, actually. You have good storytelling (thesis), then powergaming comes along (antithesis). Their common ground combines and forms great storytelling (synthesis).

Powergaming is doing whatever you need to achieve your goal. You want to have humanity stand up for itself? Get there the fastest way possible. That may have entailed collapsing the ceiling on the Balrog. But, given the power boost Gandalf the Grey got when he turned White, he did indeed take the most powergamey route.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Foryn Gilnith

I'd call powergaming the antithesis of good storytelling, actually. You have good storytelling (thesis), then powergaming comes along (antithesis). Their common ground combines and forms great storytelling (synthesis).

Powergaming is doing whatever you need to achieve your goal. You want to have humanity stand up for itself? Get there the fastest way possible. That may have entailed collapsing the ceiling on the Balrog. But, given the power boost Gandalf the Grey got when he turned White, he did indeed take the most powergamey route.

---

Um, no, that does not make any sense. If powergaming is the antithesis of good storytelling, then combining the two does not make better storytelling.

Of course, a character can be expected to seek the most effective way to acheive a goal within his range of competence and within the parameters of his objectives and personality. In that sense, his going the most effective route would be expected (and in that case would not be the antithesis of good storytelling), but that doesn't mean that powergaming per se is a neccessary ingredient in great storytelling.

Powergaming is (IMHO) by definition when you are playing to win as opposed to creating a story - specifically when you the player are attempting to win the game as opposed to creating a story about the character attempting to acheive his goals, as viewed from an in-universe meta-free perspective. This may or may not be consistent with what would be done by a character if the goal was good storytelling, depending on the situation. These are two seperate objectives which may well coincide, but often do not.

I guess the issue is partially whether you are out to create a character with believable goals and personality and with complex desires and aspirations beyond "kill all the monsters in the dungeon in the most efficient manner possible". That, and whether your character's profile reads like the description of a Mary Sue or of a plausible person with both strengths and weaknesses that the player acknowledges and honors during play.

Our opinions on what the terms (antithesis/powergaming) mean seem to diverge. This is understandable.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thesis,...sis,_synthesis
http://www.clickz.com/917191
http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?ThesisAntithesisSynthesis

These reference the definition of antithesis that I was using.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Foryn Gilnith

Our opinions on what the terms (antithesis/powergaming) mean seem to diverge. This is understandable.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thesis,...sis,_synthesis
http://www.clickz.com/917191
http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?ThesisAntithesisSynthesis

These reference the definition of antithesis that I was using.

---

OK, that's fair enough. Though I'm not sure that this alters the situation, especially since we were using the same definition of "synthesis". :smallwink:

I maintain that great storytelling is not the synthesis of good storytelling and powergaming. It is a subset of the former, not a reconciliation of the former with the latter by showing a new possibility or idea.

In fact, I maintain that powergaming and storytelling are distinct and pretty much independent objectives. An admittedly crude analogy (appropriately enough, from gaming) would be the Lawful-Chaotic axis versus the Good-Evil axis. For example, given a choice between LE and CG, the character motivated only by good chooses the latter, thinking the former anathema, while the one motivated by only by law chooses the former, thinking the latter anathema. In other situations (LG vs CE) their views would be in accord. The question of whether the two coincide is entirely situational.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lord Zentei

Um, no, that does not make any sense. If powergaming is the antithesis of good storytelling, then combining the two does not make better storytelling.

Of course, a character can be expected to seek the most effective way to acheive a goal within his range of competence and within the parameters of his objectives and personality.

---

A powergaming character has no personality. He is a killing machine. 18 STR 18 Con, 3 everything else. Only trains skills useful in combat, mocks others for training in other areas.

This is a quote from a powergamer in a game I was running. "I'm not here to roleplay, I'm here to roll dice!"

Quote:

---

Powergaming is a mechanical issue, and does not directly interact with roleplaying/storytelling.

---

Making a robot is a mechanical issue. It totally interacts with roleplay and storytelling.

My only real comment is that a demotivator has GOT to be made that shows Parson decked out as a pimp, surrounded by female cast, that reads:

Parson:
**** you, he's a player.

:smallbiggrin:

Well, I can't say I know what's happening. But I do know that some major changes are happening soon, and I look forward to it eagerly.

Theory I had about the Un-booping from Parson

Spoiler

Show

Maybe the words: "I am a player" activate a kind of god mode?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ishnar

A powergaming character has no personality. He is a killing machine. 18 STR 18 Con, 3 everything else. Only trains skills useful in combat, mocks others for training in other areas.

This is a quote from a powergamer in a game I was running. "I'm not here to roleplay, I'm here to roll dice!"


Making a robot is a mechanical issue. It totally interacts with roleplay and storytelling.

---

:smallannoyed:

The powergamer would obviously not be a melee class, he'd be a caster.

Therefore depending on how many points available to him; 16ning his primary casting stat, and putting some points in dex/con, and a bit in wis so he still has decent saves

Or 18ning his primary casting stat and else doing the same routine.

If he was actually a melee class he would obviously not neglect Dex, which determines AC and the reflex save (Good for avoiding a bit of damage) and Wis (Which boost his Will save, which he needs, badly) :smallmad:

A powergamer playing a fighter (LE GOD?! Is that actually possible?!) would probably know the value of a dude capable of slowing down the advancing enemies with spells.

That was semi irrelevant, but i felt like pointing it out.

I admit i am going by D&D rules here.

I see Parson's swearing as him breaking from the rules, much like Neo in the Matrix breaking from the rules when he kills an agent. :smallsmile: Whether Parson starts a trend in rule breaking or not is something I'd like to know.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ishnar

This is a quote from a powergamer in a game I was running. "I'm not here to roleplay, I'm here to roll dice!"

Making a robot is a mechanical issue. It totally interacts with roleplay and storytelling.

---

Sounds like an interesting character. Very focused on his objective, and passionate about it. Not very good at social skills - probably roleplays his CHA stat quite well (unlike me, when I used it as a dump stat mumble years ago when I last played D&D). Given that powergamers are usually mages, this describes V fairly closely (though V did have the whole family background story that a typical powergamer wouldn't), and also sounds quite similar to the way Miko acted, if we imagined a powergamer paladin (have you even seen a powergamer admit he was wrong?). Both characters that make for interesting stories.

Of course, if everyone is powergaming, you're playing a tactical simulation not an RPG at that point (almost as if you'd want a product from the Tactical Simluation Rules company :smallwink:), but even then you can get amazing war stories even if most of the gaming is a bit trite.

As long as you don't let the powergamers actively destroy the rolepplaying, nor let the roleplayers actively sabotage the powergamers, you should have no problem running an interesting game. Both types of players need to give attention to actually advancing the plot, however. The only really dull games I've been in have been where the roleplaying diverted into in-game shopping trips (not even for equipment, just for fluff), or powergaming into out-of-game logistics ("no, I insist on spending those skill points now"), instead of actual adventuring.