94 parson's Klog pg 10

[Lamech]

Personally i'm just hoping that Parsons morning Stupid Meal gives him a truely awesome blade to go along with his sword hilt, it'd awesome if th sword gave bonuses to which stack its wielder was attached to. Forcing Parson out onto the frontlines to see what the grunts on the ground in TBS games go through.

While there is no logical reason only using what we know in the comic; I doubt Parson will start popping items that give a bonus by themselves. Its possible he could get a toy that turns his say, his cell phone (or ballpoint pen, or digital camera or any device from his world) in to a artifact that gives bonuses, or that his mathamancy watch gives an artifact bounus. If he can pop bonus giving items endlessly that would break the world. While there is no in-comic reason that would be impossible, it would make the story unfun.

An extremely interesting prospect that. However, one of Parson’s biggest revelations was that Ansom DIDN’T have a tactical overhead view of everything and that he had to use scouts. Unless it’s a natural Thinkamancy effect that lets a commander keep a map in his head, I don’t think commanders or overlords have a map to even look at. If they do though that would indicate perfect recall of all past terrain (unless it was changed by cataclysmic events I’d imagine). Have we seen any other kind of map except the one generated by the link?

He could say draw a map by hand. It really isn't all that hard draw; off set rectangles so each one connects to 6 others; wouldn't be pretty but in terms of inter hex, (though not intra hex) it would work fine.

[Shalewind]

While there is no logical reason only using what we know in the comic; I doubt Parson will start popping items that give a bonus by themselves. Its possible he could get a toy that turns his say, his cell phone (or ballpoint pen, or digital camera or any device from his world) in to a artifact that gives bonuses, or that his mathamancy watch gives an artifact bounus. If he can pop bonus giving items endlessly that would break the world. While there is no in-comic reason that would be impossible, it would make the story unfun.

I concur completely. I think Parson’s merit is in his mental ability, not bonuses to be granted to him through artifacts and objects. Personally I still like the theory of all his gizmo gifts giving him powers an ordinary warlord takes for granted.

He could say draw a map by hand. It really isn't all that hard draw; off set rectangles so each one connects to 6 others; wouldn't be pretty but in terms of inter hex, (though not intra hex) it would work fine.

A very good point. I was looking at this as too much of a war game with given rules. It seems that many of the inhabitants follow unseen rules as second nature. Drawing a map by hand almost seems “out of the box” thinking for an Erfian. Maybe it’s just me. Either way I think you are correct; Parson (Maybe even Stanley?) could do just fine making his own maps if needs be.

Also I’m not sure we have a very good understanding of how intra-hex movement (if any at all) is handled, so simple hex mapping is probably good.

[SteveMB]

A very good point. I was looking at this as too much of a war game with given rules. It seems that many of the inhabitants follow unseen rules as second nature. Drawing a map by hand almost seems "out of the box" thinking for an Erfian. Maybe it’s just me. Either way I think you are correct; Parson (Maybe even Stanley?) could do just fine making his own maps if needs be.

Ansom's map looks like a paper map of currently known terrain with tokens placed on it to represent currently known units, so the idea isn't totally unknown. That said, Stanley might never have bothered to transcribe what he knew about the route to Faq onto a paper map or had the Eyemancers review the local terrain for him; long-range planning doesn't seem to be his strong suit.

[Doctor Zuber]

The whole "free will" debate still kind of drives me nuts. Where did you guys ever get the idea that everyone in Erfworld is a mindless automaton? Just because Maggie said so?

I don't see this as all that complicated at all. Characters in Erfworld certainly do have free will, especially leadership type units and mercenaries. The minor detail that units have a leadership "stat" is irrelevant to me. This can easily be justified as simply a statistical measurement of past behavior. I've been in a corperation where there was a loyalty stat on my personal file too. Are you going to say that I have no free will too?

I won't even BEGIN to try listing all of the examples I can think of for how units in erfworld demonstrate free will. I'll give you one early example with a twoll to think about.

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0010.html

Here is mere Twoll, not even a terribly intelligent ground unit, no leadership abilities, who is essentially questioning orders. It is irrelvant that he is effectively following orders while doing so, disobedience is not a prerequisite for free will. All that is necessary is the ability to think for yourself.

[hajo]

everybody seems to assume that the backlash from breaking the spell made the foolamancer crazy. Has nobody considered the possibility that he may have been just odd to begin with?

We haven't seen him as an individual before the link was broken, so maybe he indeed was 'odd' - but he was functional while working in the link.
Now that failed veiling-spell seems to indicate that he is useless now, and the mad behavior is just a sideeffect of that.

[The Blind]

Where did you guys ever get the idea that everyone in Erfworld is a mindless automaton? Just because Maggie said so?

I haven't seen anyone in this thread argue that they are mindless. I think they have free will, but it is certainly seriously circumscribed.

Consider: "Units are compelled to obey orders." Not doing so can end their existence, not because their Ruler kills them for disobedience but because obedience is part of their nature.

They have a chance to disobey orders, but their ability to do so can be affected by a Thinkamancer. Reducing someone's ability to disobey is a reduction in free will, right there.

But the real kicker is about this:

It is irrelvant that he is effectively following orders while doing so, disobedience is not a prerequisite for free will. All that is necessary is the ability to think for yourself.

I disagree; thinking all the live-long day doesn't matter if, when push comes to shove, you are clockwork. But setting that aside, Duty is an innate magic that affects all warlords and forces them to plot and act on the Ruler's behalf. When your thoughts turn to protecting the Ruler and advancing his interests simply because of what you are, you aren't very "free" in the terms we would use.

In a nutshell, you are not necessarily thinking for yourself, but for the Ruler, and you probably won't know the difference. Parson certainly doesn't, which is why it worries him.

Mercenaries and rulers are both free, of course - and everyone else can "roll their loyalty" at the risk of disbanding, popping out of reality, if they win their roll.

If everyone's hardwired for obedience with narrow exceptions, as Maggie says, then they're not very free. Not automatons - just people who repeatedly can't make the choice to disobey.

[teratorn]

That said, Stanley might never have bothered to transcribe what he knew about the route to Faq onto a paper map or had the Eyemancers review the local terrain for him; long-range planning doesn't seem to be his strong suit.

I'm in the camp which thinks that Dwagons can not fly over the bigger mountains and Stanley has to take the scenic tour. Jillian probably knows a straight way, through some narrow path, not easily seen unless you really look for it.

[Wender]

But setting that aside, Duty is an innate magic that affects all warlords and forces them to plot and act on the Ruler's behalf. When your thoughts turn to protecting the Ruler and advancing his interests simply because of what you are, you aren't very "free" in the terms we would use.

I keep coming back to Parson's original prescription for Erfworld: GOD MODE.

What is an "innate magic?" Innate to what? If it is light compulsion, in the sense that it doesn't care what your attitude is as long as you find a way to obey direct orders rather than turning you into an automaton, then in a sense it's a nice play on the level of abstraction in most wargames; but could it also be a clue?

What if the game itself is an imposition upon Erfworld? What if the "innate Thinkamancy" is not actually innate to the creatures bound by it, but to the world or some magic upon it? Something that's as much a part of the magic that "pops" units as it was a part of the magic that summoned Parson?

What if it's in fact possible to pop units that are free of this Thinkamancy? What if the compulsion is intrinsic to the mechanism that populates cities ruled by royals?

I'm speculating wildly, of course, but with a purpose: If "innate Thinkamancy" is in fact intrinsic to the world and everything in it, then Parson can't break the game without destroying the world. If it's not, Parson can break the game. Once he's done that? GOD MODE.

[BarGamer]

I think we're all forgetting something here. Stanley is an OVERLORD, not a Ruler, not a King. So going by the letter of Maggie's descriptions of Natural Thinkamancy, Parson's Duty, or Wanda's Loyalty, is completely irrelevant. Only their Obedience is applicable. And even then, Wanda works the second clause of the Obedience stat pretty hard: She has repeatedly disobeyed and argued with Stanley when the benefits outweighed the risks, such as the decision to summon Parson, seducing Stanley long enough for Parson to wipe out siege units, and probably other stuff we haven't seen, etc. As we've seen, Stanley is willing and able to use Obedience to substitute for Duty, which in In-Character Gaming terms, is likely going to result in some heavy Loyalty penalties down the line.

Another thing about Duty: up until Misty's death, Parson has been acting out his Gamer Fantasy, which Stanley may also be mistaking for Duty. Stanley's never known about his units' Duty to him, because as far as we understand it, that whole Heir Designate might've been sabotaged due to a low Loyalty, or low Duty stat due to his unusual rise in the ranks. Until we hear the real story behind Wanda and Jillian, Stanely and Saline, or Ansom and Vinnie, I'm not going to overly speculate about Loyalty.

However, the Cast Page does say that one of Ansom's Strengths is Leadership, which may affect Loyalty and possibly Obedience. There are other Natural Thinkamancy stats we're not hearing about, but these are the ones that Parson is interested in.

In short: We don't know enough yet. But I want to see what that Sword-Hilt does. :D

[BarGamer]

Bogroll is the only ground-unit of whom we have seen stats yet, and he has zero move.

Oh, yeah. And the reason why Bogroll has 0 move is because he's Garrisoned. As in, inside a defensive structure, and cannot "move" until he's "released," "ejected," or "dropped off," whichever gaming term you want to use. It would make no sense for a regenerating unit like a Twoll, obviously meant for attack or support, to have no move. Walls, guard towers, Doomsday Weapons, entrenched defenses, walls, stationary artillery, braced pike-men, etc have 0 move on purpose. Not units that obviously have legs, and run with "thub-thub-thub" sounds.

Edited: to provide links and quotes.

[Rutee]

Point of notice: It says "Garrison", not "Garissoned". This may be a permanent condition for him.

[hajo]

the reason why Bogroll has 0 move is because he's Garrisoned.

We already have seen a twoll outside GK, so they obviously have movement.
But we just don't know their stats, so we have no info yet about the rate of movement for ground-units as compared to air-units.

[Gez]

*sigh* everybody seems to assume that the backlash from breaking the spell made the foolamancer crazy. Has nobody considered the possibility that he may have been just odd to begin with?

"What kind are you, Nuncle, who made a natural fool of an artificial one?"

This sentence quite easily translates to "What kind of idiot are you, Tool, who made a madman of a foolamancer?"

[Krelon]

I concur completely. I think Parson’s merit is in his mental ability, not bonuses to be granted to him through artifacts and objects. Personally I still like the theory of all his gizmo gifts giving him powers an ordinary warlord takes for granted.
...

the sword hilt seems to be something different, though


about innate thinkamancy: It is a game world, the overlord gives orders and the troops follow (exceptions like Jillian are probably very rare). Thinkamancy gives an explanation why the world still functions as it was designed. I wouldn't go too philosophical about it.


For the next strip/klog I really hope we get some explanation how Jillian can outrun the faster dwagons and either more strategy or at least tactical action. Also I'd love to see how Parson can achieve something lasting without a god mode (cause cheating is for losers).

Point of notice: It says "Garrison", not "Garissoned". This may be a permanent condition for him.

Agreed, if troops could be garrisoned and de-garrisoned freely that stat wouldn't make much sense. Maybe Bogroll is a special twoll, bound to defend GK, in exchange he has Regeneration and probably very very good stats. He's been hit by a dwagon shot and survived without scratches!

[The Blind]

I think we're all forgetting something here. Stanley is an OVERLORD, not a Ruler, not a King.

I don't have the time to scan through the archives at the moment, but I thought it was clear that both Kings and Overlords are Rulers. The reason the Natural Thinkamancy rules refer to Rulers is that it's the generic term for who's in charge.

I cannot remember why I began thinking this, but I'm pretty confident about it. Does anyone remember this coming up and what strip it would be in?

I can only seem to think of page 79, and that doesn't use the word Ruler.

I might simply be assuming it because the word Ruler itself doesn't imply anything more than "the one who rules," so it's logical for it to be the generic term. Logic doesn't make it true, though.

(added:)

I'm speculating wildly, of course, but with a purpose: If "innate Thinkamancy" is in fact intrinsic to the world and everything in it, then Parson can't break the game without destroying the world. If it's not, Parson can break the game. Once he's done that? GOD MODE.

That's a very interesting idea. I'd always thought of Parson using the rules of the game to his advantage, by becoming a Ruler perhaps, not attempting to break out from the rules. It makes me think of the plot of The Matrix.

The distinction between the rules being part of Erfworld or the game being an imposition upon Erfworld is interesting too, though I don't know how useful it will be. Everything seems too game-ish for me to believe Erfworld existed as a non-game, but debating it is bootless until we know more.

[SteveMB]

I don't have the time to scan through the archives at the moment, but I thought it was clear that both Kings and Overlords are Rulers. The reason the Natural Thinkamancy rules refer to Rulers is that it's the generic term for who's in charge.

I cannot remember why I began thinking this, but I'm pretty confident about it. Does anyone remember this coming up and what strip it would be in?

I can only seem to think of page 79, and that doesn't use the word Ruler.

I might simply be assuming it because the word Ruler itself doesn't imply anything more than "the one who rules," so it's logical for it to be the generic term. Logic doesn't make it true, though.

I'm inclined to agree that "Ruler" probably covers both kings and overlords.

OTOH.... if royals are inherently able to command more loyalty, that puts yet another interesting spin on Ansom's worldview, by providing another way in which the traditional views of real-world royalists are literally true in Erfworld.

[teratorn]

Agreed, if troops could be garrisoned and de-garrisoned freely that stat wouldn't make much sense. Maybe Bogroll is a special twoll, bound to defend GK, in exchange he has Regeneration and probably very very good stats. He's been hit by a dwagon shot and survived without scratches!

Probably it's just a question of cost, or trading one stat for another, when you pay for a unit. If the unit is supposed to stay inside the castle why pay for move?

[fendrin]

Probably it's just a question of cost, or trading one stat for another, when you pay for a unit. If the unit is supposed to stay inside the castle why pay for move?

If you have that much control over the popping process, sure. On the other hand, many games give hefty advantages to units that are "attached" to a city. Often tomes, you cannot move them without first "detaching" them from the city.

[Krelon]

an idea:

the cost of a unit follows a formula where first you create cost based on the stat line, something like:
cost= hitpoints*weight(h)*creaturetype + strength*weight(s)*creaturetype + move*weight(m)*creaturetype + ...

the city bonus (specialization), the race, thy type, the surrounding terrain, specials like flying and regeneration greatly influence the weights(h,s,m)

let's say regeneration heavily influences move and hitpoints, then it makes sense to have regenerating defenders (no or little move .. well, in a world with 50+ move dwagons having a move 2 twoll that is supposed to stay in the city anyway is not sensible)

typically ranged attacks should heavily influence hitpoints (archers have few hits)
Flying would influence all weights, except move will become cheaper (flyers are faster then ground troops)

warlords and such follow other formulas but it should work fine for units.

[Arkenputtyknife]

While there is no logical reason only using what we know in the comic; I doubt Parson will start popping items that give a bonus by themselves.

Being able to see stats he couldn't see without his glasses isn't a bonus of a sort?

If he can pop bonus giving items endlessly that would break the world. While there is no in-comic reason that would be impossible, it would make the story unfun.

Don't know about that. If breaking the world were what Erfworld is ultimately about (and I'm not saying it is), and the toys were parts of the means to that end, it could be a lot of fun.

[Lamech]

Being able to see stats he couldn't see without his glasses isn't a bonus of a sort?

I meant being a bonus like a leadership, artifact or croakamancer leading undead type bounus. And I don't think it would be very fun to simply watch Parson break the world by existing long enough.

[fendrin]

I meant being a bonus like a leadership, artifact or croakamancer leading undead type bounus. And I don't think it would be very fun to simply watch Parson break the world by existing long enough.

I still think that the 'toys' are simply giving Parson abilities that a warlord of his level would normally already have. I figure once that is done he will stop getting 'toys' that have 'in-game' effects.

[Erasmus]

I am not well versed in Erfworld lore, and this is my first post in this forum, so please forgive anything incredibly stupid i say.

That being said, i have two points i would like to bring forward.

Has anyone considered the possibility that Wanda is in love with Jillian? I know it is a long shot, but i was wondering if anyone could shoot this down.
This could explain why Wanda was in the attack force on Faq, she possibly knew about Jillian beforehand and wanted Jillian to come to her (perhaps against Stanley?).

The other thing, this i feel is less far-fetched, but i could be wrong is this:
Maggie obviously believes in Loyalty and Duty and Obedience as she described to Parson, but as Parson has said before, the understanding in Efrworld seems like the ancient idea of the four basic elements. It is very incomplete and even naive almost.
I believe the "stats" of Loyalty and Duty and Obedience are far more correspondent with real-world behaviors than people in this forum seem to think (from what i have seen so far, if i am restating something, or if i am wrong about any of this, i again apologize).
I do not think it is an accident that these three 'stats" can relate so closely to how things are in the real world. Behaviors in the real world can be broken down and simplified into the almost exact definition Maggie gave Parson. People have differing levels of Duty and Loyalty, and even if ones Loyalty is high, something might convince them to betray whatever they are loyal too, and certain people (Commanders, for instance) have higher levels of Duty and/or Loyalty.
Of course, in addition to this we have many many many different things factoring into our "Loyalty, duty, and obedience." I think it is obvious that Erfworldians (is that right?) have just as many different things factoring into their decisions as well.

Basically, i think they have free will. Maybe as much as any real person.
They "cannot" betray their Ruler just as we "cannot" shoot at our President (i hope.)
Maggie (and most Erfworldians) are just trying to find a game-like way to define something that is in their game-like world.

Maybe?

[kagato23]

[QUOTE=Arkenputtyknife;3919144]Being able to see stats he couldn't see without his glasses isn't a bonus of a sort?

Remember though, that's a basic ability others in the world have. The glassess brought him up to par, but nobody's impressed by them. On the countrary, such an item woudl be viewed as utterly useless to anybody else.

the mathamancy calculator on the other hand, was a big deal. But not a big deal for a normal dm, who would have something like that on hand.

Rather then give parson all the powers that other Warlords take for granted, I think it's giving him all the powers that a Dm has.

[Krelon]

hello Erasmus,
basically I think that you are right, Erfworld resembles Earth-world to some degree (it was one of the constraints set by Stanley... "Everything should be familiar..."). However, someone designed this world for a purpose so there are rules to follow or the world will just go in a random direction, therefore (in my opinion) things are less complex than some of us here actually interpret them.

oops, random ideas popping: Artificial world .. purpose .... is Stanley=Neo? Is his task a reset? Is Parson a glitch in the reality matrix?

And yes, there has been some discussion if Jillian and Wanda are lovers (remember the hugging on a dwagon?) but I got the feeling that the majority thinks it was no (true) love.


about the stupid meals: They are definitely the reason behind Parson high upkeep. He got the glasses - giving him the ability every warlord has (nothing fancy so far). He got the watch upgrade - this is something very valuable and useful, definitely not an every day item. He got a blade hilt - ?? maybe it gives him combat stats, maybe it is one half of a sword, maybe it is just a hilt and once bogroll ttaches a real blade to it, it'll give some bonusses to it.
There is no clear pattern there yet, what this items really are about.

Since the upkeep is part of the 'perfect warlord' spell effect, maybe that's what the items are about.

But, what are the abilities a perfect warlord should have?
1) he must have all abilities of a normal warlord 2) he can predict and change the outcome of battles 3) he can kick a$$ himself 4) ? ... well something like the Arkenhammer - an item which lets him summon the legion of doom or whatever, an extra edge in every battle.

[SteveMB]

Has anyone considered the possibility that Wanda is in love with Jillian? I know it is a long shot, but i was wondering if anyone could shoot this down.
This could explain why Wanda was in the attack force on Faq, she possibly knew about Jillian beforehand and wanted Jillian to come to her (perhaps against Stanley?).

There's been some speculation here about the exact nature of their relationship, yes. Given the number of interesting hints we've gotten since relatively early in the story, it could hardly be otherwise.

One correction: Wanda wasn't in the attack force on Faq; she was a Faq unit -- Jillian mentions her as "...a unit there (in Stanley's forces) who had served under Banhammer..." (note that we readers know from the flashback image that she's referring to Wanda, but all she tells Ansom is that she's referring to "a caster").

The other thing, this i feel is less far-fetched, but i could be wrong is this:
Maggie obviously believes in Loyalty and Duty and Obedience as she described to Parson, but as Parson has said before, the understanding in Efrworld seems like the ancient idea of the four basic elements. It is very incomplete and even naive almost.
I believe the "stats" of Loyalty and Duty and Obedience are far more correspondent with real-world behaviors than people in this forum seem to think (from what i have seen so far, if i am restating something, or if i am wrong about any of this, i again apologize).
I do not think it is an accident that these three 'stats" can relate so closely to how things are in the real world. Behaviors in the real world can be broken down and simplified into the almost exact definition Maggie gave Parson. People have differing levels of Duty and Loyalty, and even if ones Loyalty is high, something might convince them to betray whatever they are loyal too, and certain people (Commanders, for instance) have higher levels of Duty and/or Loyalty.
Of course, in addition to this we have many many many different things factoring into our "Loyalty, duty, and obedience." I think it is obvious that Erfworldians (is that right?) have just as many different things factoring into their decisions as well.

Basically, i think they have free will. Maybe as much as any real person.
They "cannot" betray their Ruler just as we "cannot" shoot at our President (i hope.)
Maggie (and most Erfworldians) are just trying to find a game-like way to define something that is in their game-like world.

Maybe?

This is a question that's implicit in the whole premise of Erfworld (a world that works like a turn-based strategy game, to the point that it has "laws of nature" that work like game rules). Now that it's been raised explicitly, we'll probably see some hints (and find some hints planted in advance) as to how much free will units have.

For instance (tying it back to the first subject), recall that Jillian suggested to Wanda that "both of us get out of here". Presumably, she thought there was at least a possibility that Wanda would actually take her up on the offer and desert Stanley. Is that possibility something specific to Wanda's situation (former unit of another kingdom now serving a different master), or possible in general?

[fendrin]

The other thing, this i feel is less far-fetched, but i could be wrong is this:
Maggie obviously believes in Loyalty and Duty and Obedience as she described to Parson, but as Parson has said before, the understanding in Efrworld seems like the ancient idea of the four basic elements. It is very incomplete and even naive almost.
I believe the "stats" of Loyalty and Duty and Obedience are far more correspondent with real-world behaviors than people in this forum seem to think
<snip>
Of course, in addition to this we have many many many different things factoring into our "Loyalty, duty, and obedience." I think it is obvious that Erfworldians (is that right?) have just as many different things factoring into their decisions as well.

Basically, i think they have free will. Maybe as much as any real person.
They "cannot" betray their Ruler just as we "cannot" shoot at our President (i hope.)
Maggie (and most Erfworldians) are just trying to find a game-like way to define something that is in their game-like world.

I like this idea. One of the interesting things about the 'outsider perspective' we have of Erfworld is that we only know what Parson knows, which is only what he is told. We cannot assume (though many literary scholars do) that the character that is informing the 'outsider' is telling the truth. Maggie may be saying what she believes in the truth, even if she is wrong. Not so dissimilar to the the people who said the world was flat. They weren't lying, they were just wrong.

It would make sense for Erflings to imagine that there were hidden stats controlling such things, because they already have stats that determine so much else. In our world, we can measure a person's physical performace, and thereby attach numbers to it, but we know that any given competition will not be absolutely determined by what we can measure.

[hajo]

'One of the interesting things about the outsider perspective' we have of Erfworld is that we only know what Parson knows, which is only what he is told.

The readers have seen a lot more than Parson, e.g. the events prior to the summoning, all the dialogs of Stanley & Wanda, Ansom / Jillian / Vinny, Jillian & Archons, etc.
OTOH, we got only a short account of Parson speaking with Sizemore and Maggie...

[fendrin]

The readers have seen a lot more than Parson, e.g. the events prior to the summoning, all the dialogs of Stanley & Wanda, Ansom / Jillian / Vinny, Jillian & Archons, etc.
OTOH, we got only a short account of Parson speaking with Sizemore and Maggie...

True. However, most of the workings of Erfworld we know come from conversations that Parson has had with others, especially in the form of Klog entries, not from direct observation of those workings.

It's like the difference between a science lecture course and a science lab course. You may learn more material in a lecture, but in the lab course you see it first hand.

[SteveMB]

Another point that occurs to me -- Stanley dismisses the dichotomy between good and evil as "propaganda". If the mechanics of Erfworld excluded free will to the extent that Parson is musing about, creating "propaganda" would be as pointless as attaching things to the floor with rubber bands to pull them downward.

Also, there's Ansom's comment about the hardship of maintaining a large alliance, which would seem to be directed to similar issues of loyalty. Perhaps Parson's inquiries into how allegiance works among Erfworld units will lead him to some way of fracturing the coalition (something he thought about earlier, though in more real-world terms, in his strategy brainstorming).