OOTS #327 - The Discussion Thread

[eof]

He doesn't twist the interpretation of the question he just plain and simple lies through his teeth. At least that's how I see it.

I understood not twisting the question simply to mean that he wouldn't answer a different question than the one you plainly intended to ask because your question was slightly ambiguous. For example on Wikkin's question “If I asked you yesterday if this (point to one direction) was the path that leads to our goal, would you have responded Yes or No?" he would not like Elcaz sugested have pretended that the question was whether he'd have answered either yes or no if he had been asked yesterday. I did not understand ths to mean that you could set up conditions that his answer must fulfill (with the exception of an explicit condition of truthfullness).

Your puzzle relies on a very peculiar interpretation of what it means to twist the questions, and logic puzzles are not supposed to be based on how you interpret the question, but on how to figure out the answer.

Or something like that. The trick seems to involve "everything that is not strictly forbidden, is permitted" in that you may put up additional conditions, something that was not directly mentioned. But then again, the question was later extended to "no attacks will connect" and so on, so obviously this is not completely true, either.

What seems particularly odd is that while "there is a chance (completely random) that the answer will be the exact opposite of the truth" you supposedly can set up arbitary conditions so you always get the correct answer... not much randomness there. So by imposing additional conditions, we can ensure that the complete answer is always truthful. I find it difficult to see how this logically differs from "the answer is always true," apart from the semantics involved.

If you can add conditions to the answer, you might as well ask "tell me if this is the right way, but if you are lying I want you to invert your answer" (invert = say yes if you meant to say no, and vice versa). It also always produced the correct answer, and the same opportunity for the answerer to "lie" still exists.

Here's what I'd do: put the answerer under compulsion to always LIE (against which there was no restriction; you could not make the answerer tell the TRUTH, but that is a different thing) and then simply ask him which way leads to my goal, and then take the other one. ;D

[CelestialStick]

Actually there's no contradiction in that sentence. He lies about always lying. a contradiction/paradox would be "this sentence is a lie".
Actually as I recall it's Kirk who says, "Harry Mudd is a liar. Everything he says is a lie," and Mudd who says, "yes, I am a liar." Feel better now? :D

[Felinoid]

Amateurs. ::)

Kirk: Harry Mudd is a liar. Do you hear me? Everything he says is a lie.
Mudd: Now listen closely, Norman old boy. I am lying.

[UtherSRG]

(Hey guys, woot first post ;D)

Haley is not cured of speaking in cryptograms -- she says "Yes" in cryptogram-speech in comic #320. Reread it, it's a bit small.
I know I'll pretty much say this every comic because OOTS = best ever, but: GREAT COMIC RICH!! :)

(I can't seem to figure out how to quote someone, could someone PM me and tell me or something? Much appreciated!)
Welcome!

No, Haley is not cured. Her speech bubbles in #320 were the ones that said "Xqp." instead of "Yes.". Sorry.

To quote, click on "Quote" instead of "Reply".

[kabbes]

He can't lie about that without twisting the interpretation of the question.
Exactly.

One of the constraints of the puzzle is that you cannot coerce him to tell the truth.

But nowhere in the constraints did it forbid you from wording the question so that he would have to be consistent.

And so on...

No. Your question is insoluble, under the rules of formal predicate logic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predicate_logic). It has the same problem as Russell's Paradox. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_Paradox), namely that you are attempting to extract a truth-value about an entire system from within that system -- the order of your metalanguage (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metalanguage) is no higher than the order of the system.

In short, there is no way to ascertain that any statement made by the person that could be lying is true. You can appear to defeat the paradox with a cleverly constructed linguistic trick, but the underlying inability to break out of the logical system you are within means that you're fooling yourself.

You specifically said:


One way to accomplish this is to ask the following, while pointing in one of the two directions: "If I were to ask you if this way is the correct way to go, and you answered as truthfully as you answer this question, would you then answer 'yes'?".

This doesn't work because if he is lying, then he could also be lying about lying. But then he would be lying about lying about lying.

This apparent paradox was essentially "solved" in mathematics by rewriting the rules to say that you can't make a set include itself, in the same way that you can't divide by zero. Breaking the rule leads to paradoxical artefacts in the same way that cleverly breaking the "divide by zero" rule leads to apparent paradox.

Interestingly, the fact that it is impossible for some statements to be shown to be true or false has led to the rejection of one of our common beliefs about truth and falsity: the claim that every statement has to be one or the other. Statements can, in fact, be both true and false, something that is known as paraconsistent logic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paraconsistent_logic)

[zapperchamp]

???Ouch, that explanation hurts my head. Which question to ask has probably been answered, I just don't want to go through 17 pages of posts with a slow computer. I'll just go with a simple question that is asked to one of the guards:

If you were the [other color] guard, which way would you say is the right way?

Either one would tell you the wrong way, so you just go the other way.

[tis_tom]

well seeing as people are discussing this puzzle, this is probably the best place to find my answer!

We once had a game where there were two paths, but three people. One would tell the truth, the other would lie, and the other would alternate between the truth and lying randomly. Then we were given the chance to ask two questions to figure out where the right direction was.

Our DM assured us there was an answer, but none of us could figure it out! So we just charged down the left pathway...

How wrong we were..

But yeah- does anyone know of this particular puzzle? and how on earth do you answer it?!

[Itdano]

Yes. You shoot all three of them in the foot.

[Messy]

Yes. You shoot all three of them in the foot.

Again, GO ITDANO! And, GO HALEY! Next time my DM does this puzzle, unless I'm playing my sorcerer (aww man!), I'm just gonna shoot one in the foot.

[kerberos]

well seeing as people are discussing this puzzle, this is probably the best place to find my answer!

We once had a game where there were two paths, but three people. One would tell the truth, the other would lie, and the other would alternate between the truth and lying randomly. Then we were given the chance to ask two questions to figure out where the right direction was.

Our DM assured us there was an answer, but none of us could figure it out! So we just charged down the left pathway...

How wrong we were..

But yeah- does anyone know of this particular puzzle? and how on earth do you answer it?!

I'm assuming that you can ask the question to all of them, and it still counts as one question. Iif you can it's simple. First you ask what is 2+2 (or another question of that type). Then one of two things happen; either two people lie and one tell the truth or two people tell the truth and one lie.

In the first case the one who tells the truth is the truth sayed, and in the second case the one who lies is the lier.

In either case you now ask which way to go knowing who tells the truth/lies. Actually if you're allowed to ask all of them at once you can solve it with one question. If you're not allowed to do that, I'll have think about it some more.

[kerberos]

Again, GO ITDANO! And, GO HALEY! Next time my DM does this puzzle, unless I'm playing my sorcerer (aww man!), I'm just gonna shoot one in the foot.

That's what magic missile is for.

[Messy]

That's what magic missile is for.

Oh, I think I made that sound different than I had intended -- I'm sure my sorcerer COULD do just that, but let me clarify: the problem is he has high CHA, WIS, and INT, and is an elf (and is NG). Kind of makes me think his approach would be a lot like Vaarsuvius's, if not as long.

[Sir_Norbert]

well seeing as people are discussing this puzzle, this is probably the best place to find my answer!

We once had a game where there were two paths, but three people. One would tell the truth, the other would lie, and the other would alternate between the truth and lying randomly. Then we were given the chance to ask two questions to figure out where the right direction was.

Our DM assured us there was an answer, but none of us could figure it out! So we just charged down the left pathway...

How wrong we were..

But yeah- does anyone know of this particular puzzle? and how on earth do you answer it?!

EDIT: ok, I didn't read the problem carefully enough. Let me think a bit more........

[yuccadude]

Did anyone else notice that the sign isn't there in the first panel?...or did you all fail your spot checks? :P

[Sir_Norbert]

No. Your question is insoluble, under the rules of formal predicate logic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predicate_logic). It has the same problem as Russell's Paradox. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_Paradox), namely that you are attempting to extract a truth-value about an entire system from within that system -- the order of your metalanguage (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metalanguage) is no higher than the order of the system.
True. But the question wasn't posed as a problem of formal predicate logic, but as a question of the logic of natural language. And natural language has resources that predicate language lacks; in particular, indexical pronouns that allow a sentence to refer to itself. Of course, this generates paradoxes in certain cases, such as the sentence "This sentence is false". But I see no reason to completely reject the notions of "true" and "false" in natural language just because they cannot be formalised consistently. Paraconsistent logic is interesting, but it's certainly not accepted by all philosophers.


This doesn't work because if he is lying, then he could also be lying about lying. But then he would be lying about lying about lying.
No. Remember the statement of the problem: we are dealing with someone who either tells the truth or the logical opposite of the truth. He can't just reverse the truth-values of parts of his answer willy-nilly; if he could, the problem would indeed be insoluble.

[Dario]

Great comic, Rich.

I like the "classic" OotS vibe I've been getting from these latest entries: a solid hybrid of dark real world humor and quirky RP humor. Plus, it's fun to see the characters' refreshed energy from their newest adventuring spurt.

Keep up the good work.

[Messy]

Great comic, Rich.

I like the "classic" OotS vibe I've been getting from these latest entries: a solid hybrid of dark real world humor and quirky RP humor. Plus, it's fun to see the characters' refreshed energy from their newest adventuring spurt.

Keep up the good work.

Meh. I don't care where Rich goes with OOTS -- it'll always be awesome. He could make it like it has been lately, which is perfectly fine (back to metagaming in adventuring ;) ), or he could go back to the Azure City character development and work on Celia-Roy / Elan-Haley.

[Schattendrache]

That's what magic missile is for.

Ahh, but you can't target a specific area with Magic Missle.

Ergo, that's what Lesser Acid Orb is for....

[Greebo]

First, ask one of them: "Was the last statement you made a lie?" Both the truth-teller and the liar will say no; the alternater will say yes. Either way, you can now ask your next question to one of the three who is definitely not the alternater.
Won't work - the alternation is random. You can't predict whether the alternator will lie or not.

[Kanashimi]

Setting it up a little: Let's just say that left is correct and we have the three guy situation. If you ask the question "which way to get to my goal?" one will say right (a lie) one will say left (the truth) and one will say either.

The random guy really doesn't matter. Simply ask any one of them which way they would say to go to get to the goal.

If you get a truth-teller (whether constant or sporadic), he will tell you truthfully, "I would say go to the left."

If you get a liar, since he would ordinarily say to go to the right, he lies and says "i would say go to the left"

Either way, and no matter which guy you ask you get the correct answer.

[kerberos]

No. Remember the statement of the problem: we are dealing with someone who either tells the truth or the logical opposite of the truth. He can't just reverse the truth-values of parts of his answer willy-nilly; if he could, the problem would indeed be insoluble.
Yes, but the thing is that the truth is that if he answeres with the same degree of truthfullnes, he should say yes if you pointed the right way and no if you pointed the wrong way. The logical oposite of that is to say no if you pointed the right way, and yes if you pointed the wrong way. Therefore he isn't reversing his truthvalues willy-nilly as you put it, he's sayin the logical oposite of the truth (or the truth) and you have no way of telling which.

[kerberos]

Setting it up a little: Let's just say that left is correct and we have the three guy situation. If you ask the question "which way to get to my goal?" one will say right (a lie) one will say left (the truth) and one will say either.

The random guy really doesn't matter. Simply ask any one of them which way they would say to go to get to the goal.

If you get a truth-teller (whether constant or sporadic), he will tell you truthfully, "I would say go to the left."

If you get a liar, since he would ordinarily say to go to the right, he lies and says "i would say go to the left"

Either way, and no matter which guy you ask you get the correct answer.

As I understand you answer it won't work. If you get the truth teller or the lier yes, but if you get the random guy then he won't automatically tell you the right path, since he can and does swith from truth to lies at random.

Besides as I said there is a single question solution to the problem, can anyone see it?

[CelestialStick]

Amateurs. ::)

Kirk: Harry Mudd is a liar. Do you hear me? Everything he says is a lie.
Mudd: Now listen closely, Norman old boy. I am lying.

Thanks. Did you go that from memory or did you look it up somewhere (or watch the episode)?

[tis_tom]

Besides as I said there is a single question solution to the problem, can anyone see it?

Is it "Will you tell me if I hold this knife to your throat?"

That'd work for a lot of people!

I'd really like to know though because my friend was driving me nerts with that one!

Though I liked the "What's 2+2 idea..." or the cast disintergrate on the doors idea...

[kerberos]

Is it "Will you tell me if I hold this knife to your throat?"

That'd work for a lot of people!

I'd really like to know though because my friend was driving me nerts with that one!

Though I liked the "What's 2+2 idea..." or the cast disintergrate on the doors idea...
OK the single question solution is as follows, with spoiler tags in case anybody would like try to figure it out themselves:
"what would you say if I asked you which way is safe", just like with the standard puzzle. Both the truthsayer and the lier will tell the correct path, The random guy may or may not, but regardless you simply take the path that two or all three people advise you to. Your second question can then concern the meaning of life or whether the guards like hamburgers.

[Dario]

Meh. I don't care where Rich goes with OOTS -- it'll always be awesome. He could make it like it has been lately, which is perfectly fine (back to metagaming in adventuring ;) ), or he could go back to the Azure City character development and work on Celia-Roy / Elan-Haley.
Everything in moderation. I for one wasn't thrilled with the amount of romantic development and whatnot in Azure City, but it was mostly handled well.

Then again, I'm more into action, humor, and political intrigue in just about any story, so it's to be expected (can't please all the people always). I just hope Rich and those who dig the more dramatic stuff have gotten their fill for the time being. ;D

[Sir_Norbert]

Yes, but the thing is that the truth is that if he answeres with the same degree of truthfullnes, he should say yes if you pointed the right way and no if you pointed the wrong way. The logical oposite of that is to say no if you pointed the right way, and yes if you pointed the wrong way. Therefore he isn't reversing his truthvalues willy-nilly as you put it, he's sayin the logical oposite of the truth (or the truth) and you have no way of telling which.

No, because there are four possible cases:

(1) I point the right way and he answers truthfully
(2) I point the right way and he lies
(3) I point the wrong way and he answers truthfully
(4) I point the wrong way and he lies

In cases (1) and (4), if I simply asked him if I'm pointing the right way and he answered with the same degree of truthfulness, he would tell me that I'm pointing the right way. But in case (1) he would be truthful about what he would say; whereas in case (4) he would lie about what he would say. So in both cases his answer to the question I actually asked must indicate the correct path. And the converse holds for cases (2) and (3).

Yes, I didn't read the three-person problem carefully enough. I'll edit my post as soon as I've thought up the right solution :P

[eof]

As I understand you answer it won't work. If you get the truth teller or the lier yes, but if you get the random guy then he won't automatically tell you the right path, since he can and does swith from truth to lies at random.

Besides as I said there is a single question solution to the problem, can anyone see it?
(This answer is based upon how I remember the problem being presented to me long ago---the alternator both lies and tells the truth, but not randomly, but rather never two truths nor two lies sequentially. The randomness lies in that you don't know if his first answer will be true or a lie.)

With two questions: First ask something to which the answer is obvious, like what is 2+2. The liar will lie, the truthsayer will say the correct answer and the alternator will either lie or tell the truth.

IF you get two WRONG answers, the alternator just lied. This means that the next time he will tell the truth. You now ask your real question, and will get TWO CORRECT answers (from the truthteller and the alternator) and one lie (from the liar). Follow the DOUBLE true answer.

IF you get two RIGHT answers, the alternator just told the truth. This means that the next time he will lie. You now ask your real question, and will get two lies (from the liar and the alternator) and ONE CORRECT answer. Follow the SINGLE true answer.

[Sir_Norbert]

eof: but you're only allowed to ask two questions total, not two questions to all three (six total).

Anyway, here's a solution that works.

First, ask one of them (A), "Does he (point at another, B) tell the truth more often than him (point at the third, C)?"

If A says yes:

* If A is the truth-teller, B must be the "normal" and C the liar
* If A is the "normal", the other two could be either way round
* If A lies, B must be the "normal" and C the truth-teller

So in all three cases C is not the "normal" -- which means the solution to the original puzzle, "If I were to ask you which is the correct fork, what would you say?", asked to C, works as your second question.

If A says no to the first question that means B can't be the "normal", so ask the same second question to B.

[kerberos]

No, because there are four possible cases:

(1) I point the right way and he answers truthfully
(2) I point the right way and he lies
(3) I point the wrong way and he answers truthfully
(4) I point the wrong way and he lies

In cases (1) and (4), if I simply asked him if I'm pointing the right way and he answered with the same degree of truthfulness, he would tell me that I'm pointing the right way. But in case (1) he would be truthful about what he would say; whereas in case (4) he would lie about what he would say. So in both cases his answer to the question I actually asked must indicate the correct path. And the converse holds for cases (2) and (3).
No there are two possible cases, he lies or he tells the truth. If he were to answer the two questions with the same degree of truthfullness, then he would have to say yes if you pointed down the correct path and no if you pointed down the wrong path.

He never really has to consider whether he is lying about lying. or telling the truth about telling the truth though because it makes no difference to the true answer to your question. He can however as was specified choose to tell the truth or lie.

You know I really don't know what to say that I haven't said, before so I'll just repeat myself one last time. It just is not clear from the way the question was was phrased that you could in essence just order him to be truthfull.

Can you in all honesty say that your knew this was allowed before the questiongiver informed you of the correct answer? I doubt that, though even if you did it would simply be your luck that your picked the nterpretation of the question that the questionmaker was invisioning, rather than theat least as reasonable interpretation that makes the question unanswerable.

[Sir_Norbert]

No there are two possible cases, he lies or he tells the truth. If he were to answer the two questions with the same degree of truthfullness, then he would have to say yes if you pointed down the correct path and no if you pointed down the wrong path.
Well, that comes to the same thing, doesn't it? I just separated out the four cases to make it easier to follow the logic involved.


You know I really don't know what to say that I haven't said, before so I'll just repeat myself one last time. It just is not clear from the way the question was was phrased that you could in essence just order him to be truthfull.
I don't know what I can say if you don't understand from what I've already said either. You're not ordering him to be truthful; you're phrasing the question in such a way that, given that he has already chosen a certain rule about how to answer, the only answer he can give consistently with his own rule, regardless of whether he tries to answer the question truthfully or falsely, is the answer that indicates the correct path.

The point is that he can choose to tell the truth or lie in response to the question you ask him. He can't choose to tell the truth or lie about which is the correct path, because you don't ask him that question directly. We're given in the conditions of the problem that he's chosen this rule for himself and will follow it.


Can you in all honesty say that your knew this was allowed before the questiongiver informed you of the correct answer? I doubt that, though even if you did it would simply be your luck that your picked the nterpretation of the question that the questionmaker was invisioning, rather than theat least as reasonable interpretation that makes the question unanswerable.
Page thirteen of this topic. I gave the correct answer to the question before the question-giver revealed it.

[Messy]

Did anyone else notice that the sign isn't there in the first panel?...or did you all fail your spot checks? :P

There isn't supposed to be a sign in the first panel, since it's supposed to be Elan who finds it using his happy-go-lucky attitude ("Hey guys, look at this") when nobody else notices it. He's supposed to find something of signifigance (which he did) and not realize it's important. It's part of what makes him funny.

[Messy]

I'm not the best at logic puzzles ;) , so what was the answer to the three-guard puzzle? Just my messy curiosity.

I did know the answer to the two-guard puzzle, even if it hadn't been clarified earlier in this discussion.

[Lord_Oni]

I have noticed quite a few people saying they would shott he guys with the question in the foot like Haley did or use a magic missle. While that may sound nice and dandy you never know if the person you shot just so happens to ahve 15 Class Levels of Barbarian. lol.

Character: Hmmmm Ill just shoot this guy in the foot

*Twang*

Guy who was just shot: ARGHHHHH

*Barbarian Rage*

So just be careful who you go randomly shooting

[Messy]

I have noticed quite a few people saying they would shott he guys with the question in the foot like Haley did or use a magic missle. While that may sound nice and dandy you never know if the person you shot just so happens to ahve 15 Class Levels of Barbarian. lol.

Character: Hmmmm Ill just shoot this guy in the foot

*Twang*

Guy who was just shot: ARGHHHHH

*Barbarian Rage*

So just be careful who you go randomly shooting

Nobody has the intellectual capacity to care, really. They shoot him because they're too bored to figure out the puzzle ;D

[okpokalypse]

eof: but you're only allowed to ask two questions total, not two questions to all three (six total).

Anyway, here's a solution that works.

First, ask one of them (A), "Does he (point at another, B) tell the truth more often than him (point at the third, C)?"

If A says yes:

* If A is the truth-teller, B must be the "normal" and C the liar
* If A is the "normal", the other two could be either way round
* If A lies, B must be the "normal" and C the truth-teller

So in all three cases C is not the "normal" -- which means the solution to the original puzzle, "If I were to ask you which is the correct fork, what would you say?", asked to C, works as your second question.

If A says no to the first question that means B can't be the "normal", so ask the same second question to B.

I have to confess, I don't see how that works for all cases in two questions.

If you're working with a truth-table, you have A (Truth), B (Liar) and C (Normal).

Your 6 cases are as follows:

Asking A: Does B tell the truth more than C? NO
Asking A: Does C tell the truth more than B? YES

Asking B: Does A tell the truth more than C? NO
Asking B: Does C tell the truth more than A? YES

Asking C: Does A tell the truth more than B? Y/N
Asking C: Does B tell the truth more than A? Y/N

So if you happen to ask A or B first, you know you can identify the Normal person as C, meaning your next questions would be to post the two-guard questions to A & B.

The two guard question incidentally is "If I asked him (another guard) what road to take, which one would he tell me." Given one always telling the truth, and one always lying, they will always tell you the Wrong road. However, if the 2nd guard in the question is the 'normal' one - you've still gotten nowhere. You need to be able to identify BOTH Non-Normal ones for that to work, and you can't with certainty because of the following:

If you ask C first, you've gotten nowhere. You cannot eliminate any of the above through definite means.

However, you can answer this in one question...

Ask any one "Which path would the guard, of the other two guards, which you'd tell me lies more, tell me to take?"

Asking A (True), You'll be told the Wrong Path. Based on A normally saying B lies more than C, he would give B's answer of the wrong path.

Asking B (Liar), You'll be told the Wrong Path. Based on B normally saying A lies more than C, he would lie about A's answer and give the wrong path.

Asking C (Normal), You'll be told the Wrong Path as either he lies or tells the truth throughout the question...

If he's lying: He would state A lies more, and thus lie about A's answer - giving the Wrong Path.

If he's telling the truth: He would state B lies more, and be truthful about B's answer - giving the wrong path.

Now, if you're assuming he can both Lie and tell the Truth within the same question - then as far as I know, you've got an unsolvable riddle, as there's no actual way to eliminate the Normal guard in 1 question - which is exactly what you'd need to do so that you can ask A & B the basic 2-guard question.

[qodopob]

First of all I would like to say that I like the way The Giant thinks outside the box.

Secondly, I must say that the way this puzzle has been brought up is a bit simpler version then I have seen. The puzzle had been set up so, that the guards can only answer true or false / yes or no AND you could only ask one question from one of the guards. So basically the solution is tha same but the hardest part would be formulating your question so that you can get a yes/no answer. (ex. you would have had to ask if 2+2 is 4 and not what is 2+2, thou with 1 question rule it wouldn't had helped you much ;D).

Thirdly.
The three man version - 2 questions. Only one guy answers yes or no (aka harder version).
Solution is a bit complitaced but then again fairly simple.
1st you ask "What would the guy to your left say if I asked him if he was the truth teller?"
If the mix one can randomly choose to lie or not, then both the liar and real truth teller could not answer this question if the mixed one is the one on the left, as they don't know wherher the mix one would lie or not. They can't presume because they could be out of bounds of the rules of only lyling or telling the truth. Thus they would not answer and we can ask 2nd question from the same guard. (or in case his brain overloaded and exploaded from the stress, we can ask the 3rd one)
But if an answer is given we can ask the guy on the left the 2nd question as we know that he is not the mix one.
If the mix one is on alternative basis, then the answer does not give us much help and does not acutally matter as we can also ask the guy on the left the 2nd question.
2nd quesion: "Would you have said yes if I would have asked you if the Left path was the right way instead of this question?".
If the answer is yes, then the Left path is the correct one. If the answer is no, then the right path is the correct one.
Ex. Left is correct.
Liar would have said no, so he says yes.
Truth teller would have said yes, so he says yes.
Alternatives this turn is lie so he would have said no, but as he still has to lie, so he says yes.
Alternatives this turn is truth so he would have said yes, but as he still has to tell the truth, so he says yes.
And we would not ask the non alternative truth/lie teller, so it does not matter what his reply would be.
Hope you understand it all...

PS. Holy poop, this became a long reply now. :o

Edit: Some typos

[Messy]

First of all I would like to say that I like the way The Giant thinks outside the box.

Secondly, I must say that the way this puzzle has been brought up is a bit simpler version then I have seen. The puzzle had been set up so, that the guards can only answer true or false / yes or no AND you could only ask one question from one of the guards. So basically the solution is tha same but the hardest part would be formulating your question so that you can get a yes/no answer. (ex. you would have had to ask if 2+2 is 4 and not what is 2+2, thou with 1 question rule it wouldn't had helped you much ;D).

Thirdly.
The three man version - 2 questions. Only one guy answers yes or no (aka harder version).
Solution is a bit complitaced but then again fairly simple.
1st you ask "What would the guy to your left say if I asked him if he was the truth teller?"
If the mix one can randomly choose to lie or not, then both the liar and real truth teller could not answer this question if the mixed one is the one on the left, as they don't know wherher the mix one would lie or not. They can't presume because they could be out of bounds of the rules of only lyling or telling the truth. Thus they would not answer and we can ask 2nd question from the same guard. (or in case his brain overloaded and exploaded from the stress, we can ask the 3rd one)
But if an answer is given we can ask the guy on the left the 2nd question as we know that he is not the mix one.
If the mix one is on alternative basis, then the answer does not give us much help and does not acutally matter as we can also ask the guy on the left the 2nd question.
2nd quesion: "Would you have said yes if I would have asked you if the Left path was the right way instead of this question?".
If the answer is yes, then the Left path is the correct one. If the answer is no, then the right path is the correct one.
Ex. Left is correct.
Liar would have said no, so he says yes.
Truth teller would have said yes, so he says yes.
Alternatives this turn is lie so he would have said no, but as he still has to lie, so he says yes.
Alternatives this turn is truth so he would have said yes, but as he still has to tell the truth, so he says yes.
And we would not ask the non alternative truth/lie teller, so it does not matter what his reply would be.
Hope you understand it all...

PS. Holy poop, this became a long reply now. :o

Edit: Some typos

Thanks for the explanation, I think I understand it now. ;)

Yes, quite a detailed reply, longer than any of mine have been so far. Thanks again!

[charik]

I have to confess, I don't see how that works for all cases in two questions.

If you're working with a truth-table, you have A (Truth), B (Liar) and C (Normal).

Your 6 cases are as follows:

Asking A: Does B tell the truth more than C? NO
Asking A: Does C tell the truth more than B? YES

Asking B: Does A tell the truth more than C? NO
Asking B: Does C tell the truth more than A? YES

Asking C: Does A tell the truth more than B? Y/N
Asking C: Does B tell the truth more than A? Y/N

So if you happen to ask A or B first, you know you can identify the Normal person as C, meaning your next questions would be to post the two-guard questions to A & B.

The two guard question incidentally is "If I asked him (another guard) what road to take, which one would he tell me." Given one always telling the truth, and one always lying, they will always tell you the Wrong road. However, if the 2nd guard in the question is the 'normal' one - you've still gotten nowhere. You need to be able to identify BOTH Non-Normal ones for that to work, and you can't with certainty because of the following:

If you ask C first, you've gotten nowhere. You cannot eliminate any of the above through definite means.
You don't have to identify which value each of the guards is, you only have to make sure that the second question is not asked of the 'normal' guard. As the two questions are being asked of different guards, the second question will never be asked of the waffler. If the first question is asked of either the liar or the truther, you can tell which of the other two is *not* the waffler; if the first question is asked of the waffler, the second obviously will not.

[Felinoid]

Thanks. Did you go that from memory or did you look it up somewhere (or watch the episode)?
Remembered from about the third or fourth time I've seen it, around a month ago.

[Messy]

Remembered from about the third or fourth time I've seen it, around a month ago.

Bah! Three or four? You can never beat my record of how many times I read OtOoPCs! (Even though I never kept track.) I must have read it 20 times (literally)! :D

[charik]

Bah! Three or four? You can never beat my record of how many times I read OtOoPCs! (Even though I never kept track.) I must have read it 20 times (literally)! :D
Bah, you need to follow the bouncing ball of the discussions within the thread. Those two were talking about a Star Trek episode from about 40 years ago. How often have you read a TV show? :-/

[CelestialStick]

Remembered from about the third or fourth time I've seen it, around a month ago.

Ah, well very good for you! Where did you see it a few months ago? I think Sci Fi was showing them late at night last year, but I didn't think they had it on more recently.

[Felinoid]

Ah, well very good for you! Where did you see it a few months ago? I think Sci Fi was showing them late at night last year, but I didn't think they had it on more recently.
There's a new channel called G4 that shows a few of them per day. It's channel 76 for me.

[CelestialStick]

There's a new channel called G4 that shows a few of them per day. It's channel 76 for me.
Cool! I wonder if my system has that?

Edit: It's channel 252 here, and available only on digital. :(

[kerberos]

Page thirteen of this topic. I gave the correct answer to the question before the question-giver revealed it.
OK I see that, and I assume you hanve't seen this or another puzzle with the same point before? Still I think my unaolvble interpretation of the question is at least as reasonable. I don't think we'll reach an agrement by repeating ourselves for however many more posts, so let's just agree to disagree or some similar platitude :-).

Congrats on you solution to the 2 question problem though. You do these kind of puzzles a lot?

[Mal_the_Mad]

G4TV is the remanants of the now defunct tech tv. and pretty much stands for GeekTV video game reviews,cheats and geek tv shows.. such as star trek and star trek 2.0 which i think is odd, of course i must be a geek as I know all this ack.

[Trog]

Haven't read through all of this thread but would like to pose the answer to the "only one question to one of the doors (or knights, or whatever) puzzle." My apologies for any duplication earlier.

Ask door A (either door) whether the other door (door B) would say they (door A) are telling the truth.

If door A is the liar, then it will answer "Yes". Since Door A knows door B will always tell the truth (and say No) and door A will always always lie.

If door A is the one that always tells the truth, then it will answer "No." Since it knows that Door B (the liar door) will always answer untruthfully and it (as a truth telling door) must always tell the truth.

With this one question you can determine which of the doors is a liar.

QED. :)

[CelestialStick]

G4TV is the remanants of the now defunct tech tv. and pretty much stands for GeekTV video game reviews,cheats and geek tv shows.. such as star trek and star trek 2.0 which i think is odd, of course i must be a geek as I know all this ack.




Apparently, and this comes as a great surprise to me, I'm not sufficiently geeky to have known about G4. Or maybe it's just that I've never had it on any cable system (to my knowledge). I had to click on "Star Trek 2.0" to see that if refers to a showing of the original Star Trek with various bonus features. I'd never heard of tech tv before either.

[kabbes]

Norbert, two things:

1) We are within the bounds of predicate logic if you insist on things having a true/false duality. Using linguistic tricks merely hides the underlying truth, which is why things are being unnecessarily tied in knots. This is why logic should be written out symbolically, not linguistically.

2) Your solution is still paradoxical, reflecting its breaking of the "sets cannot be part of themselves" axiom.

"If I were to ask you if this way is the correct way to go, and you answered as truthfully as you answer this question, would you then answer 'yes'?".

requires as an axiom that the answerer won't lie in his instruction to "answer as truthfully as you answer this question." Without this axiom, he can choose to tell the opposite of the truth in his "answering as truthfully as he answers this question." It's directly equivalent to the "I always lie" paradox.

[Sir_Norbert]

I have to confess, I don't see how that works for all cases in two questions.

[snip]

So if you happen to ask A or B first, you know you can identify the Normal person as C, meaning your next questions would be to post the two-guard questions to A & B.

Yes, but the point isn't to identify who is the Normal, but to identify one of the three who definitely isn't.


The two guard question incidentally is "If I asked him (another guard) what road to take, which one would he tell me." Given one always telling the truth, and one always lying, they will always tell you the Wrong road. However, if the 2nd guard in the question is the 'normal' one - you've still gotten nowhere. You need to be able to identify BOTH Non-Normal ones for that to work, and you can't with certainty because of the following:
That's a, not the solution to the two-guard problem. The solution I gave, "If I asked you which road to take, what would you tell me?" is the exact converse -- it ensures you get told the right road, so long as you're not speaking to the normal. (Because the truth-teller would tell the truth about what his truthful answer would be, and the liar would lie about what his lying answer would be.) And for this to work you only need to indentify ONE guard who is definitely non-normal. ;)


so let's just agree to disagree or some similar platitude

Congrats on you solution to the 2 question problem though. You do these kind of puzzles a lot?
Indeed, thank you, and yes.


We are within the bounds of predicate logic if you insist on things having a true/false duality
Not really, because "true" and "false" are used in natural language in ways that don't exactly match a formalised system such as predicate logic. The "axiom" you cite, that a set can't be a member of itself, simply doesn't apply to natural language -- we can talk about a sentence in the sentence itself. This can be used to generate sentences to which the true/false duality can't apply, such as "This sentence is false", but we're given in the conditions of the problem that the guard will definitely utter either a truth or a falsehood.


Your solution is still paradoxical, reflecting its breaking of the "sets cannot be part of themselves" axiom.

"If I were to ask you if this way is the correct way to go, and you answered as truthfully as you answer this question, would you then answer 'yes'?".

requires as an axiom that the answerer won't lie in his instruction to "answer as truthfully as you answer this question."
But it's not an instruction. It's a hypothetical clause; I'm asking, if this situation arose, what would you do? Once he decides whether to answer the main question truthfully or not, he knows what he would do in the situation I describe, so he knows what the truthful answer is. Yes, you need the axiom that he follows his own rules; you need that in all variants of these problems. But I think that's fair enough, or there wouldn't be a problem (with a solution) at all.

[Kanashimi]

As I understand you answer it won't work. If you get the truth teller or the lier yes, but if you get the random guy then he won't automatically tell you the right path, since he can and does swith from truth to lies at random.

Besides as I said there is a single question solution to the problem, can anyone see it?

Actually, I think it still would work, because as I said, it doesn't matter whether or not the oscillator is on lie or truth. What matters is the question you are asking him is being asked NOW, whether he is lying or not. Therefore his lying or truth-telling state has no effect on the outcome of his answer

[kerberos]

Actually, I think it still would work, because as I said, it doesn't matter whether or not the oscillator is on lie or truth. What matters is the question you are asking him is being asked NOW, whether he is lying or not. Therefore his lying or truth-telling state has no effect on the outcome of his answer

But that's where you are wrong. he's not on truth or on lie. he lies and tells the truth completly randomely. He can lie about telling the truth or tell the truth about lying. If he was going to answer any question with a consistent degree of truthfullness then we could simply ask "what would you say if I asked you which way to go" and get the correct answer, regardless of which guard we asked.

[Kanashimi]

the way I understand it, he simply alters whether he was telling the truth or lying at that point. A binary system with three components. one always at 0 (lie) one always at 1 (truth) and one that flipped between 0 and 1 randomly, but not within the same question.

[Gunndragon]

w00t, more discussions about logic... *groans*

[Melnor]

Hey Richy-boi!
Let's get a comic up, eh?
I need my OOTS fix :P

[Messy]

w00t, more discussions about logic... *groans*

Yeah, I don't bother reading what they're talking about because I won't understand half of it ::)

Congrats on first post and welcome to the boards!

[Messy]

Hey Richy-boi!
Let's get a comic up, eh?
I need my OOTS fix :P

We all want him to make some more comics, believe me I check a bajillion times a day. (Yes I know that's not a number ;) )

So yeah, make a new comic Rich! For the good of mankind! If you don't put up a new comic soon we'll all die of boredom!

[WampaX]

Hey Richy-boi!
Let's get a comic up, eh?
I need my OOTS fix :P




We all want him to make some more comics, believe me I check a bajillion times a day. (Yes I know that's not a number ;) )

So yeah, make a new comic Rich! For the good of mankind! If you don't put up a new comic soon we'll all die of boredom!

What part of "At Origins" do you people not understand?

[Messy]

What part of "At Origins" do you people not understand?


The "At Origins" part. But really, we know he's busy WampaX, we're just sad because that means he can't put up any of his partial-stick-figure-nudity splendiferous art ;)

[gooddragon1]

Gordium Knot, excellent lol.
Anyway the gordium knot was never unraveled rather it was cut and thats why it works perfectly with this comic. Here's the link.
Gordium Knot Story (http://www.gordian.co.uk/public/pub-gordian/gord-gordianlegend/gordleg-legend.html)

[Grrrrrr]

The discussion is quite long, perhaps someone has already said this, but...

The original problem was: there are two guards/people, one always lies, one always tells the truth. If you could ask only one question, how would you determine the correct answer? You ask either one what the other would say.

But then all you bright people knew that, right?

[Melnor]

We all want him to make some more comics, believe me I check a bajillion times a day. (Yes I know that's not a number ;) )

So yeah, make a new comic Rich! For the good of mankind! If you don't put up a new comic soon we'll all die of boredom!

Yeah! I've got work to avoid, come on! Lol
(and yes I know he's gone, I'm just bothering his kobold slave that he always keeps at the computer to read annoying posts like mine :P)

[xyzchyx]

To reiterate my previous problem, it's evident from some flak that's been mentioned that I did not fully describe the parameters of it.

Therefore, here is the problem, restated, with ambiguities hopefully resolved.

There is a person in a room with two doors leading out other than the way you came in. One door leads to the party's destruction, the other leads to the party's goal. The doors are one-way, so there is no turning back once you've gone through. The person in the room knows which door to take, but may be a liar (50% chance). You are entitled to a single yes-or-no question. He will obediently follow whatever other instructions you give him other than to leave his post or in any way explicitly coerce truth or falsehood from him. It is completely impossible to gain any information from him other than what you can discern for yourself in response to whatever question you ask. No magic will work on him, and attacking him would not coerce an answer from him. What question do you ask to discern the right way to go?

The question to ask is "If I were to ask you if this is the right way, and you answered that question as truthfully as you answer this question, would your answer be yes?"

You are commanding him to answer with the same truthfulness to which he would answer the hypothetical question, and he will obey... you just won't know if he is lying or telling the truth about it, which is allowed by the parameters of the problem.

However, regardless if he lies or tells the truth, the answer is Yes if you are pointing the right way and No if you are not. Again, you still do not know whether or not he was ever lying, but you know the right way to go, which is all that is required.

[Aliquid]

That's a, not the solution to the two-guard problem. The solution I gave, "If I asked you which road to take, what would you tell me?" is the exact converse -- it ensures you get told the right road, so long as you're not speaking to the normal. (Because the truth-teller would tell the truth about what his truthful answer would be, and the liar would lie about what his lying answer would be.) And for this to work you only need to indentify ONE guard who is definitely non-normal. ;)There is one flaw in the logic for this question..... if you ask the ablove question to the liar, he might respond as follows:

"What would I tell you if you asked me which road? I would tell you to get lost, that's what"

That would be a completely legitimate lie... and you would be screwed ;)

[Aliquid]

The question to ask is "If I were to ask you if this is the right way, and you answered that question as truthfully as you answer this question, would your answer be yes?"If he happened to be uneducated or low in intelligence, his response might be "huh?".

Making logically accurate questions that will force a specific response is all well and good... assuming the person who answers the question is intelligent enough to understand the logic of your question.

By today's standards, and in a "modern" society, your question is not confusing. That's because we all go to school and learn to think about logically complex concepts.

[Felinoid]

The question to ask is "If I were to ask you if this is the right way, and you answered that question as truthfully as you answer this question, would your answer be yes?"

Incidentally, I think this might be the very single question to ask in the three-guard situation. It restricts them to answering double-lie or double-truth if the geas works in such a case.


There is one flaw in the logic for this question..... if you ask the ablove question to the liar, he might respond as follows:

"What would I tell you if you asked me which road? I would tell you to get lost, that's what"

That would be a completely legitimate lie... and you would be screwed ;)

The problem with that is that there is no possibliity for that. This is pure yes-no territory; the reason you can't ask anything other other than a yes-no question is because you will get no other answer, IIRC from xyzchyx's original post. So your posited scenario, while valid with the information readily at hand, is defeated by other previously mentioned, but not re-iterated, specifications. (Is it just me, or did my last sentence totally suck? :P )

[Aliquid]

The problem with that is that there is no possibliity for that. This is pure yes-no territory; the reason you can't ask anything other other than a yes-no question is because you will get no other answer, IIRC from xyzchyx's original post.Right sorry.

I forgot that you were working with xyzchyx's version of the riddle..... there are a few versions flying around now, and his original post was 10 pages ago ;)

[Messy]

Wow, I can't believe you computer nerds are still cracking the puzzle after all this. And I thought I was addicted to OOTS. ;)

...

...

OK, OK, I'm a geek too ;D

[Kanashimi]

To reiterate my previous problem, it's evident from some flak that's been mentioned that I did not fully describe the parameters of it.

Therefore, here is the problem, restated, with ambiguities hopefully resolved.

There is a person in a room with two doors leading out other than the way you came in. One door leads to the party's destruction, the other leads to the party's goal. The doors are one-way, so there is no turning back once you've gone through. The person in the room knows which door to take, but may be a liar (50% chance). You are entitled to a single yes-or-no question. He will obediently follow whatever other instructions you give him other than to leave his post or in any way explicitly coerce truth or falsehood from him. It is completely impossible to gain any information from him other than what you can discern for yourself in response to whatever question you ask. No magic will work on him, and attacking him would not coerce an answer from him. What question do you ask to discern the right way to go?

The question to ask is "If I were to ask you if this is the right way, and you answered that question as truthfully as you answer this question, would your answer be yes?"

You are commanding him to answer with the same truthfulness to which he would answer the hypothetical question, and he will obey... you just won't know if he is lying or telling the truth about it, which is allowed by the parameters of the problem.

However, regardless if he lies or tells the truth, the answer is Yes if you are pointing the right way and No if you are not. Again, you still do not know whether or not he was ever lying, but you know the right way to go, which is all that is required.

Okay so he CAN lie about lying while he's lying or telling the truth. That's a horse of a different color. I was making the conclusion of the binary yes/no system of probability.

What you're saying is if you asked him the more straightforward "if I asked you is this correct what would you say" He could decide that although he's currently in truth telling mode, when you actually asked it you would be lying.

Really, the "at this time" is implied, but a **** of a DM would of course turn that one on his/her players.

[Melonhead]

er

[theswarm]

I think it would work...0.O

[Lokey]

Reminds me of Terry Pratchett's Lords and Ladies. Casanunda's solution is a classic.

[Adventurer]

We once had a game where there were two paths, but three people. One would tell the truth, the other would lie, and the other would alternate between the truth and lying randomly. Then we were given the chance to ask two questions to figure out where the right direction was.

I'd really like to know though because my friend was driving me nerts with that one!

Though I liked the "What's 2+2 idea..." or the cast disintergrate on the doors idea...

An alteration of the "2+2 idea" works far simpler than any of the answers I have seen on this specific problem (since then there have been 4-5 alterations ;) ).

First you ask everyone something to which you know the answer, ie "Can you talk?".

-> If one answers truthfully and two lie, you know that the truthful one is the guy who always says the truth (and the randomer just lied). Ask which path is the right one and follow the truthful one's direction.
-> If one lies and two answer truthfully, then the one who lied is the actual liar (and the randomer just said the truth). Ask which path is the wrong one and follow the liar's direction.

Simple.

[Sir_Norbert]

TWO questions. You can't ask "Can you talk?" to all three guards because that's three questions.

I'll repost my solution from page 19; tis_tom, please do tell me that you've read it so I don't need to keep boring people to death with this ;)

First, ask one of them (A), "Is he (point at another, B) more truthful than him (point at the third, C)?"

If A says yes:

* If A is the truth-teller, B must be the "normal" and C the liar
* If A is the "normal", the other two could be either way round
* If A lies, B must be the "normal" and C the truth-teller

So in all three cases C is not the "normal" -- which means the solution to the original puzzle, "If I were to ask you which is the correct fork, what would you say?", asked to C, works as your second question.

If A says no to the first question that means B can't be the "normal", so ask the same second question to B.

[uranium194]

Wow, I can't believe you computer nerds are still cracking the puzzle after all this. And I thought I was addicted to OOTS. ;)


I just like the shooting of the foot by an arrow question. simple, intellegent, and man I laughed!!!

[Messy]

I just like the shooting of the foot by an arrow question. simple, intellegent, and man I laughed!!!

Echoed here. And I'm sure all these people that are carefully cracking these puzzles are unhappy with Haley's solution because it was "too easy." ;)

[Kanashimi]

oh, by no means! I absolutely LOVE flummoxing my DM by thinking outside the box to solve his puzzles. Here's one in particular:

The way he had it set up, a gem was on a pedastal in the middle of a room, too far away to be reached with a pole or ladder. The floor was extremely uneven and light shone through the gem, refracting the light around the room. The gem rotated so the light was constantly changing its position. Each beam had a strong magical aura (OOG he told us they esssentially were like Beholder eye beams). The Gem was attached to the pedastal strongly enough to give more than five pounds of pull, meaning Mage Hand couldn't get it.

His intention was for us to have to make reflex saves to avoid being hit by the lights and suffering various consequences.

We decided to use Mage Hand to put a heavy scrap of cloth over the gem, thus blocking the light from coming out. Then we walked in and took the gem.

He was soooo let down that we found a way out!

Anyway, I usually find its best to try to think outside the box in solving them, and it usually works, so long as the DM isn't too rigid about things having only one way to be solved.

[Coffee_Dragon]

intellegent

The arrow "solution" worked because it was in the script that it would. It's not intelligent or original.

[Felinoid]

Not sure how close it is with the "flummoxing DMs" theme, but I see an opportunity to tell my favorite story and I'm taking it. :P It also involves a Bag of Tricks coincidentally enough, so it ties even further into the comic.

Basically, I was playing an occasionally clue-impaired bard, who in my RPing just could not figure out this Bag of Tricks thing. After looking into the bag the first time and finding it empty, he tried to put something in it, and his hand brushed against something furry. Naturally he jerked his hand out of the bag, dropping it in the process. When the creature failed to emerge, he took a cautious but more thorough peek into the bag, seeing nothing even into the corners.

At this point I knew what it was, but I saw a chance for a little funny. So I began to start pantomiming my actions as I said them, whcih led to some hilarity among the other players and even a chuckle from our stoic DM. Again my character reached his hand in and found something furry, and again he withdrew his hand, though less quickly than before. More searching revealed the same results: empty. So after the next touch of fur, he quickly turned the bag upside down and shook it. Still nothing came out. After one last reach inside to make sure...

I turned to the DM, deadly serious, and said with the appropriate, but curt, pantomime, "I turn the bag inside out." He just stared at me for a few seconds and then ended the session. It took him a week to figure out what to do (or so I imagine since he seemed unsure of himself), and the next session I had a familiar. Finally, a use for the Bag O' Tricks! :D

[mastroyo]

So, is this OOST 327 the last one this week? Am I suposed to expect another one? Or not?

??? :-/

[Messy]

Not sure how close it is with the "flummoxing DMs" theme, but I see an opportunity to tell my favorite story and I'm taking it. :P It also involves a Bag of Tricks coincidentally enough, so it ties even further into the comic.

Basically, I was playing an occasionally clue-impaired bard, who in my RPing just could not figure out this Bag of Tricks thing. After looking into the bag the first time and finding it empty, he tried to put something in it, and his hand brushed against something furry. Naturally he jerked his hand out of the bag, dropping it in the process. When the creature failed to emerge, he took a cautious but more thorough peek into the bag, seeing nothing even into the corners.

At this point I knew what it was, but I saw a chance for a little funny. So I began to start pantomiming my actions as I said them, whcih led to some hilarity among the other players and even a chuckle from our stoic DM. Again my character reached his hand in and found something furry, and again he withdrew his hand, though less quickly than before. More searching revealed the same results: empty. So after the next touch of fur, he quickly turned the bag upside down and shook it. Still nothing came out. After one last reach inside to make sure...

I turned to the DM, deadly serious, and said with the appropriate, but curt, pantomime, "I turn the bag inside out." He just stared at me for a few seconds and then ended the session. It took him a week to figure out what to do (or so I imagine since he seemed unsure of himself), and the next session I had a familiar. Finally, a use for the Bag O' Tricks! :D

Wow. Either the DM (no offense) was a complete moron, or you got really lucky. He GAVE you a familiar because you turned a bag of tricks inside out? That's just weird. ???

Coffee Dragon: the arrow in the foot WAS intelligent and original because it had never been done before, and it was FUNNY. (And besides, it was written by The Giant -- it has to be good ;)

[CelestialStick]

So I began to start pantomiming my actions as I said them
And some people actually question the need for a bank to have a pantomime horse! :D

[Aerysil1]

So, is this OOST 327 the last one this week? Am I suposed to expect another one? Or not?

??? :-/

No schedule for comics until further notice

[CelestialStick]

No schedule for comics until further notice

Yes, it is time to be zen about OOTS: it will appear when it appears. ;)

[Otterella]

With Origins this weekend, it's probably safe to assume that we won't see one until at least Monday.

[CelestialStick]

With Origins this weekend, it's probably safe to assume that we won't see one until at least Monday.
Yes, but you got your signed copies of the game and book, so you're in Otter heaven! :D

[Messy]

Yes, but you got your signed copies of the game and book, so you're in Otter heaven! :D

I know I've said it a thousand times, but I won't rest until I've said it a thousand more (could take a while ;) ).

I am SOOOO jealous of you, Otterella!!!

[Soul_Selim]

Not sure how close it is with the "flummoxing DMs" theme, but I see an opportunity to tell my favorite story and I'm taking it. :P It also involves a Bag of Tricks coincidentally enough, so it ties even further into the comic.

Basically, I was playing an occasionally clue-impaired bard, who in my RPing just could not figure out this Bag of Tricks thing. After looking into the bag the first time and finding it empty, he tried to put something in it, and his hand brushed against something furry. Naturally he jerked his hand out of the bag, dropping it in the process. When the creature failed to emerge, he took a cautious but more thorough peek into the bag, seeing nothing even into the corners.

At this point I knew what it was, but I saw a chance for a little funny. So I began to start pantomiming my actions as I said them, whcih led to some hilarity among the other players and even a chuckle from our stoic DM. Again my character reached his hand in and found something furry, and again he withdrew his hand, though less quickly than before. More searching revealed the same results: empty. So after the next touch of fur, he quickly turned the bag upside down and shook it. Still nothing came out. After one last reach inside to make sure...

I turned to the DM, deadly serious, and said with the appropriate, but curt, pantomime, "I turn the bag inside out." He just stared at me for a few seconds and then ended the session. It took him a week to figure out what to do (or so I imagine since he seemed unsure of himself), and the next session I had a familiar. Finally, a use for the Bag O' Tricks! :D

This Wins at Life on so many levels. I must do this to my own DM.

[CelestialStick]

I know I've said it a thousand times, but I won't rest until I've said it a thousand more (could take a while ;) ).

I am SOOOO jealous of you, Otterella!!!
Yes Messy! We should go liberate Otterella's signed copies in the name of the people! :D

[Felinoid]

Wow. Either the DM (no offense) was a complete moron, or you got really lucky. He GAVE you a familiar because you turned a bag of tricks inside out? That's just weird. ???

Well, I'd just been through a little "Bag of Holding puncture incident" in a different campaign, so anything with strange inner dimensions was fair game. And giving me the familiar was functional of the Bag of Tricks: it produces temporary animals, so turning it inside out produced one permanent animal, which I then could adopt as a familiar. It saved me 1000gp for the spell (in 2e bards can have familiars as well, remember) and cost me a Bag of Tricks as well as some pain from the huge flash of light which accompanied the transformation (or whatever it was) to my new leopard familiar. A fair trade, I believe.

[Messy]

Well, I'd just been through a little "Bag of Holding puncture incident" in a different campaign, so anything with strange inner dimensions was fair game. And giving me the familiar was functional of the Bag of Tricks: it produces temporary animals, so turning it inside out produced one permanent animal, which I then could adopt as a familiar. It saved me 1000gp for the spell (in 2e bards can have familiars as well, remember) and cost me a Bag of Tricks as well as some pain from the huge flash of light which accompanied the transformation (or whatever it was) to my new leopard familiar. A fair trade, I believe.

All my sessions except maybe one or two in 3.0 are 3.5 (well, with some 3.0 rules house-ruled in), so I wouldn't know about bard's having familiars in 2.0 ;)

But still, 1000g versus a flash of light and a loss of your bag of tricks? I think you made out like a bandit. Or maybe just an overly charismatic bard. ;D

[cleric_of_BANJO]

Well, I'd just been through a little "Bag of Holding puncture incident" in a different campaign, so anything with strange inner dimensions was fair game. And giving me the familiar was functional of the Bag of Tricks: it produces temporary animals, so turning it inside out produced one permanent animal, which I then could adopt as a familiar. It saved me 1000gp for the spell (in 2e bards can have familiars as well, remember) and cost me a Bag of Tricks as well as some pain from the huge flash of light which accompanied the transformation (or whatever it was) to my new leopard familiar. A fair trade, I believe.

Wouldnt turning it inside out just produce hundreds of animals every second? Oh well, you got pretty lucky! ;D

Anyway, the strip was awsome! I was out of town, so I could only post in the 23 page... :(

[Messy]

I think it'd be even luckier, and I guess more logical too, to have hundreds of animals fall out, but how could the DM do that? It's even less fair than a free familiar!

And yes, of course, the strip was awesomeness. ;D

[Solmage]

So, is this OOST 327 the last one this week? Am I suposed to expect another one? Or not?

??? :-/

You know, I'm still hoping for a Sunday strip...

..of course, I wouldn't mind Santa dropping in as well :)

[Vreejack]

...
I turned to the DM, deadly serious, and said with the appropriate, but curt, pantomime, "I turn the bag inside out."
...

That one stumped me for a minute, but there are two obvious solutions.

1) You turn small animal inside out destroying the bag in the process (and making quite a mess).

2) You find yourself trapped in a large leather bag until either your friends rescue you or a large demonic hand pulls you out into another dimension.

#2 is probably too powerful, but I was known for such events if a player was tempting fate.

[CelestialStick]

That one stumped me for a minute, but there are two obvious solutions.

1) You turn small animal inside out destroying the bag in the process (and making quite a mess).

2) You find yourself trapped in a large leather bag until either your friends rescue you or a large demonic hand pulls you out into another dimension.

#2 is probably too powerful, but I was known for such events if a player was tempting fate.

This is your serious suggestion for how to deal with a character turning a bad of tricks inside out? It makes perfect sense to turn inside out a bad that appears empty put in which you feel something when you place your hand inside. The original DM who had to stop the session in order to figure out what to do next probably shouldn't be DMing in the first place, and if you're making a serious suggestion here, you certainly shouldn't be DMing.

[Sir_Norbert]

The original DM who had to stop the session in order to figure out what to do next probably shouldn't be DMing in the first place, and if you're making a serious suggestion here, you certainly shouldn't be DMing.
Attitudes like this are exactly what put me off trying to get into D&D for many years. We all have to be beginners to begin with.

Anyway, maybe they'd already been playing for a while and he knew they were going to have to end the session soon in any case?

[Felinoid]

Aye, it was very close to quitting time anyway.

And yes, our DM wasn't wildly creative on the spur of the moment, but to say he shouldn't be DMing because he couldn't think of something right that second? ::) Some of the best-planned campaigns and even twists came from that methodical mind, and I'd venture a guess that he was twice the DM you'll ever be, CS. Vreejack probably is too, for that matter (they were good scenarios).

[Messy]

I've never been the DM, though I've played a few characters on interesting adventures made by brilliant DM's. I could be wrong -- I've never actually been a DM, but I would think that when you turn a bag of tricks inside out, nothing would happen. Then when you turn in back to normal, it functions just like a normal bag of tricks.

[okpokalypse]

The original DM who had to stop the session in order to figure out what to do next probably shouldn't be DMing in the first place, and if you're making a serious suggestion here, you certainly shouldn't be DMing.

That is the absoluteworst attitude you can possess. It's pretentious and snobby - not to mention short sighted.

If every DM who wasn't ready for something had to pause - or didn't come up with a general consensus "way to handle something" shouldn't be DM'ing - there'd be no D&D. The whole point of the game is the variety and lack of imaginitive boundaries - and I applaud any DM who can find new and innovative ways to play out the game in response to his (or her) players actions.

[carabaldo]

I've never actually been a DM, but I would think that when you turn a bag of tricks inside out, nothing would happen. Then when you turn in back to normal, it functions just like a normal bag of tricks.
yes, that would be a very straightforward way to go. But it wouldn't be funny, and wouldn't give anything to the character who did such a good playing.
congratulations to the DM who had chosen to think something better than "nothing happens" and had the "guts" to end the session just to think better.
That's a good DM, imho.

And, by the way, Celestial Stick, that was trolling.
(edited for typing errors)

[CelestialStick]

Attitudes like this are exactly what put me off trying to get into D&D for many years. We all have to be beginners to begin with.

Anyway, maybe they'd already been playing for a while and he knew they were going to have to end the session soon in any case?
I object to DMs who punish players for playing reasonably--as suggested by Vreejack in what might or might not have been a joke. As a joke it's fine, but over the three decades in which I've played D&D I've seen far too many DMs who abused players like that.

As for ending a session abruptly because someone turned out a bag of tricks, unless (as I read in the next post) it was the end of the session, this shows a serious inability to cope with a very small unexpected event, whereas a good DM must regularly cope with many much larger unexpected events. A DM must think on his feet. Players often think it's easy until they try to do it themselves. I've seen a good many players start what seemed like a fascinating campaign only to learn that DMing requires far, far more work than playing and requires a lot of seat-of-the-pants improvisation.

Turn out a bg of tricks? No problem. The bag allows the user to draw out one animal at a time, so if the user turns out the bag, have one animal fall out. Problem solved. What's the big deal? And that's not the only easy solution. Since the bag description talks about the user drawing out an animal, it would be easily valid to have nothing at all fall out of the bag. Eventually the player (Felinoid) would have gotten around to having his player grab the furry thing he felt in the bag and pull it out. Again, problem solved.

Despite the childish insults hurled at me, if Felinoid says that the DM is generally good, I'll accept that. Everyone has a bad night or two and nobody's perfect. I stand by the main point of my post, which the childish insulters seemed to have missed, that a DM who would punish Felinoid for good roleplaying has no place being a DM.

[Sir_Norbert]

Despite the childish insults hurled at me, if Felinoid says that the DM is generally good, I'll accept that. Everyone has a bad night or two and nobody's perfect. I stand by the main point of my post, which the childish insulters seemed to have missed, that a DM who would punish Felinoid for good roleplaying has no place being a DM.

That I'd agree with -- except that I don't see how "punishing" comes into Felinoid's description of the actual incident.

[CelestialStick]

That I'd agree with -- except that I don't see how "punishing" comes into Felinoid's description of the actual incident.


Grrrr! (Tearing hair out.) It doesn't! It comes from Vreejack's post suggesting two ways to punish Felinoid for what was good roleplaying. Vreejack bragged that he was known for punishing players that way and I said that if he were serious about it he shouldn't be DMing.

[Messy]

Grrrr! (Tearing hair out.) It doesn't! It comes from Vreejack's post suggesting two ways to punish Felinoid for what was good roleplaying. Vreejack bragged that he was known for punishing players that way and I said that if he were serious about it he shouldn't be DMing.
Uhh...Celestial Stick...your avatar...has no hair... ;D

[Alsadius]

That one stumped me for a minute, but there are two obvious solutions.

1) You turn small animal inside out destroying the bag in the process (and making quite a mess).

2) You find yourself trapped in a large leather bag until either your friends rescue you or a large demonic hand pulls you out into another dimension.

#2 is probably too powerful, but I was known for such events if a player was tempting fate.


Those are your obvious solutions? The obvious one to me is to say that it functions identically whichever side of the bag is the exterior - turn it inside out, nothing comes out, then reach into the former outside and feel fur again. It'd freak the character out, and it wouldn't screw around with valuable assets or free familiars.

Of course, it's WAY too late to be dissecting a 2nd-Ed game, but the above is what seems obvious as a solution to me. It's magic, you can do a lot of wacky things with it.

[CelestialStick]

Uhh...Celestial Stick...your avatar...has no hair... ;D


LOL! Exactly--it's all gone now! ;D

[Felinoid]

You can't be serious. Vreejack's first suggestion would be hilarious (even if I were the one the joke was played on), and the second one is practically a quest hook! Hell, it could even lead to some excellent role-playing as a player finds himself on the other end of magical item usage. Do you think that players think, for even one second, about the animals they pull out of the bag? No. They're just disposable commodities.

But the experience of being in the animal's place, even if they don't get picked out, could lead to a lot of soul-searching, and perhaps in a 3e campaign would be a worthy reason to multi-class to druid for a couple levels, with their new-found respect for animals. Or perhaps they would go on a crusade to banish all summoning items. The possibilities are endless.

And punishment? Hardly. I don't know about you, but I'd trade a vorpal sword for a good joke, to say nothing of a nearly useless Bag of Tricks. If punishment is something bad happening to you, then every time you get sent on a quest where you have to fight enemies or surmount challenges, you're being punished. That's just not the game.


As for ending a session abruptly because someone turned out a bag of tricks, unless (as I read in the next post) it was the end of the session, this shows a serious inability to cope with a very small unexpected event, whereas a good DM must regularly cope with many much larger unexpected events. A DM must think on his feet. Players often think it's easy until they try to do it themselves. I've seen a good many players start what seemed like a fascinating campaign only to learn that DMing requires far, far more work than playing and requires a lot of seat-of-the-pants improvisation.

Actually, what you would classify as small I'd classify as big, and what you'd classify as big, I'd classify as small. Turning a Bag of Tricks inside out is a big thing, because there is absolutely no reason to do it. It was a fluke of inspiration that even I thought it up. Asking someone to be totally prepared for item misuse is ridiculous if the item is from a source book that doesn't cover those things. OTOH, dealing with characters suddenly deciding to burn down the inn? Nothing at all. You know your setting and NPCs like the back of your hand and know how they would react. Heck, if you know your players well enough you'd be able to predict such an action. But turning a Bag of Tricks inside out? Totally random and deserving of some thought in return.


Turn out a bg of tricks? No problem. The bag allows the user to draw out one animal at a time, so if the user turns out the bag, have one animal fall out. Problem solved. What's the big deal? And that's not the only easy solution. Since the bag description talks about the user drawing out an animal, it would be easily valid to have nothing at all fall out of the bag. Eventually the player (Felinoid) would have gotten around to having his player grab the furry thing he felt in the bag and pull it out. Again, problem solved.

Now that is what I would call unimaginative DMing. Here you've been given an excellent opportunity to do something inventive, and you do absolutely nothing. And to think you're deriding others' ability to think on their feet. ::) Easy solutions aren't always the best. Sometimes the complicated ones, even if they lead into trouble or great peril, can be fifty times more enjoyable.

EDIT: Hell, even Alsadius's idea provides the possibility of more pantomiming and "confusion". I probably would have had a field day with that.


Despite the childish insults hurled at me, if Felinoid says that the DM is generally good, I'll accept that. Everyone has a bad night or two and nobody's perfect. I stand by the main point of my post, which the childish insulters seemed to have missed, that a DM who would punish Felinoid for good roleplaying has no place being a DM.

Actually, I'd be more than glad to have Vreejack over you. At least he comes up with ideas, with challenges. I too have seen DMs being too harsh, but I've also seen DMs being too lenient, and that kills the game just as quickly. If there are no challenges, what's the point?

Heck, I even had a DM once say at the end of a campaign that we got one wish that would be granted without question and without twisting. FORr NO REASON AT ALL. We hadn't done anything huge, we hadn't even finished our current quest; the DM and players had just gotten bored (for my part, because it was too easy). The other players took advantage of it, one boosting his character to 500th level (even though that's impossible), but I refused. I was happy with my 3rd level Transmuter and didn't want her to change, especially if it meant my character wouldn't be accepted by other DMs. Ironically, my tone in refusing must have ruffled his feathers because he decided to punish me by turning my character into a toad. I snatched my character sheet off of the table before he finished speaking and walked out with a disparaging remark that Belkar would've been proud of.


And one final thought. Vreejack seems to be the only one to have picked up on the subtext of the action he quoted. I was outright challenging the DM to come back at me with something. (And there was much high-fiving with the other players for putting one over on the DM, after the session ended.) I got off incredibly easy with just getting temporarily blinded by the flash of light.

[CelestialStick]

Actually, what you would classify as small I'd classify as big, and what you'd classify as big, I'd classify as small. Turning a Bag of Tricks inside out is a big thing, because there is absolutely no reason to do it. It was a fluke of inspiration that even I thought it up. Asking someone to be totally prepared for item misuse is ridiculous if the item is from a source book that doesn't cover those things. OTOH, dealing with characters suddenly deciding to burn down the inn? Nothing at all. You know your setting and NPCs like the back of your hand and know how they would react. Heck, if you know your players well enough you'd be able to predict such an action. But turning a Bag of Tricks inside out? Totally random and deserving of some thought in return.

Ah, finally we get to the reason for your childish insults even though I sided with you: in siding with you, I stepped on your efforts as self-aggrandizement. :D

[CelestialStick]

Those are your obvious solutions? The obvious one to me is to say that it functions identically whichever side of the bag is the exterior - turn it inside out, nothing comes out, then reach into the former outside and feel fur again. It'd freak the character out, and it wouldn't screw around with valuable assets or free familiars.

Of course, it's WAY too late to be dissecting a 2nd-Ed game, but the above is what seems obvious as a solution to me. It's magic, you can do a lot of wacky things with it.

My smaller point (my larger point opposed DMs abusing players for good roleplaying) states simply that the turning inside out of a bag of tricks shouldn't force a decent DM to have to bring a session to a screetching halt. The fact that you came up with a third on-the-fly solution doesn't contradict my point but rather supports it. I'm sure that other decent DMs could think of other ways to handle it without shutting down the entire session.

[Felinoid]

Vreejack bragged that he was known for punishing players that way and I said that if he were serious about it he shouldn't be DMing.

*Buzz* Wrong. Vreejack has only ever made one post on these boards, which involved no bragging at all about anything, much less punishment. And unless I'm mistaken you're the only one who's confused his suggestions with punishment.


Of course, it's WAY too late to be dissecting a 2nd-Ed game, but the above is what seems obvious as a solution to me. It's magic, you can do a lot of wacky things with it.

It's never too late to dissect anything. That's why we have history books. ;)


Ah, finally we get to the reason for your childish insults even though I sided with you: in siding with you, I stepped on your efforts as self-aggrandizement. :D

Oh, please. ::) First of all, the only "childish insult" I hurled at you was the very same one you hurled at both Vreejack and a complete unknown (the DM I had), with no provocation or even good reason. That's what pissed me off. Someone actually takes time to think about something? Horror of horrors! A result that isn't rainbows and lollipops? Someone call the police!

And second, I was only trying to point out that something that unexpected was not something you'd have a quick answer for, while for the vagaries of the setting you would, being intimately familiar with them.


My smaller point (my larger point opposed DMs abusing players for good roleplaying) states simply that the turning inside out of a bag of tricks shouldn't force a decent DM to have to bring a session to a screetching halt. The fact that you came up with a third on-the-fly solution doesn't contradict my point but rather supports it. I'm sure that other decent DMs could think of other ways to handle it without shutting down the entire session.

The problem with this stance being: it's not nearly as interesting. And for the heck of it, I'll tie this right back in with the comic. Would you rather have something Rich took 5 minutes to put together, or something he spent an entire weekend working on? I'd say the answer is pretty obvious. And again, if it hadn't been near the end of the session anyway, I don't imagine he would have called a halt right then and there.

[CelestialStick]

*Buzz* Wrong. Vreejack has only ever made one post on these boards, which involved no bragging at all about anything, much less punishment. And unless I'm mistaken you're the only one who's confused his suggestions with punishment.

The number of his posts makes no difference. I didn't refer to any other posts. He bragged in this one post that he treats players that way. Try reading before you insult.

[Vreejack]

The number of his posts makes no difference. I didn't refer to any other posts. He bragged in this one post that he treats players that way. Try reading before you insult.

It never occurred to me that anyone would consider those options I suggested to be punishments; I actually thought of them as rewards. Some players will treat it as a clue leading to ... well, use your imagination.


Actually if I ever did something like this it would invariably lead to players turning all sorts of things inside-out.

[Felinoid]

The one post was a reference to there not being any other posts that I was not aware of in which he could have been bragging. And that in the one post that I did see, he was doing no such thing.


Try reading before you insult.

Identify with the pot much? :P You did the very same to Vreejack as well as my DM, and I am of the belief that one bad turn deserves a kick in the pants.

EDIT: Okay, so there's two now, but I still don't see any bragging. On the contrary, I see a refutation of your assertions. I do believe you owe him (though obviously not me) an apology.

[Vreejack]

The one post was a reference to there not being any other posts that I was not aware of in which he could have been bragging. And that in the one post that I did see, he was doing no such thing.


Identify with the pot much? :P You did the very same to Vreejack as well as my DM, and I am of the belief that one bad turn deserves a kick in the pants.

EDIT: Okay, so there's two now, but I still don't see any bragging. On the contrary, I see a refutation of your assertions. I do believe you owe him (though obviously not me) an apology.


Meh. You won't be able to communicate on message boards if you don't have a thick skin.

OMG Twenty-fifth page! Woot! :)
I always wanted to do that.

[Schattendrache]

Not a criticism on the Giant's schedule, but clearly it's been far too long since we've had a new comic if this is what the thread has degenerated to...yet again. :(

[CelestialStick]

The one post was a reference to there not being any other posts that I was not aware of in which he could have been bragging. And that in the one post that I did see, he was doing no such thing.


Identify with the pot much? :P You did the very same to Vreejack as well as my DM, and I am of the belief that one bad turn deserves a kick in the pants.

EDIT: Okay, so there's two now, but I still don't see any bragging. On the contrary, I see a refutation of your assertions. I do believe you owe him (though obviously not me) an apology.
Hey, I get it. You were telling the story of how your DM had to end the session because he just couldn't handle the sheer brilliance of someone turning a bag of holding inside out, and I stepped all over it by saying that it was merely good roleplaying. The fact that I did it inadvertantly and didn't even see that you were touting your own brilliance, innocently thinking I was paying you a compliment by saying that you'd done some good roleplaying, just makes it all the more insulting! :D

[Felinoid]

Hey, I get it. You were telling the story of how your DM had to end the session because he just couldn't handle the sheer brilliance of someone turning a bag of holding inside out, and I stepped all over it by saying that it was merely good roleplaying. The fact that I did it inadvertantly and didn't even see that you were touting your own brilliance, innocently thinking I was paying you a compliment by saying that you'd done some good roleplaying, just makes it all the more insulting! :D

No, you still don't.

One, what did that have to do with what you quoted? ???

Two, good roleplaying>>>>>>>>"brilliant" manuevers. If turning the bag inside out wasn't in character I wouldn't have done it, end of story. The fact that it flummoxed the DM was just icing on the cake, and the combination is what makes it a good story, I think.

Three, your insult was against my DM, not me. And since I typically only play with my friends, I take such things very seriously. You mess with one of us, you mess with all of us.

Four, there is a very thin line between brilliance and idiocy, which I tend to straddle from time to time. Am I proud of the story? Yeah, it was fun and completely unexpected. Do I think it was a brilliant maneuver to turn the bag inside out? No, anybody could have thought of the same thing, and I already said that it was a flash of inspiration to do it at all. Only the fact that it turned out well is what makes it inspired rather than a horrible idea. As I said, a very thin line.

[irflashrex]

well that was a vary interesting soloution and about the knot alexander the great solve that one by choping it to little bits with a sword ( but we knew that)

[CelestialStick]

No, you still don't.

One, what did that have to do with what you quoted? ???

Two, good roleplaying>>>>>>>>"brilliant" manuevers. If turning the bag inside out wasn't in character I wouldn't have done it, end of story. The fact that it flummoxed the DM was just icing on the cake, and the combination is what makes it a good story, I think.

Three, your insult was against my DM, not me. And since I typically only play with my friends, I take such things very seriously. You mess with one of us, you mess with all of us.

Four, there is a very thin line between brilliance and idiocy, which I tend to straddle from time to time. Am I proud of the story? Yeah, it was fun and completely unexpected. Do I think it was a brilliant maneuver to turn the bag inside out? No, anybody could have thought of the same thing, and I already said that it was a flash of inspiration to do it at all. Only the fact that it turned out well is what makes it inspired rather than a horrible idea. As I said, a very thin line.
In all fairness, you're the one who made your DM look bad by making him seem incapable of dealing with a small thing like turning a bad of tricks inside out.

[Ing]

gentlemen please stop arguing about your sacks

[CelestialStick]

gentlemen please stop arguing about your sacks
ROFLMAO!!!!!!! ;D

[Felinoid]

Look bad, perhaps. But to the point where he "shouldn't ever DM"? ::) That's just ridiculous, as others have pointed out. Even I never levelled that particular claim against you, despite my low opinion of your skills in that area. To say someone is completely incapable of DMing is like saying that you can't even draw a stick figure. Even semi-bad DMing is still DMing.

[Schattendrache]

gentlemen please stop arguing about your sacks

Oh, I agree. Quit bagging on each other's bags, already. ^_^

[CelestialStick]

Look bad, perhaps. But to the point where he "shouldn't ever DM"? ::) That's just ridiculous, as others have pointed out. Even I never levelled that particular claim against you, despite my low opinion of your skills in that area. To say someone is completely incapable of DMing is like saying that you can't even draw a stick figure. Even semi-bad DMing is still DMing.
Oh have it your way then. You made your DM look bad by bragging about the brilliance of your idea to turn a bad inside out, but I'm the badguy here. Happy?

[carabaldo]

do not feed the troll

[CelestialStick]

do not feed the troll


I suppose you managed to miss the threads where Rich forbade anyone from calling anyone else a troll on these boards.

[yuccadude]

In the last panel, instead of saying don't bite me, the green guy should have said, "I hope you don't bite me." in a non-sarcastic voice. I think Rich is harkening(if that's incorrect usage, look up harken at dictionary.com and tell me what you think...) back to the concept of opposite day(paradox #1 for me).

[CelestialStick]

In the last panel, instead of saying don't bite me, the green guy should have said, "I hope you don't bite me." in a non-sarcastic voice. I think Rich is harkening(if that's incorrect usage, look up harken at dictionary.com and tell me what you think...) back to the concept of opposite day(paradox #1 for me).
That's a good point. I had briefly considered the fact that "don't bite me" isn't actually a lie. But in terms of punch lines, "I hope you don't bite me" just doesn't has as much, well, bite ;D as "Don't bit me." :D

[yuccadude]

Then again, did you look up harken/hearken at dictionary.com? It seems interesting to see that they have a nice...tautology there...almost forgot my favorite word.

[yuccadude]

And then I look up tautology, and find that the way I was using it was totally out of context for the 3 times I have used it so far...ah well, people still don't know what it means :) ;)

[CelestialStick]

And then I look up tautology, and find that the way I was using it was totally out of context for the 3 times I have used it so far...ah well, people still don't know what it means :) ;)
Woot! It's fun with dictionaries time! :D

[Felinoid]

Oh have it your way then. You made your DM look bad by bragging about the brilliance of your idea to turn a bad inside out, but I'm the badguy here. Happy?
No, and you know exactly why. This was never about the "brilliance" you keep ascribing to me that I continue to renouce, or about making my DM look bad, which was never my intention. Those are both things that YOU invented. And once again you ascribe bragging where none has happened; I would've thought you'd learned your lesson with Vreejack. I'd suggest you see your eye doctor at the next convenient opportunity, for you clearly cannot see a funny story as what it was meant to be: just a funny story. ::)

And finally, I'd like to thank you for sucking every last bit of fun out of it. You must be the life of the party.

EDIT: As I lay in bed, I realized how excellently you had side-tracked me, and I must congratulate you on that. But what it comes down to is this:

You were wrong about my DM.
You were wrong about Vreejack.
You were wrong to say that because someone does not meet YOUR specifications for DMing that they should never ever DM. Words fail me as to how very wrong that statement was.
And finally, though one wonders how the subject arose, you were wrong about me.

This is the last I will say on the subject. Have the last word if you will, but I am done with it. I bid you all goodnight.

[chaospet]

Not a criticism on the Giant's schedule, but clearly it's been far too long since we've had a new comic if this is what the thread has degenerated to...yet again. :(

yes... it seems we're down to one comic a week now?

[Arachnophile]

Giant,

The Order of the Stick has officially overtaken Calvin and Hobbes as my favorite comic.
Thank you for being a genius.

-Arachnophile

Edit: At first I thought the red guard yelled because of V's incredible power to incapacitate enemies simply by making a speech. (See comic 10)

[xyzchyx]

My smaller point (my larger point opposed DMs abusing players for good roleplaying) states simply that the turning inside out of a bag of tricks shouldn't force a decent DM to have to bring a session to a screetching haltDM's aren't omniscient. Nor should a DM always be an unflappable improv virtuoso. To expect them to be is unrealistic. *EVERYBODY* gets stumped once in a while.

[GypsyThorn]

Woooo! 26th page!!!!

[Otterella]

This weekend I met a woman who was an elementary school teacher, or maybe kindergarten, I'm not sure. She told me about a neat trick she does in her class, that works well. She has a big picture of a giant ear on the wall. Any time kids start whining about who did what to whom and make him stop, and she started, and waa waa waa, she tells them she doesn't have time to listen, and they should take it to the ear. They usually feel so silly talking to a picture on the wall, that they drop their grievances. So please, boys, take it to the ear.

Also, after spending two days gaming at Origins, I am exhausted. I cannot imagine how much more tired someone would be after spending four, maybe five days there, signing autographs, meeting fans, demoing a new game, giving seminars, and who knows what other responsibilities, on top of driving all the way back home, much further than I had to go. Considering how much he has done for his fans this past week just by being at the con and doing what he's done, I certainly am not going to bitch about the guy getting to the comic whenever he feels ready. And that has nothing to do with it being free.

But complainers are going to complain, no matter what I say, so I don't know why I bother.

[carabaldo]

exactly what meant when I wrote the "do not feed the troll" sign. But I got just a "hey, are you calling me a troll, uh? are you talking to me?" :(
Congratulatons to Otterella :)
by the way, It's hard to stay on topic these days...
Even the forum it's getting zen
We'll be on topic when we are so

[Dragontail]

Just what is on-topic? One would expect a discussion such as this, which is really just commenting on a known situation, to stray from any defined path.

And... woot, really close to first page (?). This place is great.

[cleric_of_BANJO]

W00t! 27th page!!

I know the argument is over, but I think someone deserves an apology. Celestialstick, I am sorry that you did not get as many insults as you deserve. Seriously, Felinoid tells of a funny story, and vreejack tells of what he would have done as a DM, then you come in with "Oh, you're bragging, you shouldnt DM, you are insulting me, you are insulting your DM!" etc. you should seriously respect people a little more. just an idea. :)

PS: dont feed the troll means the same as dont feed the wolf. No one is a troll, it is a metaphor. The ear poster is a good idea by the way. :)

[Runica]

Rich can take all the time he wants as far as I'm concerned....I think this last comic is one of the funniest he's ever written(haven't laughed this hard since the evilgasm) and I read through it every time I hit the site checking for a new comic :)

Keep up the good work!

[Estella]

its always easier the haley way :)

[GKBeetle]

Oh have it your way then. You made your DM look bad by bragging about the brilliance of your idea to turn a bad inside out, but I'm the badguy here. Happy?

Yes, you are the bad guy. I think that you started the argument by saying that someone was a bad DM without knowing all the facts and without even knowing the person. You even said the person should never DM at all. When you take that strong of a position, you have to expect some strong opposition.

[baltor85]

"Don't bite me." Hah, still gets me laughing!!!!!!!!

[whmice]

is it possible to get dates for the comics? at least from now on?

[Grrrrrr]

It just occurred to me that while they determined which of the two was the liar and truthteller, they never actually asked which way to go. they just went to the side that the truthteller was standing on. i guess i need to engage my suspension of disbelief...

[Coffee_Dragon]

It just occurred to me that while they determined which of the two was the liar and truthteller, they never actually asked which way to go.

Unless you count the second panel?

[Bluefire]

This weekend I met a woman who was an elementary school teacher, or maybe kindergarten, I'm not sure. She told me about a neat trick she does in her class, that works well. She has a big picture of a giant ear on the wall. Any time kids start whining about who did what to whom and make him stop, and she started, and waa waa waa, she tells them she doesn't have time to listen, and they should take it to the ear. They usually feel so silly talking to a picture on the wall, that they drop their grievances. So please, boys, take it to the ear.

Also, after spending two days gaming at Origins, I am exhausted. I cannot imagine how much more tired someone would be after spending four, maybe five days there, signing autographs, meeting fans, demoing a new game, giving seminars, and who knows what other responsibilities, on top of driving all the way back home, much further than I had to go. Considering how much he has done for his fans this past week just by being at the con and doing what he's done, I certainly am not going to bitch about the guy getting to the comic whenever he feels ready. And that has nothing to do with it being free.

But complainers are going to complain, no matter what I say, so I don't know why I bother.

that was hot.

[carabaldo]

"Don't bite me." Hah, still gets me laughing!!!!!!!!
by now I'm coming back in topic...
I do think that I'm missing something, maybe since I'm not an english speaking person

Why the green guard is saying "don't bite me"? and why is it funny?
(I know, explanations of funnyness are never funny, sorry for asking)

[Calaveron]

by now I'm coming back in topic...
I do think that I'm missing something, maybe since I'm not an english speaking person

Why the green guard is saying "don't bite me"? and why is it funny?
(I know, explanations of funnyness are never funny, sorry for asking)

"Bite me" is common lingo to express apathy, carelessness, or just the general message of "blow it out your ass".
Also, Christ, can we get a new strip up soon?

[Schattendrache]

is it possible to get dates for the comics? at least from now on?

Of course! I'd be honoured, whmice. Would you like to get some dinner first?

[Vreejack]

To bring this back on topic for the moment, before another issue of OOTS hopefully arrives, was Haley's act realistic?

Perhaps this is due to the circumspect nature of the people I used to play with, but the red and green guys were real people, weren't they? So wasn't shooting one of them evil?

Do GM's actually get away with putting in red and green guys like this without considering who they actually are and why they are acting out that silly riddle? Or was that part of Giant's joke?

[Durin]

Of course! I'd be honoured, whmice. Would you like to get some dinner first?

HAHAHAHAHA man she walked into that one

[Bilbo27]

i don't get the red vs green guy, but hey, I'm just stupid. I do believe Haley would have to have an alignment check after that, but again, they are trying to finish 3 quests by what ever means necessary, so in that issue, I believe she is not doing an evil deed, just quickly avoiding a 10 comic spread of V trying to deduce the answer. (haha)

hey, just noticed I was promoted from a pixie to a dwarf in the playground. WHOOOHOOOO!!!!

[Messy]

I just want to say that even if it was off-topic and not the nicest conversation, I enjoyed reading CS and Felinoid's argument. ;D

And for people that don't know, even though you won't read this anyway, so I don't know why I bother: Rich was at Origins last week and therefore could not make any comics. Unfortunately, the schedule is still 2 comics a week "randomly," or whenever he gets time.

When someone says "bite me," it means that they are expressing extreme annoyance at someone's comment (i.e. "You are so ugly!" "Bite me."). Since the green guy was the lier, it was funny that he was saying, "Wow, you didn't screw that up," and "Don't bite me."

Also, I believe in the Giant's world of OOTS D&D, the main characters are allowed to go to extremes to make the comic funny, even if it can be illogical afterwards (such as Haley shooting someone that may have a good alignment). ;D

For anyone who's confused that the OOTS never asked them which way was the right way, when they first got to the red and green guys (before Elan pointed out the sign), Roy asked them which way was correct. All they had to do was remember their answers, and when it was proven who was the lier and the truth-teller, they could tell which path was correct.

Edit: You are promoted from Pixie to Dwarf, Barbarian, and Titan based on your post count. Then there are the mods and the "Giant," which is higher than Titan and that no one but authorized members can reach.

[Bilbo27]

thanks for the info. I did notice the correct path to take from scene 2. I did like the cmic as well. Can't wait for the 3rd test!!!

[charik]

Also, I believe in the Giant's world of OOTS D&D, the main characters are allowed to go to extremes to make the comic funny, even if it can be illogical afterwards (such as Haley shooting someone that may have a good alignment). ;D
Haley is either CG or CN. I really don't have any problems with her action compared to her alignment.

I had a CG character do normally evil acts for the greater good of the party, and no one had problems with that. Casting mind control spells on other party members, human sacrifice, whatever.

[yuccadude]

Oh yeah, anyone got a translation for the Haleyspeak in the last panel? :P. Wonder what she said... ;)