Erfworld 77, page 71

[SteveMB]

It's just that most TBS games the actual combat is simulated with a single or multiple dice rolls and it's over.

But in Erfworld, the since the combatants are "real," there are no dice, and fights are not over until one or both sides are completely destroyed, withdraw, or surrender. So in any individual hex, the battle is RTS.

The underlying mechanics presumably correspond to dice rolls (or some other random element) tied to character stats, circumstance bonuses, etc, so that Mathamancy (such as Parson's Stupid Meal toy) can work. However, in-world it looks like a real-time battle.

[Zelig the Liar]

@ Murderous Hobo: I think crying Deus ex Machina every time something is revealed that surprises us cheapens the meaning of the phrase. Unless it's used to resolve the major puzzles or final obstacles in the story, it's just the story being told. Otherwise we'll be jumping every time a new character walks in the room, "HEY, nobody mentioned him before! What's he doing here! There's no precedent for there to be a third character in your standard Richard and Jane format story!"

@ Surfing HalfOrc: I don't think it's a matter of people "having issues", because we haven't had any confirmation on what combat really is yet. All we have are our own observations of a story, and how we interpret them using the data at our disposal. Disagreement does not mean we're blind, or in denial, or stupid, it just means we don't interpret it the same way. We may be proven wrong in the end, but that doesn't invalidate our position now when we have limited information to make our judgements.

edit: amusing, that the common male name in children's stories is censored.

[JazzManJim]

This comic explicitly makes it at least partly an RTS. If it's not, then Jillian can't have the orlies screen off the other dwagons while she soloes the blue. It's not their (or her) turn.

It's a "new" rule that got dropped on us during the very second combat we saw, and the first one with hitsies inflicted by both sides.

Fair enough, Steve. I stand corrected on that. Which comic showed us that movement between hexes, as I keep reading other folks contend, is instantaneous (or nearly so - to the point where we can't see it).

And I still have some issues with the RTS in this past strip. The counterattack that interrupted Manpower's attack is a new thing. I would think, were I a player, that it's a pretty important rule that would change how you approached a battle.

[Surfing HalfOrc]

@ Murderous Hobo: I think crying Deus ex Machina every time something is revealed that surprises us cheapens the meaning of the phrase. Unless it's used to resolve the major puzzles or final obstacles in the story, it's just the story being told. Otherwise we'll be jumping every time a new character walks in the room, "HEY, nobody mentioned him before! What's he doing here! There's no precedent for there to be a third character in your standard Richard and Jane format story!"

@ Surfing HalfOrc: I don't think it's a matter of people "having issues", because we haven't had any confirmation on what combat really is yet. All we have are our own observations of a story, and how we interpret them using the data at our disposal. Disagreement does not mean we're blind, or in denial, or stupid, it just means we don't interpret it the same way. We may be proven wrong in the end, but that doesn't invalidate our position now when we have limited information to make our judgements.

edit: amusing, that the common male name in children's stories is censored.

I'm not saying any one is blind, in denial, or stupid! But as I read the posts here, I wonder how much experience people have with TBS games, or how much they may have changed since I played in the early 1980's.

Almost every TBS game had some sort of blurb stating that combat was simulated, and that the die roll indicated all the events of a combat round... charges, retreats, couterattacks, etc... but that the game/battle be simulated was a "strategy" game, and if you wanted a more "tactical" game, see [Product # XXXX]

Erfworld is both tactical and strategy, and like Parson I'm wondering "why?" Why is everyone so polite, and "cutsie" and takes turns, etc. I spent 20 years in the military, and only while playing TBS games was combat that "I go, you go." I think that's why RTS games like Warcraft and what have you are so popular.

[JazzManJim]

Well, Rob's identified himself as a writer here. Which led to an admission that he's making his story first and foremost, and then building only what he needs of the gameworld to support the story. (Gencon 2007, Erfworld: The Seminaw; Baldur, Rob) Though he's going to make it as internally consistent as possible, obviously when he's in a situation that requires allegiance to the game or to the story, he's going to chose the story.

Cope. (GitP Forums, Erfworld: Erfworld 77, Page 71; benthehater)

I wasn't at GenCon, so I didn't get the scoop on that. Maybe we shuld get these notes in a newsletter or something.

And indeed, this is Rob's story and he can tell it however the heck he wants. I don't begrudge him that nor would I ever want to see any measure of that freedom taken away from him. I have a user account here, however, which allows me to gripe at what I perceive to be inconsistency and bad form as I please. Rob has more fans, of course.

Cope? No sweat.

Nevertheless...

An important underlying message of this story has been "There are firm rules here in Erfworld. Those rules are important to the battle which is carrying the story presently and for which this part of the strip is named". Plenty of us are going to take that message seriously and it's going to bug us when the writer appears to be capricious about how seriously he takes it. "Speed of Plot" is fine, but if you break a rule in a game where the rules really matter, you'd better explain it really quickly.

[SteveMB]

An important underlying message of this story has been "There are firm rules here in Erfworld. Those rules are important to the battle which is carrying the story presently and for which this part of the strip is named". Plenty of us are going to take that message seriously and it's going to bug us when the writer appears to be capricious about how seriously he takes it. "Speed of Plot" is fine, but if you break a rule in a game where the rules really matter, you'd better explain it really quickly.

Fair enough. I just haven't seen any game-mechanics contradictions when looking exclusively at what has been stated or unambiguously established "onscreen". Contradictions between what's onscreen and some readers' inferences, sure, but that's not a flaw in the story unless the inference in question was based on unfair misdirection. (Stipulated: the line between fair and unfair misdirection is in the eye of the beholder.)

[Zelig the Liar]

I'm not saying any one is blind, in denial, or stupid! But as I read the posts here, I wonder how much experience people have with TBS games, or how much they may have changed since I played in the early 1980's.

Almost every TBS game had some sort of blurb stating that combat was simulated, and that the die roll indicated all the events of a combat round... charges, retreats, couterattacks, etc... but that the game/battle be simulated was a "strategy" game, and if you wanted a more "tactical" game, see [Product # XXXX]

Erfworld is both tactical and strategy, and like Parson I'm wondering "why?" Why is everyone so polite, and "cutsie" and takes turns, etc. I spent 20 years in the military, and only while playing TBS games was combat that "I go, you go." I think that's why RTS games like Warcraft and what have you are so popular.

Sorry, my statement was intended to be neutral and not intended to imply that you were saying those things. I should have caught the loaded statement there before I pressed 'post'. My apology.

I'm sure most of us have a great deal of experience in a great deal of genres of games. If we're here, it's most likely that we were a reader of OotS or are a friend of a long-time OotS fan. That means we prefer that style of geeky game rules humor, where you don't really get all the jokes unless you're very familiar with the game being lampooned. Personally, I think it's best to assume we're all equals. Otherwise we'll all start dropping dates and game names and generally trying to out-geek-cred each other, and that doesn't end well.

I think Warcraft and other RTS are very popular because they appeal more to the twichy reflex crowd, which is the larger population of gamers nowdays, not because they portray combat more realistically than TBS.

[Demonix]

Let me attempt to speak for the discontented.

Erfworld is Parson's story.

Parson's story is that of the classic Last Hope for an otherwise doomed nation/side. The draw of his character to the discontented readers (And probably many of the ones that are still enjoying themselves) is the dramatic irony of GK suddenly having a hardcore gamer at the helm. Someone who can turn not only turn the entire tide of the conflict, but also radically alter the balance of power in the setting. Aha! Finally someone to help the losers kick some boop!

Presently, this is not what is occurring.

It's a little too early in the story for the protagonist to be suffering a crippling setback like this. Imagine if the first issue of Batman had gone like this. The reader wouldn't (Typically) enjoy that. Usually a narrative waits a bit before humbling the protagonist so badly. What if Luke Skywalker never made it off Tatooine alive? What if Mario had died in Stage 1-1? That's no fun.

I believe that to those who are losing interest, Erfworld appears to be ending before it ever really got started.

Just my 2¢.

This.

We came to see what happens when you put a hardcore gamer in command of actual armies, not indecisive barbarbarian princesses and stereotypical princes. We came to see the dynamic between team evil, because those characters (with the exception of wanda) are NOT stereotypes. The early comic was fun and quirky, and we wanted to see more. Bogroll and Sizemore are interesting characters, and Parson, while stereotypical, is not in a standard situation.

But mostly...just THIS

[Krellen]

We've?

Yes, we, the audience. Collective.

It has? Who said the story was about Parson?

If you don't see this, go back and reread the first 50 pages of the comic, including the Klogs, then come back and try to explain to all of us how Stanley's side is not the "main" side presented. Explain why there are Klogs if Parson isn't the narrator.

Noone could ever improve on things right?

In terms of social interaction, pretty much, no, it can't be improved on. Forms of communication might change, but the elements of communication have been pretty constant for quite some time now, because human society has not changed on a fundamental level. It didn't come into place perfectly formed, but there's been more than enough time to work out the kinks.

We've witnessed the equivalent of maybe one chapter worth of dialogue. It might be just a little bit early to talk about the full scope of character development.

If this was a novel, yes. But it's not. It's a comic book. Go to your local comic store and look at the length of the average comic book - or even the length of your average graphic novel. 50 pages is going to be the vast majority of page-count for a comic, and a significant chunk of a graphic novel. The pictures substitute for a lot of prose, and comics exist in an entirely different paradigm from novels.

If you want to have a counter-argument, go back to the comic and point out the page and panel where we are led to expect Ansom and Jillian to be the central figures of the story, rather than Parson, Stanley and Wanda. Here's a hint: if it's not before page 50, you lose.

[Halfpunch]

...<snip>... If you want to have a counter-argument, go back to the comic and point out the page and panel where we are led to expect Ansom and Jillian to be the central figures of the story, rather than Parson, Stanley and Wanda. Here's a hint: if it's not before page 50, you lose.

I fail to see where the assumption that Jillian and Ansom are now the central figures of the story comes from. The current battle/arc has alot of time dedicated to them, but that doesn't shift the focus from Parson. The interactions between Jillian and Ansom have direct impacts on Parson and Team Stanley's ability to survive/win. Parson has potentially lost a powerful warlord as a mole, potentially not. It's still caught up in the feelings and possible enchantments of our favorite barbarian.

GK may very well own the Arkenpliers at the end of this battle: Stanley's (and currently Parson's) main mission is therefore accomplished. Without Ansom riding to the rescue this wouldn't even be a possibility at this point in the story. That to me signals that the recent Jillian/Ansom interactions are very much in support of this story being about Parson Gotti. Good character development is not the sole right of protagonists.

[SteveMB]

I fail to see where the assumption that Jillian and Ansom are now the central figures of the story comes from. The current battle/arc has alot of time dedicated to them, but that doesn't shift the focus from Parson. The interactions between Jillian and Ansom have direct impacts on Parson and Team Stanley's ability to survive/win. Parson has potentially lost a powerful warlord as a mole, potentially not. It's still caught up in the feelings and possible enchantments of our favorite barbarian.

GK may very well own the Arkenpliers at the end of this battle: Stanley's (and currently Parson's) main mission is therefore accomplished. Without Ansom riding to the rescue this wouldn't even be a possibility at this point in the story. That to me signals that the recent Jillian/Ansom interactions are very much in support of this story being about Parson Gotti. Good character development is not the sole right of protagonists.

As I noted earlier, the recent focus on Ansom is the playing out of Parson's plan, and the recent focus on Jillian is the playing out of Wanda's brainwashing. We got a fair amount of new characterization for them (and Vinny), and properly so, but in plot terms the focus is still very much on Team Stanley's attempt to save their bacon.

Heck, the presentation of the latest page (showing the events around Jillian and Ansom, with dialog showing the reactions from Team Stanley in the situation room) all but telegraphs this.

[Daedalus73]

Why didn't Parson anticipate Ansom getting there?

Why hasn't Parson anticipated a lot of things? Every plan he's come up with since being summoned has gone horribly wrong - and now he's cost his side their Ace card in the war. Yes, you can argue Wanda had a hand in that too.

It's looking like Stanely might not be better off turning Parson into a combat unit after all. What was the point of the Ring Of Death of class B dwagons, if Ansom can just fly out of it at will to rescue another combat going on 3 hexes away? If he can do that now, then he was never in any real danger to begin with, and Parson completely squandered his those dwagons now spread out in the forest. Why all the moping by Vinnie and Ansom about how screwed they were, if now suddenly they can be 3 hexes away miraculously saving another fight in mid-combat? It feels very disingenuous. At this point Parson isn't even looking like a "Passably Mediocre Warlord" ... his plan relied on blind luck that his wounded dwagons wouldn't be found, and all his class B dwagons were deployed in such a way as to be entirely inconsequential, except to use up some extra move that Ansom's forest units had (at a cost of 3 healthy dwagons).

Every time this comic starts to get interesting, it loses me again. I want to like Erfworld ... really I do.

[benthehater]

An important underlying message of this story has been "There are firm rules here in Erfworld. Those rules are important to the battle which is carrying the story presently and for which this part of the strip is named". Plenty of us are going to take that message seriously and it's going to bug us when the writer appears to be capricious about how seriously he takes it. "Speed of Plot" is fine, but if you break a rule in a game where the rules really matter, you'd better explain it really quickly.

Those rules haven't been revealed in explicit terms. They arn't going to be. If what you think the rules ought-to-be appears to be broken, I think that's in your own head.

The battles as depicted in the pages of the book by the artist are what's real to me. And you're not playing a game here. You're not even reading about a game. You're reading about a battle in a world that resembles a game. If the reading experience of yours is ruined by the fact that the game you think you'd get to play with the rules of the world of this story isn't consistent .. then I don't know what to tell you, except that I'm sorry your reading experience is ruined.

I think you are very right in that the rules do matter. Like how you can't move when it's not your turn. But that one's been spelled out for us. The complicated proceedure of how a Warlord Unit can act on specific targets and direct other units in the same stack, even when it's not necessarily the warlord unit's turn, is kind of a critical story enhancing deal. It allows choices and decisions in the midst of a battle to matter, which makes for dramatic storytelling in the battle. Without that feature, you'd know the result of every battle before it began, which I suppose would be sound resemblence to TBS games, but kind of crappy story. The rules that are projected onto the world by inference or comparison to other standards of TBS games probably arn't going to stick, especially the ones that make the story more difficult/impossible to tell.

The other element is the fact that this story isn't over. And with each "turn" of the game the sequence of events changes what the outcome appears to be very dramatically, and I don't see why that would stop. In discussion, on both turns, people were able to provide very logical reasons why the apparant outcome was going to stick and couldn't be prevented, and people were wrong both times. The rules, the complete rules for Erfworld from top to bottom which absolutely do not exist, could allow the reader the tools to quickly narrow down every possible course of action for any plot driven situation, making a very boring and predictable story. By withholding those tools from the reader, we can be successfully entertained by a good story that still bears enough eternal consistency to resemble the games.

Sorry you missed Gencon, it was a good time. Here's another gem Rob dropped (not the Minty Mountains, but at Indianapolis). He said that if you liked Erfworld, that's cool and all, but you ain't seen anything yet. The story was written originally to be delivered all at once, the entire Battle for Gobwin Knob, published page 1 to ending. He said until we have the ending, we don't really even have the story. Those plans changed dramatically when Erfworld was going to be featured here with OotS, leaving us with a serialized comic that's design was intended as an online graphic novel experience.

And that if you hate it, see if you still hate it from beginning to end.

[Krellen]

GK may very well own the Arkenpliers at the end of this battle: Stanley's (and currently Parson's) main mission is therefore accomplished. Without Ansom riding to the rescue this wouldn't even be a possibility at this point in the story.

If Ansom ends up captured/attacked and the Arkenpliers fall into Stanley's hands, the past ten pages have been completely pointless. We had no reason to believe that 43 dwagons could not take Ansom's task force - even with Jillian and the Archons included - until Vinny said otherwise (Vinny's statement of the Stand, in fact, drastically downgraded the assumed power of the dwagons - in every strategy game I've ever played, 43 dragons would crush just about anything short of a full-fledged army.) From a story perspective, Ansom in the forest and Ansom over the lake are identical, and the pages wasted getting him moved serve no purpose but as filler.

The reason I see Ansom and Jillian as the main focus in these last twenty pages is not because they've had character development (which, frankly, Ansom hasn't), but because the flow of the story - the balance of power, as it were - has centred on them since page 50. Read cold, this bit may seem like a beat-down to set up Stanley as an underdog ready for a comeback, but Stanley has already been set up as an underdog ready for a comeback since the second page of the comic. Thus, the only reason for Stanley to have this current set-back is if he is, instead, a punching bag destined for an inevitable fall, or because the author thinks the readers missed the existing set up of Stanley as an underdog. Either way, I think it makes for a poorer story.

[Bongos]

Of course it's Parson's story thats why

Parson Gotti = Protagonist

it's an anagram.

What you though Parson was part of the Mafia family?

[ag30476]

Sorry you missed Gencon, it was a good time. Here's another gem Rob dropped (not the Minty Mountains, but at Indianapolis). He said that if you liked Erfworld, that's cool and all, but you ain't seen anything yet. The story was written originally to be delivered all at once, the entire Battle for Gobwin Knob, published page 1 to ending. He said until we have the ending, we don't really even have the story. Those plans changed dramatically when Erfworld was going to be featured here with OotS, leaving us with a serialized comic that's design was intended as an online graphic novel experience.

Thanks for the report.

So Rob's implying that they did have to make changes for serialized form which only makes sense. You want a teaser, cliffhanger or punchline every week but not necessarily at the end of every page in a book.

All the grumbling...it's by design!

[ag30476]

The reason I see Ansom and Jillian as the main focus in these last twenty pages is not because they've had character development (which, frankly, Ansom hasn't), but because the flow of the story - the balance of power, as it were - has centred on them since page 50

Exactly though I wouldn't use the term balance of power.

Parson is the main character. 20 pages in a serialized comic that may run hundreds is not a huge change in focus though it may seem so in our fast paced world...why back in my day if you read one cave wall painted with mastodon every winter you were happy...

More to the point, our protagonist finds himself in a conflict. He, and the readers, must discover the source and nature of this conflict. It has to be somethig real, something outside of Parson.

And that something happens to be Jillian. OK Stanley started war. And Jetstone opposed him. But Jillian is the key that ties it all together. Could she have stopped Stanley by taking responsibility? Did Jillian join the war because Ansom joined the war or the other way around? Is she a loyal warlord of Ansom or a betrayer? Can she croak a small army of wounded dwagons and save the day or not?

So, yes, the focus shifts to this story/character outside of Parson but it is only to set up the Erf as something "real" outside of Parson. Now when we shift back to Parson, we'll understand the context he is in better.

[SteveMB]

It's looking like Stanely might not be better off turning Parson into a combat unit after all. What was the point of the Ring Of Death of class B dwagons, if Ansom can just fly out of it at will to rescue another combat going on 3 hexes away? If he can do that now, then he was never in any real danger to begin with, and Parson completely squandered his those dwagons now spread out in the forest.

Obviously, he could always leave the way he came, unless he was totally out of move. However, it wouldn't have done him any good -- and indeed would make him worse off by cutting himself off from the rest of his force -- if he didn't have enough move to return to the column (which he clearly didn't).

Now, he apparently is totally out of move. We'll see if Parson figures out that he ought to focus on the gwiffons and Archons to cut off his escape. If not, I'll have to agree that he is something of a boop-up.

We had no reason to believe that 43 dwagons could not take Ansom's task force - even with Jillian and the Archons included - until Vinny said otherwise (Vinny's statement of the Stand, in fact, drastically downgraded the assumed power of the dwagons - in every strategy game I've ever played, 43 dragons would crush just about anything short of a full-fledged army.)

(emphasis added)

If dwagons were that powerful, Team Stanley wouldn't have been in any real danger to begin with. Obviously, they aren't -- they can do a lot of damage if employed well (as in the raids on the siege), but they can be defeated with a reasonably strong force (as in the punch-through of the ring).

The reason I see Ansom and Jillian as the main focus in these last twenty pages is not because they've had character development (which, frankly, Ansom hasn't)

Fair enough. Being confronted with the fact that, yes, he got outsmarted doesn't seem to have sunk in yet (and if Jillian informs him about the "perfect warlord" business, he'll have an easy way to adapt to the new circumstance without really reexamining his basic outlook). His reaction to Jillian's message is yet to be seen.

but because the flow of the story - the balance of power, as it were - has centred on them since page 50.

I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree on that one. I've set forth my reasons why IMO these threads are, in plot terms, about Parson and Wanda as much as they are about Ansom and Jillian; you obviously don't buy it.

[Krellen]

If dwagons were that powerful, Team Stanley wouldn't have been in any real danger to begin with.

Except for the fact that Ansom doesn't only have a full fledged army - he has several full fledged armies (at least 4, in fact, and likely more, because it probably takes more than a single "full fledged army" (whatever you want to think one consists of) to successfully besiege and storm the best defended city in the world). Thus, even 43 dragons (not dwagons, which we now know are significantly weaker) wouldn't be able to stop Ansom.

[ag30476]

Why hasn't Parson anticipated a lot of things? Every plan he's come up with since being summoned has gone horribly wrong - and now he's cost his side their Ace card in the war. Yes, you can argue Wanda had a hand in that too.

Actually he only had 2 plans. The first trap on which no one bit and the empty platter trap. The empty platter went exactly as planned. The plan relied on Wanda too much. Jillian could reach. Wanda said she wouldn't. Wanda said that was Ansom weakness way back in page43. It's only that the dependence was revealed instead of being spelled out from the beginning.

It's looking like Stanely might not be better off turning Parson into a combat unit after all. What was the point of the Ring Of Death of class B dwagons, if Ansom can just fly out of it at will to rescue another combat going on 3 hexes away?

Parson was about to explain the value of the trap in page 67 before he got interruped mid-thought in panel 10, "Or we could capture-". But it is clear from that page context and the ones that follow that Parson counted on Jillian not attacking the dwagons.

If he can do that now, then he was never in any real danger to begin with, and Parson completely squandered his those dwagons now spread out in the forest. Why all the moping by Vinnie and Ansom about how screwed they were, if now suddenly they can be 3 hexes away miraculously saving another fight in mid-combat?

No, Parson's plan depended on Jillian not attacking the dwagons. That was the flaw. Vinnie and Ansom were not moping about being screwed but about not catching the dwagons they thought were there. Vinnie presented Ansom with the stand choice. Bring Jillian and face off the dwagons. It would be an even fight. Ansom says he does not think Stanley (meaning Parson) would take those odds. We can assume then that Parson half expected Ansom to do that, the stand. Then he, Parosn, would hit elsewhere. We can assume that would be the rest of the siege.

Ansom, did not want the stand whether it was because it would cost him the siege units or lost opportunity or something esle we don't know. But he preffered the 3rd option that Vinnie did not present, the counterstrike. A plan with risk. Ansom himself did not know how much risk it entailed because Jillian was comprimised. But Parson half expected this and was prepared to counter-counter Ansom in another way IF Jillian did not attack.

It feels very disingenuous.

All story telling is disingenuous to some extent. "Luke I am your father!"

At this point Parson isn't even looking like a "Passably Mediocre Warlord" ... his plan relied on blind luck that his wounded dwagons wouldn't be found, and all his class B dwagons were deployed in such a way as to be entirely inconsequential, except to use up some extra move that Ansom's forest units had (at a cost of 3 healthy dwagons).

No his plan relied on bad information which is ironic because we all thought he had perfect information.

Every time this comic starts to get interesting, it loses me again. I want to like Erfworld ... really I do.

Well it's really an emotional reaction. It's no use fighting it. You either...like it or you don't.

[SteveMB]

No his plan relied on bad information which is ironic because we all thought he had perfect information.

A few pages back, somebody (I forget who) made the observation that Gobwin Knob's high command has an internal-communication fog of war that has proven every bit as limiting to them as the ordinary fog of war is to Ansom. "Dysfunctional group dynamic," indeed.

[ag30476]

A few pages back, somebody (I forget who) made the observation that Gobwin Knob's high command has an internal-communication fog of war that has proven every bit as limiting to them as the ordinary fog of war is to Ansom. "Dysfunctional group dynamic," indeed.

Sounds like a lolerf...if only I had the talent...

[FoolishOwl]

As Bongos pointed out, Erfworld is *not* a game. It is a world that happens to look just like a game. This is a critical distinction to make.

On storytelling conventions: years ago, I read a book, An Aesthetics of Junk Fiction. (Nota bene, college students: if you really like a book, do not sell it!) It discussed what the author called "genre fiction," particularly genres with heavy-handed conventions, such as romance novels or detective stories. The author argued that people who enjoy reading such genres read "thickly," that is, read lots and lots of such novels, and were thus thoroughly familiar with the conventions. What readers are looking for is how this particular novel varies from the conventions.

I think that's a truth about fiction in general, and also in other art forms. In formal poetry, for instance, poems establish a meter and a verse form -- then vary from that meter or verse form, to draw attention to the point where the meter is varied. Similar things happen in music.

Not to put too fine a point on it, us folks reading this comic are mostly gaming nerds, who are familiar with both games and with storytelling conventions. There's an enormous amount of play with those conventions going on, and it's part of what we enjoy about it.

Where this gets important for the plot of this comic, I think, is that we're nearing the end of Part One. I think we've been set up, to continue thinking of this setting as simply some sort of game -- as Parson has been thinking, and for that matter as most of the other characters have been thinking. I think that assumption is about to be shaken.

That is, for instance, why I don't think that there was ever any "spell" placed on Jillian. Lots of readers, and most of the characters, seem to believe that there was a spell that may, or may not, have been broken. I can see, from SteveMB's argument in an earlier thread, that the idea was deliberately planted -- but I think that it will prove that Jillian has actually been under the conflicting demands of desire and love, and the conflict between the desire to be free and the desire to be subordinate. I think that it will prove significant that the characters will have failed to perceive what was really going on, and especially significant that Parson, who came from our world and thus shouldn't be limited to thinking that everything is a just a game mechanic.

Lastly, I think it's worth mentioning that what reveals Parson as *not* a perfect warlord, is the nature of the strategem he invented. It was *very* clever -- the sort of thing invented by someone who's smart, and enjoys winning through cleverness, but who's more invested in looking smart and clever than in actually winning. A group of gamers talking over a game after it's been finished will comment that a plan was very clever, and it's a shame it didn't work. That's what some people in this thread have said, after all. But if you're fighting for real, than you don't get credit for a clever idea that's too clever to actually work. Parson is used to planning battles for fun, not for keeps.

[sihnfahl]

Lastly, I think it's worth mentioning that what reveals Parson as *not* a perfect warlord, is the nature of the strategem he invented. It was *very* clever -- the sort of thing invented by someone who's smart, and enjoys winning through cleverness, but who's more invested in looking smart and clever than in actually winning.<snip>

No, we KNEW Parson wasn't the perfect warlord. Heck, he even admits it.

The nature of the stratagem he used was that of a last-ditch effort. Stanley was going to lose if he did nothing (heck, Stanley had been making plans to scamper off, taking what he could).

Parson saw the only opening that he could take advantage of - the Alliance Air Force was out of position for a turn. He was not using a 'clever' stratagem - he was using the only one available to him.

In the next turn, the Alliance Air Force would have been back over the siege, which would have made it unassailable, even by hit and run. In another turn, the Alliance would be at the base of GK. In the turn after that, they'd surround GK. Full air support, full archery support - not even the dwagons would be able to crack the defenses enough to make a significant difference (outnumbered 25 to 1, with 4 times the necessary forces for victory?)

So, no, Parson wasn't being 'clever'.

[Jasdoif]

What was the point of the Ring Of Death of class B dwagons, if Ansom can just fly out of it at will to rescue another combat going on 3 hexes away? If he can do that now, then he was never in any real danger to begin with, and Parson completely squandered his those dwagons now spread out in the forest. Why all the moping by Vinnie and Ansom about how screwed they were, if now suddenly they can be 3 hexes away miraculously saving another fight in mid-combat? It feels very disingenuous.

The primary purpose of the ring was to keep Ansom's vast army of regular units from marching in and overwhelming destroying the dwagons. Being flying units in a forest, only other fliers or forest-capable units can attack them. And those dwagons were tough enough to survive leaderless stacks of those forest units, Ansom had to send a warlord to get past.

The moping was because Ansom was unwilling to abandon the forest elves to save himself. Abandoning them to save Jillian is another matter, as recent events show.

[Krellen]

I've set forth my reasons why IMO these threads are, in plot terms, about Parson and Wanda as much as they are about Ansom and Jillian; you obviously don't buy it.

I don't buy it, and I think I've finally thought it through enough to articulate why:
When a story is, in plot terms, about someone, the plot tends to go their way, and intervene on their behalf. Stanley has just enough schmuckers for the Perfect Warlord spell; the plot works on his behalf. Wanda's parameters just so happen to match Parson perfectly; the plot works on his behalf. Jillian ends turn in a place easy for Stanley to swoop her up from; the plot works on his behalf. Parson finds an ally with an atypical knowledge of the world (Sizemore); the plot works on his behalf. Parson discovers that he has a degree of information far beyond anything Ansom has available - the plot intercedes on his behalf to make a plan workable. Up to this point, the plot has firmly been on Stanley's side, so we expect his side to be the focus.

But since Jillian was released, plot has been on her (and Ansom's) side - having her discover the dwagons, having a situation to break Wanda's spell (whether it's an actual spell or not), Ansom arriving just in time to save her from Manpower - which indicates that she, rather than Parson, is the central character. Plot has abandoned Stanley's team altogether, and no matter what comments they make, nothing is going to make them the central focus until and unless plot again is on their side - and frankly, plot switching sides so completely like that just doesn't sit well with me, even if it eventually goes back to Stanley's side.

[ag30476]

The primary purpose of the ring was to keep Ansom's vast army of regular units from marching in and overwhelming destroying the dwagons. Being flying units in a forest, only other fliers or forest-capable units can attack them.

Um...you realize you just contradicted yourself there?

Because only other fliers or forest-capable units can attack them, Ansom's vast army of regular units cannot march in and overwhelming destroy the dwagons.

Anyway, Parson spelled it out in Klog 4 or 6. The fort was originally intended to keep the wounded dwagons safe from the few forces that could reach and the whole platter would have been farther away fromt the column, perhaps over the lake. So what could reach them in such a circumstance? Regular units? No. Forest units? No, not over water. The large number of slow flyers? No. Jillian and her fast flying gwiffons? No, Wanda says she won't attack. Then who? Answer: Ansom, Vinnie and the Archons.

And those dwagons were tough enough to survive leaderless stacks of those forest units, Ansom had to send a warlord to get past.

No. Ansom only wanted to limit his losses. We don't know that leaderless stacks cannot injure dwagons. We do know that the "archers get theit hitsies" left the wounded dwagons with some serious wounds. But we don't know that each of those wounds was made by a stack with a warlord bonus.

The moping was because Ansom was unwilling to abandon the forest elves to save himself.

No. That was only one of his minor frustration. I'm not saying that Ansom did not care about the fate of the elves, it seems he did. But as the Chief Warlord he has the entire coalition army to think about. Vinnie proposed the stand which would in all likelihood prevent every single woodsy elf from croaking because Stanley "would not take those odds."Ansom rejects it because the other, more strategically valuable, units would be lost.

Abandoning them to save Jillian is another matter, as recent events show.

No. Again no. Jillian found the wounded dwagons. The object of Ansom's hunt. It would make sense to Ansom to help out even if Jillian does not need to be saved from Manpower. By destroying the uncroaked warlords, the threat to the siege units, column and forest units is over. 43 dwagons + 3 uncroaked warlords was even to 3 archons, 5 coalition warlords and the forest units. Remove the uncroaked warlord and about 1/2 the dwagons and the remaining dwagons in the plare are about even with the forest units.

The only obvious counter that Stanley has next turn is to attack the isolated coalition warlords with the fresh dwagons but the viability of this is unknown.

[Halfpunch]

If Ansom ends up captured/attacked and the Arkenpliers fall into Stanley's hands, the past ten pages have been completely pointless. We had no reason to believe that 43 dwagons could not take Ansom's task force - even with Jillian and the Archons included - until Vinny said otherwise (Vinny's statement of the Stand, in fact, drastically downgraded the assumed power of the dwagons - in every strategy game I've ever played, 43 dragons would crush just about anything short of a full-fledged army.) From a story perspective, Ansom in the forest and Ansom over the lake are identical, and the pages wasted getting him moved serve no purpose but as filler.

From a story perspective it's impossible to tell what affect Ansom moving to the lake will have, even if the end state ownership of the Arkenpliers is the same. There is still the life/death of Vinny, Jillian, the Archons, and the siege units to consider for immediate implications. All of these are plot centric, and all could be affected by Ansom's move to the lake. Beyond that the build of dramatic tension, sense of battle progress, and unit losses can all factor into the long range story. The authors have been very up front in telling us "It's the little things which make a difference sometimes". To dismiss anything as inconsequential is intentionally forming an expectation which has already been stated as baseless.

The reason I see Ansom and Jillian as the main focus in these last twenty pages is not because they've had character development (which, frankly, Ansom hasn't), but because the flow of the story - the balance of power, as it were - has centred on them since page 50. Read cold, this bit may seem like a beat-down to set up Stanley as an underdog ready for a comeback, but Stanley has already been set up as an underdog ready for a comeback since the second page of the comic. Thus, the only reason for Stanley to have this current set-back is if he is, instead, a punching bag destined for an inevitable fall, or because the author thinks the readers missed the existing set up of Stanley as an underdog. Either way, I think it makes for a poorer story.

Agreed that as a cold read this segment of the story would seem to revolve around Ansom and Jillian. As a part of the larger story though, it still has everything to do with Parson and his conflicts. Without the ability to predict the next 20 pages there isn't a way to conclusively say that Ansom's move tot he lake is unnecessary. Again, if you put up personal expectations of where a story should go, or how it ought to be executed, then you are putting yourself up for disappointment. In your opinion the story is poor, rather than it simply failing to live up to your prewritten version.

[sihnfahl]

The only obvious counter that Stanley has next turn is to attack the isolated coalition warlords with the fresh dwagons but the viability of this is unknown.

Who cares about viability at this point?

Parson can't take out the rest of the siege - some, yes, but not enough to make a significant difference. It'd just be delaying the outcome - GK falling. Whether Parson loses 22 dwagons or all 47, in the end, the outcome is the same.

Parson has one turn to move before the Alliance Air Force is back into place over the column. He has to make the final move a good one to force a draw. He's not going to win this - actually, he never had a chance of winning. He only had a chance of a draw.

[Bad Luck]

I would think it's a given, but I'll call it now.

The loss of two warlords will force Parson to enter the battlefield himself to provide the the leadership bonus needed to finish off the siege.