OOTS #1235 - The Discussion Thread

[hroþila]

*scrubbed*

[pendell]

Red is for moderator action. Everything else is whatever you want to itnto be.

Blue is quite popular to denote sarcasm. There is no other consensus I am aware of. Except for white, which to hide text for later.

I used purple once to "autoscrub", that is to say, to remove something I wrote, that in hindsight I doubt was rules-compliant but I didn't want to use red, not beind a moderator.

Red is also used in-story for fiends. Is there something the mods are trying to tell us?

Tongue-in-cheek ,

Brian P.

[pendell]

Also telling how many people who complained vociferously about the last two strips haven't posted at all on this one. A more cynical person might think they don't care about the story and just wanted to complain about something they saw as paralleling real-life issues that they don't want to think about.

A less cynical person would posit this is pretty much a humor strip and doesn't impinge on issues important to people, so they have nothing to say. I've commented less on this one because I didn't find that much interesting to say. Unlike Roy and Durkon's dialog, which spawned many pages of fascinating discussion (and got multiple threads locked repeatedly), there's really not much to:

:Haley: I'm holding a rat skull.
:Vaarsuvius: I'm preparing for battle.
:Elan: I'm bored.
:Belkar: I'm making a cynical observation about Roy and Durkon
Which, incidentally, I view as true as far as it goes: Roy and Durkon DO over-think things. But just because Roy and Durkon sometimes try to be good doesn't mean Belkar's any kind of role model.


I've said it before; this comic is about characters and their development NOT about propagandizing for real world views. Though Rich certainly has them and isn't shy about sharing those. Besides, even if Rich did want to make the comic all about certain issues , we've still had two full pages of serious dialog so it's now time for some comic relief. This IS supposed to be a humor comic, after all.

I admit I sometimes miss the zaniness of the snack food trio and Fruit Pie the Sorcerer. I know Rich has grown as a writer and as an adult human being, but I was already an adult human being when I started reading these stories. I don't need a comic to talk to me about serious issues because I deal with serious issues in the real world all the time. I come to comics for light-hearted fun and escape from the daily grind.

Which isn't to say I want Rich to shut up and be a clown; that isn't his style or where he's going as a person. But the comic used to be more funny and less serious.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Fyraltari]

*scrub the post, scrub the quote*

*scrubbed*

[Feruk]

I come to comics for light-hearted fun and escape from the daily grind.

Which isn't to say I want Rich to shut up and be a clown; that isn't his style or where he's going as a person. But the comic used to be more funny and less serious.

Such escapism is viewed by the Giant as explicitly bad, so I doubt we'll get that kind of thing again. The only worth in fantasy [maybe in all, not got the quote to hand] writing is in how it's applicable to the real world, as per WoG. Still doesn't stop someone like me not being invested and enjoying, though :) That and the overreliance on print-only do impact my enjoyment a bit, honestly, but it's still fun enough, and yes, he has to sell print stuff to make a living - that's how the world works, unfortunately.

[danielxcutter]

Ah, I see you too are a man of culture.

[pendell]

Such escapism is viewed by the Giant as explicitly bad, so I doubt we'll get that kind of thing again. The only worth in fantasy [maybe in all, not got the quote to hand] writing is in how it's applicable to the real world, as per WoG. Still doesn't stop someone like me not being invested and enjoying, though :) That and the overreliance on print-only do impact my enjoyment a bit, honestly, but it's still fun enough, and yes, he has to sell print stuff to make a living - that's how the world works, unfortunately.

Rich has one view, Tolkien has another

I have claimed that Escape is one of the main functions of fairy-stories, and since I do not disapprove of them, it is plain that I do not accept the tone of scorn or pity with which “Escape”is now so often used: a tone for which the uses of the word outside literary criticism give no warrant at all. In what the misusers are fond of calling Real Life, Escape is evidently as a rule very practical, and may even be heroic. In real life it is difficult to blame it, unless it fails; in criticism it would seem to be the worse the better it succeeds. Evidently we are faced by a misuse of words, and also by a confusion of thought. Why should a man be scorned if, finding himself in prison, he tries to get out and go home? Or if, when he cannot do so, he thinks and talks about other topics than jailers and prison-walls? The world outside has not become less real because the prisoner cannot see it. In using escape in this way the critics have chosen the wrong word, and, what is more, they are confusing, not always by sincere error, the Escape of the Prisoner with the Flight of the Deserter. Just so a Party-spokesman might have labelled departure from the misery of the [dictator]'s or any other [tyranny] and even criticism of it as treachery. In the same way these critics, to make confusion worse, and so to bring into contempt their opponents, stick their label of scorn not only on to Desertion, but on to real Escape, and what are often its companions, Disgust, Anger, Condemnation, and Revolt. Not only do they confound the escape of the prisoner with the flight of the deserter; but they would seem to prefer the acquiescence of the “quisling” to the resistance of the patriot. To such thinking you have only to say “the land you loved is doomed” to excuse any treachery, indeed to glorify it.

I have stripped some of the politically loaded terms for the sake of board-friendliness, but the point remains the same. Tolkien saw validity in fantasy and escapism in its own right, not just to the extent it is a reflection of the world around us. The 'air of Numenor', used aright, can inspire people to greater efforts to make a just world, one like the world of the fairy story, rather than the reverse.

I daresay that, even though Tolkien created escapist fiction, his work did indeed have applicability to the real world. If nothing else, Rich would have a harder time writing this strip if he (and the rest of D&D for that matter) were not relentlessly borrowing or parodying Tolkien's work.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Dr.Zero]

Such escapism is viewed by the Giant as explicitly bad, so I doubt we'll get that kind of thing again. The only worth in fantasy [maybe in all, not got the quote to hand] writing is in how it's applicable to the real world, as per WoG. Still doesn't stop someone like me not being invested and enjoying, though :) That and the overreliance on print-only do impact my enjoyment a bit, honestly, but it's still fun enough, and yes, he has to sell print stuff to make a living - that's how the world works, unfortunately.

Oh, see, complaining about the lack of debate? Here a quote which can start a debate. :D

The most value in writing, should be the will of the readers to read the writing.
It is usually associated with pleasure (comedy, romance), but sometimes with other feelings (fighting for the good cause, and something).

This is true even for the... I lack the knowledge of the term, in english... commited writings, maybe?
They are not about being applicable to real world. Applicability has nothing to do with a fantasy story. If one wants something applicable to the real world, uses real world logic on real world facts, not story-logic on complicated and not always so-closely-and-stricly-related metaphors.

Commited writings are, like any other kind of writing, related to the feelings they can create in the reader. Mostly pleasure for the already convinced readers who will find something in the story to "prove" their own opinion.

And, if you as writer are lucky and really really good, maybe convincing someone who didn't agree with your vision of the world, initially. But convincing them not because applicability in real world, but because you moved some other feeling that created a chain reaction in their soul (which here means: "reactive, emotional prone and suggestible mind").

[Ionathus]

Rich has one view, Tolkien has another



I have stripped some of the politically loaded terms for the sake of board-friendliness, but the point remains the same. Tolkien saw validity in fantasy and escapism in its own right, not just to the extent it is a reflection of the world around us. The 'air of Numenor', used aright, can inspire people to greater efforts to make a just world, one like the world of the fairy story, rather than the reverse.

I daresay that, even though Tolkien created escapist fiction, his work did indeed have applicability to the real world. If nothing else, Rich would have a harder time writing this strip if he (and the rest of D&D for that matter) were not relentlessly borrowing or parodying Tolkien's work.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

I really like that Tolkien quote, and it brings up some good points I hadn't thought about! The jail metaphor is effective as well. I do think it's important to distinguish Tolkien starts by assuming the prisoner will attempt to leave first, and then if that's impossible will attempt to think of nicer thoughts. I don't think that's wholly incompatible with Rich's quote about "fiction is important because of what it tells us about the real world" – it kind of feels like two people arriving at a similar conclusion through different angles: that it's important to improve the world you live in, whether through telling aspirational/instructional stories or physically working to change it.

The quote also explores the interesting dynamic between "escapism" vs. "desertion" vs. "rebellion": if I write a story where everything is happy and peachy, does that mean I'm shutting my ears to the problems in my real world? Or does it mean I'm fighting against them in some intangible way, or trying to unpack them for myself and others?

For the record, put me down as also not completely agreeing with Rich's "petty escapism" comment – I just don't think it's that easily simplified (as my blathering, meandering response here can attest).

[pendell]

Oh, see, complaining about the lack of debate? Here a quote which can start a debate. :D

The most value in writing, should be the will of the readers to read the writing.
It is usually associated with pleasure (comedy, romance), but sometimes with other feelings (fighting for the good cause, and something).

This is true even for the... I lack the knowledge of the term, in english... commited writings, maybe?
They are not about being applicable to real world. Applicability has nothing to do with a fantasy story. If one wants something applicable to the real world, uses real world logic on real world facts, not story-logic on complicated and not always so-closely-and-stricly-related metaphors.

Commited writings are, like any other kind of writing, related to the feelings they can create in the reader. Mostly pleasure for the already convinced readers who will find something in the story to "prove" their own opinion.

And, if you as writer are lucky and really really good, maybe convincing someone who didn't agree with your vision of the world, initially. But convincing them not because applicability in real world, but because you moved some other feeling that created a chain reaction in their soul (which here means: "reactive, emotional prone and suggestible mind").

I'm sorry, but I don't know what 'committed writings' are. It's not an English term. Your profile says you're from Italy. What is the term in your native language? Maybe I can do some googling and find out what the correct English analog is.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Dr.Zero]

I'm sorry, but I don't know what 'committed writings' are. It's not an English term. Your profile says you're from Italy. What is the term in your native language? Maybe I can do some googling and find out what the correct English analog is.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

Eh, I tried google, but I suppose it betrayed me. "Scritti impegnati". Which is short for "writings talking about social, politics, and similar issues, which try to explain to the reader what are the problems with the world and, maybe, how to make it a better place. According to the writer's opinions, of course."

[Fyraltari]

I'm sorry, but I don't know what 'committed writings' are. It's not an English term.

There exists a similar term.

[pendell]

There exists a similar term.

Perhaps it is a word, then, simply one I hadn't encountered before. And I've been studying English for four decades. But I suppose there's something to learn every day!

The analog I am familiar with is Utopian literature , in which the author posits an ideal world or country (the word literally means "no place") as a way of critiquing the real world. It's opposite, Dystopia, posits a crapsack world in which all the worst parts of this world are exaggerated , again, for the purpose of Critique. See: Warhammer 40K, Handmaid's Tale.

There's also satire, in which the real world is parodied both for the sake of humor and for the sake of critiquing the real world. Gulliver's Travels is one of the greats in English literature for this phenomenon.

All of these are similar to 'committed writings'. I've just never heard of committed writing referred to as a class. Normally we talk about one of the subclasses: Utopia, Dystopia , Satire.

I would classify OOTS as satire ; specifically, it's poking fun both at RPGs and the way they are often played. I'm not sure it qualifies as a 'committed writing' because, according to Fyaltari's link, a work must have status in society in order to be 'committed writing' and the status of a self-aware stick figure comic is not high . Game of Thrones or Lord of the Rings might qualify from the perspective of status within the gaming community, OOTS doesn't, yet.

It's still a great story with good points to make about the world and great character development besides. That's why I've been reading it for fifteen years, after all.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Dr.Zero]

There exists a similar term.

Ah, I might being in the need to make my excuses to google, then.

The analog I am familiar with is Utopian literature , in which the author posits an ideal world or country (the word literally means "no place") as a way of critiquing the real world. It's opposite, Dystopia, posits a crapsack world in which all the worst parts of this world are exaggerated , again, for the purpose of Critique. See: Warhammer 40K, Handmaid's Tale.

There's also satire, in which the real world is parodied both for the sake of humor and for the sake of critiquing the real world. Gulliver's Travels is one of the greats in English literature for this phenomenon.

All of these are similar to 'committed writings'. I've just never heard of committed writing referred to as a class. Normally we talk about one of the subclasses: Utopia, Dystopia , Satire.

I would classify OOTS as satire ; specifically, it's poking fun both at RPGs and the way they are often played. I'm not sure it qualifies as a 'committed writing' because, according to Fyaltari's link, a work must have status in society in order to be 'committed writing' and the status of a self-aware stick figure comic is not high . Game of Thrones or Lord of the Rings might qualify from the perspective of status within the gaming community, OOTS doesn't, yet.

It's still a great story with good points to make about the world and great character development besides. That's why I've been reading it for fifteen years, after all.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

Yes, utopias and satires can be example. But there is even something more down to earth. Eh, a bland example of that in cinema -mixed with comedy- is "Brassed off". Or, without comedy, "Philadelphia".

[Rrmcklin]

That maybe works for a neutral, but Roy and Durkon are good, not just good, maybe the "goodest" characters in the comic. They both have sacrificed their own lifes to protect others and that wasn't their "duty" at all, they just did it couse they are that good. We are not talking about "normal" people who just live their lifes on their own, being "more or less good", Roy and Durkon are real Heros of Goodness.

And yes, if you are that good, you feel guilty when you realize that you are not doing "your best".

Thinking about it, I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of it has to do with the issues of some people thinking "good people make for bad/boring writing" issues. I think it starts from the reasonable position that perfect characters are boring and such in order to be compelling or relatable they need flaws, but then a lot of people act like flawed people still can't be good or altruistic, and thus comes the complaint about it not making sense that characters like Roy and Durkon, would be thinking of this situation like this despite it fitting with literally everything we know about them.

This isn't the only time it's happened either. I remember when it was revealed that Sigdi gave up the chance to get her arm and husband back to save five strangers how it was "stupid" and "not relatable".

[arimareiji]

*scrub the post, scrub the quote*

Would green be for playing devil's Redcloak's advocate?

[bunsen_h]

But that is "logic" if we are talking about the attack bonus... but that blacksmith is talking about the damage bonus increasing 25% too, and if the greatsword damage is 2d6, a +5 is almost a +50% not a +25%. So i also think is talking about "+4 -> +5" couse then that is a +25% in both attack and dmg bonus, and not "non magical -> +5" couse then the bonus in damage has no sense.

The exact words were that there would be a "corresponding enhancement to damage", not "equal" or "equivalent" much less "25%". "Corresponding" is a pretty loose term.

It never occurred to me that that conversation could imply anything other than that the sword was non-magical before. It was described as "everday [sic] terrestrial steel", which I suppose doesn't necessarily mean that it was non-magical. If a magical weapon is broken and then repaired, does it regain/retain its magic?

Roy blows off the smith's attempt to explain how the "deadly green energy" effect could be counteracted. This suggests (weakly) that Xykon might find a way to protect himself, and also raises the possibility that Roy might find himself in a situation of not wanting to have the effect go off, but not knowing how to exert that control. Something along the lines of wanting to subdue Xykon without destroying him, maybe? -- I'm not familiar with the details of subduing opponents even as they apply to older versions of D&D, let alone in 3.5e.

[Jasdoif]

The exact words were that there would be a "corresponding enhancement to damage", not "equal" or "equivalent" much less "25%". "Corresponding" is a pretty loose term.

It never occurred to me that that conversation could imply anything other than that the sword was non-magical before. It was described as "everday [sic] terrestrial steel", which I suppose doesn't necessarily mean that it was non-magical.

Indeed. I believe "a 25% increase in accuracy" was used to reflect "+5" because "a 25 percentage point increase in accuracy in optimally relevant situations" is even less clear to read, and the enhancement to damage corresponded to the "+5".

---

If a magical weapon is broken and then repaired, does it regain/retain its magic?

No.

Damaging Magic Items
....
Magic items, unless otherwise noted, take damage as nonmagical items of the same sort. A damaged magic item continues to function, but if it is destroyed, all its magical power is lost.

[Fyraltari]

Perhaps it is a word, then, simply one I hadn't encountered before. And I've been studying English for four decades. But I suppose there's something to learn every day!

The analog I am familiar with is Utopian literature , in which the author posits an ideal world or country (the word literally means "no place") as a way of critiquing the real world. It's opposite, Dystopia, posits a crapsack world in which all the worst parts of this world are exaggerated , again, for the purpose of Critique. See: Warhammer 40K, Handmaid's Tale.

There's also satire, in which the real world is parodied both for the sake of humor and for the sake of critiquing the real world. Gulliver's Travels is one of the greats in English literature for this phenomenon.

All of these are similar to 'committed writings'. I've just never heard of committed writing referred to as a class. Normally we talk about one of the subclasses: Utopia, Dystopia , Satire.

My understanding of committed literature is that it is more relevant to talk about committed authors, people whose body of work intend to bring an issue to the front of the public debate. To say, there's something to correct there. It's not a genre of fiction, it's about the intent of the authors. Realist, grounded works can be committed literature, in fact that's what the majority of this literature is. Charles Dickens and MArk Twain are two examples of English-language committed authors that come to mind, yet neither The adventures of Huckleberry Finn nor Oliver Twist fit in either genres you listed.

Fyaltari's

Fy-r-altari.

[bunsen_h]

No.

Hmm. Which could mean that it's "a 25% increase compared to what you'd get if I just reforged it, since even if it was magical before it was broken, that's gone now". So we don't seem to have any solid evidence regarding the sword's magical status before it was broken, apart from the implications of Horace (a high-level fighter) having used it against dragons.

[Quizatzhaderac]

Although I have to admit you may have circumvented my objection, by not phrasing it as "go to sleep".

More innocently than "go to bed ", but less innocently than "go to bed :yawn:", there are dances that are only done after 2 AM.

isn't it 27.62% increase?

percentage point increase. D&D mechanics don't allow a sword to be 5 percent more accurate, because that would be need to depend on the AC of the target and the other attack bonuses.

[Ruck]

A less cynical person would posit this is pretty much a humor strip and doesn't impinge on issues important to people, so they have nothing to say.

Given the nature of the complaints about the strip and that the people who were making them barely if at all commented on the actual comic before or since-- or in any way that wasn't to voice their complaints that, essentially, "How dare you make me think about things!", I'm comfortable with the more cynical view.

Rich has one view, Tolkien has another

Rich is writing this story, Tolkien is not.

[Doug Lampert]

Hmm. Which could mean that it's "a 25% increase compared to what you'd get if I just reforged it, since even if it was magical before it was broken, that's gone now". So we don't seem to have any solid evidence regarding the sword's magical status before it was broken, apart from the implications of Horace (a high-level fighter) having used it against dragons.

And the fact that Shatter worked on it, and shatter doesn't do anything to magical objects.

I agree, that the most likely explanation is "magical sword prior to breaking, and Rich simply forgot that shatter doesn't work on magical weapons," but in fact, the only actual in-comic evidence we have indicates non-magical.

[WanderingMist]

Knowing who's responsible gives you the opportunity to redeem yourself of the evil you've done. What Roy and Durkon are suggesting is they're partially responsible for the goblins' situation, because they benefitted from it. That's not how that works, they're not obligated to do anything. The first two panels of the previous comic, Roy called it "passing the buck." It's not. Roy's just feeling guilt over something he absolutely should not be. Tell the goblins which specific god screwed them over, if their very next act is not to leave Azure City, they're irredeemable villains and deserve the sword.

You are implying that every single goblin living in Azure City was part of the conquering army which is emphatically untrue. You are also assuming that Azure City wasn't originally a goblin settlement that humans invaded and took over long in the past, in which case, by your own logic, the humans should be driven from it and be considered irredeemable for refusing to leave conquered lands.

[arimareiji]

You are implying that every single goblin living in Azure City was part of the conquering army which is emphatically untrue. You are also assuming that Azure City wasn't originally a goblin settlement that humans invaded and took over long in the past, in which case, by your own logic, the humans should be driven from it and be considered irredeemable for refusing to leave conquered lands.

It shouldn't. But sometimes, it astonishes me how quickly people can transition from "Bad things happened to goblins in the past, so what get over it that's how things are now" to "And that's why the goblins in Gobbotopia Azure City should be put to the sword posthaste, because they have something that used to belong to humans".

[bunsen_h]

And the fact that Shatter worked on it, and shatter doesn't do anything to magical objects.

I agree, that the most likely explanation is "magical sword prior to breaking, and Rich simply forgot that shatter doesn't work on magical weapons," but in fact, the only actual in-comic evidence we have indicates non-magical.

I'd argue that in that strip, "shatter!" was a sound effect. Xykon hit the sword with a blast of negative energy, but the spell isn't identified, unlike in earlier panels in which he calls "Magic Missile".

[Jasdoif]

And the fact that Shatter worked on it, and shatter doesn't do anything to magical objects.

I agree, that the most likely explanation is "magical sword prior to breaking, and Rich simply forgot that shatter doesn't work on magical weapons," but in fact, the only actual in-comic evidence we have indicates non-magical.

To be fair, the spell description could be cleaner; like repeating "a single solid, nonmagical object" from the lede sentence instead of using "a single solid object" where it describes the single-target effect.

[Ginasius]

Also, I can't help think but wonder how difficult it would be to try and peel potatoes with a greatsword.

May be they were greatpotatoes.

Ba Dum Tsssssss

[Robots]

may be they were greatpotatoes.

Ba dum tsssssss

AAAARGH! The pun! It BUUUUURNS ME!!!

[j_scheibel]

I really wanted Banjo the Clown to make an appearance at the end. ah well, there is still time :)