The MitD outwitting Xykon.

[Carry2]

I'd bet with you, Carry2, that if Rich ever writes another (more serious) story for us readers in the future that's not set in a parody D&D campaign world, that story will feel a lot more satisfying to you on that plausibility / plot convenience aspect... but in this one, don't expect anything else: it's just intrinsic to the very concept of the story.

There are a lot of things that might be considered intrinsic to the concept of a parody D&D campaign world, but while the kind of plot engineering you get in this strip is similar to the traditional devices used by D&D GMs, the author hasn't necessarily been stringently adhering to other aspects of the mechanics. Also- this is why, with no regrets, I abandoned games of this type some time ago.

While I admire where you're coming from, I think you're misreading/misjudging something. Neither Rich nor anyone else has made generalized "don't like don't read" statements, and Rich has in fact specifically denied that interpretation of what he's said. All comments to that effect have been directed to a specific poster whose history has left it difficult if not impossible to imagine any way in which he could be said to like the comic.

Well, up until recently, nobody asked. Not that I'm sure there's a vast gulf between asking a particular poster to depart on the basis of non-enjoyment and setting a precedent for the species at large, or that one should be required to like any part of a work in order to critique it.

Let me tell you, it takes effort to not find places where they think my comic is an ugly, pandering, badly written, wordy pile of nerd-****. You think I don't know what the average person off the street says about it? Trust me, I am under no illusions that what I make is somehow perfection itself and universally beloved.

I'm... getting mixed messages here, but okay.

Uh... I wouldn't call the art ugly. It's not spectacular, but it's clear and perky and serviceable, and I can certainly understand and support the decisions made in that area on practical grounds. I've never had a problem with the wordcount, and often enjoy the 'meatier' scenes where characters exchange zippy one-liners and chew the scenery. It's not badly-written in terms of humour or dialogue, which is often excellent and rarely poor, and while I find some of the supporting cast one-dimensional, the regulars are decently-rounded and some are outstanding in their nuance. The pandering is generally harmless and worth a few chuckles. Oh, and I must say the update schedule these days has been quite impressive, particularly given your mishap.

Do you see the difference between these two quotes? The first acknowledges that I must have specific reasons germane to the larger story being told for wanting a certain outcome, and then is critical of the path that I took to that outcome. The second dismisses any such concerns and instead says that I the path I took should be rigidly determinative of the outcome based on someone's idea of what's the most probable next step from each point, and that if that means that I don't get the outcome I wanted, well, tough.

That's a complete misunderstanding of the creative process.

Well, firstly I would make the point that something similar can be a quite viable format for the creative process. Not that I'm particularly suggesting you do it that way- plenty of authors construct their plots with certain key events and decisions in mind, and retrofit the finer details to fit. But I think there are ways to make the seams and joins less prominent.

I realise I employed a harsh turn of phrase, but it is literally accurate: I no longer care about what you have in store for the characters, regardless of how nuanced they may be, largely because the means you employ to get them there make it seem more a matter of dumb luck than of their personal motives and aptitudes. Roy and Co. didn't get out of the pyramid alive by being tough or conscientious or smart, they did so because an oddly-indestructable casket was in the right place at the right time. Durkon becomes a vampire? Sure, why not. I can't claim it exactly shocked me, because by now, nothing in the strip does.

This doesn't mean I don't think particular key events or decisions wouldn't be interesting, but like they say- it's the journey, not the destination.

*shrugs*

.

[Throknor]

Man, I'd hate to see how much you drone on if you did care.

And I'm definitely looking forward to this books commentaries. Lots of great twists and reveals to be discussed.

[Sunken Valley]

Yes, this is pretty much on the mark.

Just to give an idea of how much the plot is planned, here's a story that will likely end up in the commentary for the next book in a different format:

One of the things I may have mentioned in Dungeon Crawlin' Fools is that while strip #1 was always the first comic, strip #4 was actually the next one produced. Before I posted it, however, I produced another strip that has never been posted; we'll call it #A.

The events depicted in #A can be summarized as follows: Elan and Haley walk on stage to where Roy is waiting. Looking sad and crying, they inform Roy that they met some undead, and Durkon turned undead. Roy is confused, they reiterate. Roy gets annoyed, says that Durkon's a cleric, so of course he turned undead, stop being so stupid. Haley and Elan walk back to the left where V and Belkar are restraining a Durkon that is a vampire—he literally turned into an undead. They make a crack about how Roy took it really well. Ba dum bump.

I did not post this strip; instead, I went back and decided that rather than one-off gags, I wanted each strip to feed into the events of the next. So I wrote #2 and #3 to get from the already-posted #1 to the already-finished (and now renumbered) #4. But that left me with #A, which if I posted it, would derail my fledgling sense of continuity, because I had no way to undo Durkon's vampirism. In the end, I tabled the joke and drew #5 instead.

However, as a result of that comic, it has always been true that someday, Durkon was going to turn into a vampire. At first, I was just going to save the joke for a day when they would have access to the means to undo it, and then later, I decided to drop the punchline and really make it a major part of what happens. But as a plot element, it literally predates the existence of the Snarl, or the Gates, or any other aspect of the plot—even Xykon himself! All of Durkon's characterization and plot, since 2003, has been leading to him becoming a vampire and the story that would spin out of that. It has influenced hundreds of decisions going back ten years of comic.

So when I post the comic where Malack kills Durkon, and then raises him as a vampire, it is not a valid criticism to come here and say, "You shouldn't have done that, you ruined the comic, Durkon should have won." The comic you're reading is the way it is for the purpose of turning Durkon into a vampire! Malack was created for the purpose of turning Durkon into a vampire! There was no possible scenario where you would be reading a Malack vs. Durkon fight scene that didn't end with Durkon getting vamped.

That's what I mean when I say that the big plot points are not really open to criticism. At a certain point, that's just the story this happens to be, and we can argue about execution, but it's still happening one way or the other.

So the reason Durkon never had a character and only one flaw was that your story for him was to be a vampire and having to conflict his Durkon nature with his new vampire nature? I always thought it was cheating giving the character who you thought needed no developing a scenario where he had to relearn himself. I don't know what to think now.

[137beth]

Well, firstly I would make the point that something similar can be a quite viable format for the creative process.

I really wish people would stopping citing wordpress blogs and tvtropes as if they were some sort of credible sources...

[ti'esar]

I really wish people would stopping citing wordpress blogs and tvtropes as if they were some sort of credible sources...

That's both an unfair generalization and essentially irrelevant to the conversation. ("Conversation")?

[Carry2]

After all, you say you like the humor and the characterization. But given how you've Put Things In Capital Letters when discussing the social commentary in Rich's work, and from your debates in other thread, I wonder how much of that is causing at least some of the dissatisfaction. Especially if you don't particularly agree with the social commentary that Rich might be putting into his work, or if you think it isn't particularly well thought out.

Well... yes and no. By and large, I don't disagree with the moral messages so much as the particular methods by which they're conveyed. To take a particular example, there could have been a hundred different ways for Shojo's tangled web of lies to catch up with him, but the actual way it's precipitated in the comic hinges on astonishingly precise timing, dubious tactical decisions, and a very small world after all. (As opposed to- I don't know- somebody noticing that there's an illusory halfling in a jail cell or that he's intimidating senior paladins into subverting judicial process.)

Or, as in Tarquin's case, I don't disagree with the general premise of 'dictatorship bad', but the specific motif being drawn on might muddy the picture somewhat.

Man, I'd hate to see how much you drone on if you did care.

Well, I care in the meta sense of 'gosh, it would be great if the plot were different'.

I really wish people would stopping citing wordpress blogs and tvtropes as if they were some sort of credible sources...

Well, I've actually played some games in a similar format, so that I know that it works in principle- there are ways to get a decent plot out of some combination of setting/situation/premise without having a fixed endpoint in mind. Like I said, I'm not particularly saying the author should kill all his babies, but suggesting that the 'see what happens' approach is inherently less creative does not accord with my experience.

[orrion]

Well, up until recently, nobody asked. Not that I'm sure there's a vast gulf between asking a particular poster to depart on the basis of non-enjoyment and setting a precedent for the species at large, or that one should be required to like any part of a work in order to critique it.

There is a vast gulf. Rich hasn't gone 1-on-1 with everyone else and found that they all disliked basically every single thing about the comic. Essentially, you got taken to an ice cream parlor. You tried every flavor and hated them all, so the patron suggests you might not like the way he makes ice cream. That doesn't mean everyone else who walks in and tries vanilla and doesn't like it will hate every other flavor too.

You're not required to like a work to critique it. But Rich is writing the comic for people to enjoy reading it, so when you continually read it with no enjoyment you're doing a disservice to yourself.

[Math_Mage]

Well, I've actually played some games in a similar format, so that I know that it works in principle- there are ways to get a decent plot out of some combination of setting/situation/premise without having a fixed endpoint in mind. Like I said, I'm not particularly saying the author should kill all his babies, but suggesting that the 'see what happens' approach is inherently less creative does not accord with my experience.

That's not what the Giant said. That's not what anyone said. You made it up.

Also, are you going to complain when the most recent strip fortuitously frees up Durkon to save the Order in another series of oh-so-improbable coincidences?

Word to the wise: stop digging.

[Carry2]

That's not what the Giant said. That's not what anyone said. You made it up.

I believe it was strongly implied by the wording he employed. I have already stated, repeatedly, that it is not my philosophy that the most probable outcome must always follow. If there is a misinterpretation here, it was not mine.

As for the recent strip- no, I'm actually okay with that. I think the bases were covered.

[jere7my]

I believe it was strongly implied by the wording he employed.

You ignored a subordinate clause. He said:

And if one doesn't understand that—if one doesn't get that the way I'm able to write a story that is this complex is by planning out the major plot events and then working toward them, not by leading the plot in whatever direction is the most "probable" based on calculating moment-to-moment likelihoods—then I don't think that person really understands enough about the craft of writing to be making criticism at all.

Plenty of good stories have been written by sticking some characters in a situation and seeing where they end up; I think both Rich and I would agree with that. I'd say it's impossible to use that method to produce a tightly-constructed, decade-long serial, filled with foreshadowing and dozens of characters with interconnected backstories. If this were a first draft, sure, but Rich is posting the pages as they're written; he can't go back and rearrange previous events to support future ones.

There's really no way to produce something of this complexity on the first try without a detailed roadmap.

[DR27]

If there is a misinterpretation here, it was not mine.

You're right. We have all misinterpreted you as a productive poster with whom there can be legitimate discussion and discourse, when its painfully obvious that you are trolling at this point - just posting inflammatory comments to see what people say.

[orrion]

I believe it was strongly implied by the wording he employed. I have already stated, repeatedly, that it is not my philosophy that the most probable outcome must always follow. If there is a misinterpretation here, it was not mine.

As for the recent strip- no, I'm actually okay with that. I think the bases were covered.

You mean aside from your misinterpretation of the creative process, right?

[The Giant]

You know what? I think this conversation is done.

Carry2, believe whatever you want. I'm done engaging you. And as my gift to the rest of the forum, I'm locking this thread so no one else has to engage you, either.

I had a friend that used to say, "When you wrestle a pig, you get dirty and the pig has fun."

Thread locked.