Erfworld 149 - tBfGK - 136

[Architect]

How does "good to go dead" work?

"G2G DED" translates to unit named "good to go" is dead.

[WarriorTribble]

"G2G DED" translates to unit named "good to go" is dead.

How do you figure? The Oryls don't seem to have individual names, and I find people usually use pronouns to refer to themselves in games.

[Earendill]

I disagree. Rob used gotta go/got to go at least once here "G2G DED." I'm hedging my bets in good game.

"Good game" fits the context a lot better then "got to go". I've seen and used it many time in this precise context. A fierce battle that came to an end. The opponents saying this simply state that it was just a game and there are no hard feelings.

It is Parson's way to communicate to Charlie (in fact to the Titan/GM/force behind Charlie) that he considers the game over. It's metagaming, just like the use of TPK and "Rocks fall...." (strangely how Charlie understands all those gamer terms - telepathy won't do as explanation).

My guess is ever since he discovered that Charlie hacked the eyebooks (something that does not fit the system) he must have realised that Charlie was just the "tool" of this GM, a tool that was introduced in the game specially to counter his strategies. So the real enemy is behind Charlie.

[jmsl]

I know one of the problems I had with the story, which reflects more on me than the tellers, is how much it avoids neat connections. Our minds expect every semi-important thing or person in the story to have more importance than it does. We love our tropes, even as we make fun of them, since we've been raised on a steady diet of them. Messy stories where there isn't a deeper meaning behind every interaction feel very different. Prime example: Wanda not getting the pliers. Parson doesn't become a Marty Stu and demolish his enemies.

Another more serious problem, I feel, is lack of "time" to show characters more. We got a little bit of character development for a lot of characters, but I think it was stretched too thin. Ansom, for example, never seemed to show that he was an arrogant prig except in his two conversations with Parson (one real and one veiled troll). Maybe if he'd been stuck up about conventions? Charlie is another obvious one. We saw a hint of his personality in his willingness to play both sides, and to back off to watch Parson work, but his motivations were still too vague. Wanda plays the enigma but we got a little out of her. Jack I suppose is too minor a character, but we never find out much about him either.

The conflict between showing the action and the people left me feeling like the story was rushed despite being longer than originally suggested. As a result, while I still mostly enjoy the story, I lost connection with the characters. But then I wasn't looking at it from the point of view of a gamer admiring or disdaining Parson's strategic skills as so many appeared to on this forum. We may be close to the resolution of Parson's story, but no one else has been explained, except for those that didn't have any great mystery around them, like Sizemore or Bogroll.

My criticisms don't mean I'm right and Rob is wrong. It's just a partial explanation for why I'm not as satisfied with the story, despite following along excessively.

[Kreistor]

So leading a dance fight, something that warlords have repeatedly been shown to be able to do, is outside of Ansom's, a warlord's, area of expertise?

No. That's not what I'm talking about.

Wanda giving zombies, a unit that can't dance fight normally, dance fighting because she is a master class croakamancer is an exception.

Ansom invents a way that nullifies Wanda's exception as an exception to the rule. Now Ansom can give any other unit dancce fighting.

If Ansom can do that, why is Wanda's exception an exception? Every intelligent unit can be given dance fighting now, not just infantry but anything with a brain. Archers. Siege. Giving units dance fighting is now the rule. Is there an exception? Can Sizemore give his golems dance fighting now? Why not? They're just as smart and controlled as uncroaked.

That's what the problem is. The rules get broken to invent DDR. Ansom is not a caster, but he is given the inspiration to create a whole new type of spellcasting. Traditionalists are not inventors. They don't come up with new and unique strategies. They look to their past and what their fathers taught them to solve problems. Ansom broke type: that's why the athor had to end it right away and reveal Parson's suspicions. We needed an explanation for why he had that idea: and since the reason was that someone was screwing with Parson, the plot becomes resolved.

[Occasional Sage]

[FONT="Trebuchet MS"][COLOR="DarkOrchid"]
For a reader who feels that any surprise rule is cheating, well, you'll probably never earn their trust. That sort of reader is looking for a surprises and plot twists, yes, but within the universe that the author has presented. In this context, Erfworld sends mixed messages. There's some attempt at it, for example, where for instance Parson's Klog notes that forest units can attack aerial units in a forest hex before it happens. For that kind of reader, any story element twist or resolution that makes use of an entirely new universe element will be read as a betrayal.

In some sense, it is a betrayal, as it betrays the expectations the reader brings to the story. Betrayal breeds bitterness. In a vocal community, some number of those who are upset will voice their displeasure.

There is a vast difference between vocalizing upset ("This is a surprising twist and I don't like that!") versus trashing the author ("What kind of cut-rate hack screws up his own story RIGHT AFTER telling us that things work another way?!"). Pclips isn't upset about the first type, but the second. Gripe all you want about the STYLE of the comic, but he's shown that he knows what he's doing. Rob is good at this. He knows what he's doing. Complain about it all you want, but acknowledge that apparent contradictions aren't mistakes.

[FONT="Trebuchet MS"][COLOR="DarkOrchid"]
This raises the question of why the reader is disturbed by this sort of storytelling-by-ambush technique, and why its use in this context chafes so.

For myself, I can say it undermines the suspension of disbelief needed to enjoy a story. Consider what's happening in the reader's mind: he has some mental construct of the world that allows him to understand the story, and give context to the actions and events of the plot. By introducing an apparently contradictory element - something the reader has been told by a credible authority - the author drops a wrecking ball on that mental construct. It's jarring, unpleasant, confusing, and makes the reader stop enjoying the story and start analyzing his mental construct.

But here, that's part of the whole POINT. When we're blindsided by a rule that screws over what Parson has planned, that's making us feel what Parson is feeling. It's not anything HE expected either, and now we're getting to empathize with him. That's good storytelling. If we were given precise text of all of the relevant rules he planned to exploit and all of the rules that would be used against him to crush his plans, and given them RIGHT BEFORE seeing the plan go into effect, why would we bother reading? There's no drama left. Do you really want a story with no surprises?

[FONT="Trebuchet MS"][COLOR="DarkOrchid"]
I realize that

If we haven't done it by now, then I just don't know what we have to do to earn the readers' trust.

is rhetorical. But it doesn't mean it can't be answered, and the answer is that, like Charlie Brown trying to kick Lucy's football - the reader can't trust you.

Try substituting "faith" for "trust" and you'll understand where Rob is going with this. I don't trust his story for a second. Not a bit. I know he's going to subvert and twist every expectation the reader has, no question.

I do, however, have faith in his storytelling, in his skill as a writer, because he has reliably shown us reason to in the past. That's what is frustrating him here: that people phrase their complaints in ways that don't draw that distinction.

[FONT="Trebuchet MS"][COLOR="DarkOrchid"]
Certainly, the decision to employ storytelling-by-ambush belongs to the author and nobody else. But the author by definition has a much stronger sense and concept of the world - it's a lot easier for your vision of Erfworld to be unshaken by a plot bomb. What to the reader is a wrecking ball is to the author merely another facet of the world, enhancing the author's vision even as it shakes the reader's.

Obviously, this is one of the things I like about Erfworld. I like the effect that this style is creating, and don't find that it detracts from the story as a whole.

It amazes me (very pleasantly) that despite *dis*liking something so central to the fundamental structure of Erfworld, you still enjoy it a lot. I really don't understand how that's possible, but I think it's great that we can come from two entirely different mindsets and still like this thing we're seeing made.

And congrats to the lucky baby who'll be getting Erf instead of Cat in the Hat read to him in his cradle.

That would be mine. If Rob is on this side of the continent, maybe he'd read it to baby Finn.... If not, I guess Dad'll have to do.

[Nekomata]

I have a silly thought but isn't Parson the exact definition of a summoned creature?

Oh, right.
So if he's killed, he'll reform back on his home plane, right?

[SteveMB]

And congrats to the lucky baby who'll be getting Erf instead of Cat in the Hat read to him in his cradle.

Explaining page 28 should be interesting.

(I mean, the whole "shoutout to the style of a different work by the same author" thing is a bit complicated. What did you think I meant? )

[Zeku]

Pclips:

I try to think in terms of percentages. Imagine all the dumb stuff on the internet. Somebody, somewhere, thinks all of that is cool. It's fine to take people seriously, but it's possible to retain a humble social identity and not take everyone seriously.

There may be a theoretical piece of work that doesn't piss anyone off, but I would probably just call that 'selling out, with high production values.'

[Kreistor]

There is a vast difference between vocalizing upset ("This is a surprising twist and I don't like that!") versus trashing the author ("What kind of cut-rate hack screws up his own story RIGHT AFTER telling us that things work another way?!"). Pclips isn't upset about the first type, but the second. Gripe all you want about the STYLE of the comic, but he's shown that he knows what he's doing. Rob is good at this. He knows what he's doing. Complain about it all you want, but acknowledge that apparent contradictions aren't mistakes.

If, and only if, there is an explanation given. Let's look at 64.3. Quite clearly, in the presence of experts in the field of magic, Parson says, "And we can't cast on the enemy's turn." And yet, that is violated. What's more it is never noted by anyone in the comic that it was violated. That's the killer. Parson says "we" can't cast on enemy turn. Not "he", and it isn't treated like one spell can't be cast, but all spells can't be cast. What may have been intended is that "And he can't cast it on the enemy's turn," but there is no way what was really said could be interpreted in such a limited fashion. By using "we" it indicates more than just Jack, and infers all spellcasting off turn is disallowed.

By never noting that something changed, that casting on enemy turn is possible with many types of spells, the reader feels left out. This may be a case where the rules were changed to prevent a Parson victory somewhere (though I think this is the first instance of off-turn casting after that statement). But where is Parson saying, "Why were you able to do that?"

Those of us that noted the deviations, the inconsistencies, were never given satisfaction that we were correctly interpreting the comic. That is never good: success goes unrewarded, even ignored. That makes the smartest readers feel stupid, and that can't be good for long term reading.

"Trust me, I know what I'm doing," doesn't work for me, not in the face of unexplained inconsistency. It is a demand for faith, a demand that the reader stop thinking, and that I refuse to do. If I correctly interpret the comic, that should be rewarded: I shouldn't feel confused about being right.

What would have been lost by noting these inconsistencies? Along with the casting out of turn, there's also:

Ansom signing the contract.. Here we see the Archons in Ansom's face, despite being in different zones. Now we know from this that the Archons cannot cross zones to assist Ansom; however, tehy have just cast a spell that Ansom could interact with. Here we have a fine detail of what can happen across a zone line that is confusing. Had the contract been physical, it was already established it could have crossed a wall barrier, so not an issue. This, howeve,r is a spell in possession of the Archon. It should not corss the zone barrier, and Ansom should not cross the zone barrier, lacking flight at that moment. A rule is broken.

So, if Parson's theory is correct, the world is cheating to ensure that Parson can't succeed. Any plan formed within the rules is doomed to fail, because the world wants the player to cheat. All of these changes that we see, all of these violations, are put in place to make Parson do the same (Ironically, he doesn't. Linking is part of the rules, and there's no written limit on what linked casters can achieve. So we don't know that Parson actually cheated. He jsut did something non-traditional.)

Would confirming the reader's discoveries that the world was not as it seemed change that? No, we don't know what Parson was planning for his players. Us knowing that the world was lying to Parson wouldn't change that: it might even raise our interest level by trying to get us to explain why Parson was being lied to. Instead, the author took the tactic of ignoring any inconsistencies. Parson was not ignoring them... he had figured it out, which wasn't hard because he already knew what his plans for his game were. The similarities to his upcoming game would put that foremost in his mind. Despite being something Parson would consider early on, he says nothing, which is atypical. Parson has no problems discussing possible tactics and analyzing the world for loopholes with others, but he doesn't speak of his suspicions that the world may be conspiring against his brilliance until the last moment?

But here, that's part of the whole POINT. When we're blindsided by a rule that screws over what Parson has planned, that's making us feel what Parson is feeling.

Not true. Parson knew his rules for his game, knew the parallel was pretty strong between hsi game and this world very early on, and would be trying to watch for other parallels trying to figure out if he was just in a hospital bed. Parson was not blindsided with the conspiracy against him: only we were. Our feelings are nothing like his.

That's good storytelling.

Any storytelling that causes readers to leave out of frustration is not good. And that haas happened with this comic. Lots of people have posted about Ansom's plot-armor and quit. Or got frustrated with trying to figure out rules and quit. Storytelling that does not get to finish the story is a failure.

If we were given precise text of all of the relevant rules he planned to exploit and all of the rules that would be used against him to crush his plans, and given them RIGHT BEFORE seeing the plan go into effect, why would we bother reading? There's no drama left. Do you really want a story with no surprises?

No drama? No, we'd be left with a question: why is Ansom being allowed to break rules? We have this rule right here. Wanda says she has no idea how Ansom was able to do something he normally could not. So why? That's drama. It's not the same drama, but it leaves the reader with an unanswered question to figure out, not one that they got the right answer to but you ignore their intelligence.

Try substituting "faith" for "trust" and you'll understand where Rob is going with this. I don't trust his story for a second. Not a bit. I know he's going to subvert and twist every expectation the reader has, no question.

Why? Have you read his work before? I haven't. I don't know Rob's style, so I don't know what to expect of him. What I know are the tropes and the style, and those set up particular expectations. As a new author, certain things have to be achieved the first time he writes a story. He needs to prove he will give evidence of what he is trying to achieve. He needs to prove that his characterization is consistent. And so on. Rob did little of that, because he maybe felt that hiding a lot of things created mystery and made the reader want more. What he hasn't learned is that too much mystery about mundane aspects of the story inspires frustration and drives readers to something more satisfying.

I do, however, have faith in his storytelling, in his skill as a writer, because he has reliably shown us reason to in the past.

When? What comic, book, etc.? I've never heard of him before. Why should I give trust to someone that has not proven anything? And even then, authors can be one hit wonders, or decide to experiment. Trust is earned, not given.

That's what is frustrating him here: that people phrase their complaints in ways that don't draw that distinction.

And an author that fails to learn from those complaints is doomed to repeat them. If readers are frustrated, there is a darned good reason for it. They are being pressed too hard, asked for too much, or incapable of understanding. Are any of those the reader's fault? No. Communication in this medium is one way, from author to reader. If the reader fails to receive the correct message, the fault is entirely with the author. The reader cannot control the words, nor indicate that something was unclear. An author that chooses to see that failure as the fault of the reader will never improve his storytelling such that the reader remains a reader: the reader has free will and can end the communication. Failure to retain the reader means ending ones career as a writer.

Stories where trust is required in order to continue the story need something to fill those gaps where the main story must pause. Often, that comes to something exciting. Part of the mistake in this story is that in broad periods where trust is required, excitement is nonexistent. There are conversations and discussions, mostly of unimportant matters, where there could be skirmishes between side characters. There's a formula used for Star Trek: the Next Generation. Each episode had, generally, two stories. There was a main story involving the ship, and a character development story involving a character. Really, it is the Scooby-doo formula. We find out about the main plot, the party splits, and while one party solves the mystery, the other distracts, provides comic relief, and engages in conflict with the antagonist. Erfworld is missing that side plot... it might be a KISS senior officer trying to track down an RCC infiltrator, or an RCC diplomat trying to convince a third party to come over to the RCC as an ally.

For instance, early on, Parson was learning a lot, but unable to participate. Rob could have presented that period where Stanley was commanding as an instructional lesson. As he sits over the map making decisions, Parson watches, asks questions why, we get rules explained, and we have the opportnity to see how battle orders turn into reality at the character level. A newly raised KISS warlord takes a platoon on a scouting mission, for example, and we see him hunting an erf unit in the woods. The same result is achieved, but with visceral combat and a side plot to retain interest. Smething as simple as following a pair of maligned KISS soldiers through the story, seeing their minor problems and attempts at surviving this ordeal could retain the interest of the reader, despite the main plot stalling as Parson learns the system.

Obviously, this is one of the things I like about Erfworld. I like the effect that this style is creating, and don't find that it detracts from the story as a whole.

There will always be someone willing to read something: people who are convinced the creator is the next sliced bread. Just because one person likes it, that doesn't mean the story actually was generally good. Some delicacies taste horrid, if you haven't grown up with them. The question an author interested in writing as a career must decide is, "How many readers do I have to retain?" Parson is a grim example. Hamstard has few readers. He's not going to make a living off the merchandise. Does one of those readers like it? Probably. But one person liking something doesn't make it good.

If an author needs the reader to trust him in order to retain the readership, then the story has not been interesting to retain the readership on its own. A story must stand on its own legs, earning trust as it is written. Demanding trust is the hallmark of someone that is incapable of earning it.

It amazes me (very pleasantly) that despite *dis*liking something so central to the fundamental structure of Erfworld, you still enjoy it a lot.

With the truth revealed, I like it less. For the same reason I am displeased with BSG, actually. We have a world where the characters had little effect on the outcome. Something was conspiring to ensure events happened in a certain way. It is a form of that tragic, overused Deus Ex Machina -- a subtle form, but nonetheless, there was an overpowering, overactive entity guiding events, in this case against the protagonist instead of resolving the problems, so it's not actually DEM. What we have is something ensuring Parson can only succeed if he does what he wanted his players to do in his game... well, not exactly. Parson doesn't break any rules, in the end.

I think the frustrating thing here is that the revelation of the plot is so simple. It comes down to a single paragraph. And it wasn't something Parson figured out: it was something he already knew, and merely hadn't told anyone about. That's not the protagonist being exceptional or smart. I, as a reader, could not have puzzled out that mystery. The speculation could not have lead me there, because the facts the resolution is based on is entirely internal to the protagonist's mind. The author creates a story where it is natural to specualte, analyze, determine... but denies the people most attracted to it any possibility of figuring out the plot. It's like an Agatha Christie story where a vital clue to resolving the plot is in Poirot's mind, and he never bothers telling it to anyone.

[BillyJimBoBob]

He act of stating definitively that he can not use it [thew portal to the Magic Kingdom], before he tried, only proves that he was convinced that it would not work by all his advisers. There is nothing related to bad writing there. It's good writing. When someone is taken out of his environment and given a good advisor and nearly everything that advisor says turns out true, then it's human nature to assume that everything that advisor said WAS true, when advisors make mistakes too. Some very good stories revolve around this very theme of trusted advisers being wrong.

You and I disagree on this point. If advisers are shown to be capable of being wrong, then you can make a great story where adviser error is a major plot hinge. But if the advisers are shown as always having been right, then you may not make a good story by suddenly revealing that their knowledge is flawed. The author has various means to convey information to the reader, but unless the story revolves around those sources being always in question they must establish some trust about at least some of those sources. So far the 'mancers have been that trusted source.

There has been only a single case of one of the 'mancers being incorrect about a point of magic (Wanda, regarding the unbreakability of the spell on Jillian), and in that sole case Parson had both a differing opinion and his own gut instinct pointing him to the correct information. So as a matter of consensus all information Parson has received from the 'mancers has been correct.

This is necessary, or we'd have to have situations where Parson gives an order only to have it questioned for reasons of accuracy.
Parson: "Wanda, reform in the portal room and set up a Safety Dance."
Wanda: "What the hell are you talking about? There is no such dance!"
-or-
Parson: "Sizemore, shock them and crap them."
Sizemore: "Lord, it just doesn't work that way."

Also, an author does not have to spell everything out piecemeal for the reader, that would be bad writing. There is nothing unprecedented for a character to try something that shouldn't work, then find out later why it does. Heck, there is nothing unprecedented for a character trying something that shouldn't work, it works, and he never figures why it worked.

Agree with your first two sentences, and strongly disagree with the third but I'll replace "unprecedented for" with "wrong with" since I don't care to discuss some specific work you may have in mind where this is the case. That would be an example of poor writing, to leave a plot important reversal unexplained or unresolved.

Here's an example from Harry Potter, which I'll spoiler.

Spoiler

Show

Harry's wand is broken. He fails to be able to fix it using another wand. The famous wand maker tells him it can not be fixed. But then he fixes it. The author doesn't go into any detail at all about how this is possible, but leaves it to the reader. Is this poor writing? Not in this case. The wand he uses to fix his broken wand is a wand out of legend, the most potent wand ever known. This kind of reversal of stated story fact is quite acceptable, since the reader has all the facts at their disposal to understand how it could come to pass that what they were told has been reversed.

This is not the case with the DDR. If archons can let Warlords lead non-dance fight capable troops in a dance fight, then Ansom shouldn't be the only one to think of this, the warlord telling Anson that he doesn't trust him should know this also. And so should the GK 'mancers, and by extension Parson. So Parson shouldn't be telling Bogroll "You know what I learned? Most of the RCC troops can't dance fight" (not an exact quote), he should know that the archons can let Ansom lead them in a DDR to get the dance fight bonus and reverse the advantage Parson worked hard to get by stacking the bonuses of his own leadership bonus with Wanda leading undead and dance fighting. And it's really irrelevant that the universe is against Parson, that plot point can be set up without resorting to such reversals.

And to all the "Do you really hate a story without surprises?" posts above, that is a question which does not apply here. It is quite possible to surprise the readers without telling them something is impossible and then showing them that it is, for reasons unexplained, possible after all.