Book 2 – Text Updates 037

[name lips]

HAH! I just realized why they won't make more Summon Perfect Warlord scrolls.

Only one Warlord can be the Perfect Warlord. That somebody is Parson, Lord Hamster.

All subsequent castings would do is port Parson around to whoever had most recently cast the spell.

So there will never be multiple Perfect Warlords. They could mass produce those scrolls if they wanted, there would still be only one Parson.

[Smoker]

HAH! I just realized why they won't make more Summon Perfect Warlord scrolls.

Only one Warlord can be the Perfect Warlord. That somebody is Parson, Lord Hamster.

All subsequent castings would do is port Parson around to whoever had most recently cast the spell.

So there will never be multiple Perfect Warlords. They could mass produce those scrolls if they wanted, there would still be only one Parson.

Pure. Genius.

[kagato23]

HAH! I just realized why they won't make more Summon Perfect Warlord scrolls.

Only one Warlord can be the Perfect Warlord. That somebody is Parson, Lord Hamster.

All subsequent castings would do is port Parson around to whoever had most recently cast the spell.

So there will never be multiple Perfect Warlords. They could mass produce those scrolls if they wanted, there would still be only one Parson.

What I suspect will happen, eventually, possibly directly related to the actions that Parson is about to do involving the GK, is that a similar spell could be created. To summon somebody or somebody's that can and/or have "beat Lord Hamster" Which will result in at least one of his friends being summoned. Possibly with them keeping their ruthless artifact if they get one to explain why they might go through with a fight against him.

But that won't be the "perfect warlord" spell, just something made using the same principles (and I think multiple friends could show up since the caster/s might well realize that no one warlord could beat the perfect one, but multiple really good ones possibly could (and have if you consider that his friends must have beat him at least once in all those games they played)

But even mass produced, all that would be is a "summon very good warlord" spell. I suspect your right, any other side that tried the SPW spell is going to teleport Parson to their side. And that'd get pretty useless pretty quickly even if it happened; one of the sides would just disband him to avoid the problem of him being used against them.

[zilfallon]

But that won't be the "perfect warlord" spell, just something made using the same principles (and I think multiple friends could show up since the caster/s might well realize that no one warlord could beat the perfect one, but multiple really good ones possibly could (and have if you consider that his friends must have beat him at least once in all those games they played)

his friends must have beat him at least once? I think you got something wrong here: In games, the GM's job is NOT to defeat the players, so most of the time, players win. But Parson's last game showed us an exception where he made winning VERY hard. But still, GM's goal is to present challanges to players which they'll be able to defeat. That's the point. So I think Parson "lost" against his friends most of the time. Even so, as I've mentioned a few pages before, I don't think his friends could defeat someone who dedicated his entire life to strategy. People said "yes but Parson is someone who takes gaming too seriously, so i don't think he can tolerate incapable players" I agree with that, but I'm still saying that "being good enough to be selected as player by Parson" is very different than "being good enough to actually defeat Parson in an all-out battle"

[CorrTerek]

his friends must have beat him at least once? I think you got something wrong here: In games, the GM's job is NOT to defeat the players, so most of the time, players win.

He's not the GM. They're not roleplaying. They're wargaming, and Parson plays one side and his players play another. He has to play to win, because otherwise, what's the point? Wargaming is a little different from roleplaying.

[Ditto]

The PWL is a weapon. Folks have called it a nuke, and drawn parallels to the Pax Romana.

If you have multiple nukes, the best case scenario for peace is a stalemate due to Mutually Assured Destruction - in which, as friend computer famously said, the only winning move is not to play.

In Erfworld, MAD is not an option. "If you ruthlessly and brilliantly attack us, then we'll do the same! So... let's both not do that and glare acros the iron curtain!" Can't happen.

Whether you spread PWLs around the world at each corner of the erfglobe or not, multiple PWLs would accelerate entropy and bring war to a new level, not cause an end to it by massive outbursts of diplomacy. Parson has said he doesn't like to fight, but once he's stuck with a situation, he always plays to his fullest and goes for the kill. He doesn't wimp out and do-nothing to lose on purpose and thus excuse him from having to make choices.

[kagato23]

But that won't be the "perfect warlord" spell, just something made using the same principles (and I think multiple friends could show up since the caster/s might well realize that no one warlord could beat the perfect one, but multiple really good ones possibly could (and have if you consider that his friends must have beat him at least once in all those games they played)

his friends must have beat him at least once? I think you got something wrong here: In games, the GM's job is NOT to defeat the players, so most of the time, players win. But Parson's last game showed us an exception where he made winning VERY hard. But still, GM's goal is to present challenged to players which they'll be able to defeat. That's the point. So I think Parson "lost" against his friends most of the time. Even so, as I've mentioned a few pages before, I don't think his friends could defeat someone who dedicated his entire life to strategy. People said "yes but Parson is someone who takes gaming too seriously, so i don't think he can tolerate incapable players" I agree with that, but I'm still saying that "being good enough to be selected as player by Parson" is very different than "being good enough to actually defeat Parson in an all-out battle"

Well, that's why I said at least once. Probably a lot more often, but we don't know if this is the first time he tried to make it really hard or not. I'm sure either way, he was good enough at what he did that they all had fun, or they wouldn't keep playing with him. A constant stream of losses would be appealing to very few people. But that wouldn't even matter. If the spell is "Summon someone/s who have/can beat Lord Hamster" then they would still be the people most likely summoned in such an event. Considering what passes for war in this world, it'd be his gamers, who have "beat" him by winning his scenarios, who'd be most likely to get the call. I doubt the technicality of how how hard he was trying when they beat him (and obviously, we can assume he's not going "rocks fall, everybody dies" every time they go into a cave and whatnot) would factor into the spell.

But knowing more about him then anybody else, and having at least an understanding of the same sort of lateral thinking that he's using to break this world, I'm betting that they actually would end up being a far greater threat to him strategically then anything else he's come across yet. Even Charlie's best threat against Parson was literally made in part by asking Parson how to do it.

[effataigus]

his friends must have beat him at least once? I think you got something wrong here: In games, the GM's job is NOT to defeat the players, so most of the time, players win.

He's not the GM. They're not roleplaying. They're wargaming, and Parson plays one side and his players play another. He has to play to win, because otherwise, what's the point? Wargaming is a little different from roleplaying.

Point taken, but it does seem that there is an element of "GM" to the role that Parson was intending to play in that scenario. His stated goal for the game was not to win, but to force the other players to win brilliantly... which sounds more like a GM than an opponent. And an interesting GM at that!

I like this idea of "find me someone who has beaten Parson." For those arguing whether the players beat the GM, there are many other possible phrasings that would have the same effect: "find me someone who has faced Parson and lived!"

Regarding the "perfect" in SPW... I think we're confusing perfect with best! I know a handful of people who are perfect SAT test takers because they are flawless under this particular metric. Are they the best SAT test takers though? Clearly, no more than one of them is. I'm pretty sure that Parson isn't the best possible warlord. He's fantastic, but the mere implication that Stanley had some say in who popped out suggests that there was some wiggle room in who would be summoned, and it is therefore very unlikely that Stanley's requirements just happened to land the absolute best.

Erfworld does seem headed towards the scenario that Parson was originally intending. Another 100 turns of conquest a la summer updates from now, and I could see book 3 being Parson's army bearing down on the last remaining side (Charlescomm?) when the MK whips out 4 SPW spells and sets the players loose on him. Parson may be an awesome gamer, but his players have his dice

And for maximum melodrama, it were Charlescomm left, it would be undead, spiders, dwagons, trolls, gobwins, and hobgobwins against angels and teddy bears. That battle was supposed to be between all that is vile unspeakable and so on vs. all that is good. The arkendish is also the perfect artifact to be in the hands of players... since there is no force on Earth that can keep 4 people sitting around a table from talking out of character and constantly planning the minutiae of the battle that they're in.

[oslecamo2]

The PWL is a weapon. Folks have called it a nuke, and drawn parallels to the Pax Romana.

If you have multiple nukes, the best case scenario for peace is a stalemate due to Mutually Assured Destruction - in which, as friend computer famously said, the only winning move is not to play.

Clearly when all the dust settles, the tardy elves will be the big winners!

In Erfworld, MAD is not an option. "If you ruthlessly and brilliantly attack us, then we'll do the same! So... let's both not do that and glare acros the iron curtain!" Can't happen.

Whether you spread PWLs around the world at each corner of the erfglobe or not, multiple PWLs would accelerate entropy and bring war to a new level, not cause an end to it by massive outbursts of diplomacy. Parson has said he doesn't like to fight, but once he's stuck with a situation, he always plays to his fullest and goes for the kill. He doesn't wimp out and do-nothing to lose on purpose and thus excuse him from having to make choices.

Precisely my point earlier on this thread. Pretty much everybody in Erfworld is born to fight. Even Hamster with his inner doubts doesn't hesitate to put in motion plans to give him the upper hand at any costs.

Hamster didn't came to play. He came to win!

[effataigus]

Clearly when all the dust settles, the tardy elves will be the big winners!

Haha nice!

[BLANDCorporatio]

It's more than about time we finally got to see the Tardy Elves.

I wonder if they look like The Doctor.

[fjolnir]

Wouldn't those be TardIS elves, and be either late but just when they are needed or so early they are almost useless?

[wrecan]

It seems pretty clear from the current update that Janis arranged for Marie, Hubble, and a thinkamancer to link up and create the Summon Perfect Warlord scroll. They only made one, and they could make more, but for whatever reason, Marie and Janis don't think that wise at this point. When Janis narrates that "[t]he Thinkamancers only sort of thought they knew", I assume that means the thinkamancer in the link is either given a false reason fro creating the scroll, or he is in on it, and is telling his fellow thinkamancers a false reason for creating the scroll.

So, the only people who are part of the plan are Janis, Marie, and Wanda. The predictamancers know, because they can see the future, and the thinkamancers know a little, because they can read minds or links or something. And Hubble knows because he was the findamancer required for the scroll-crafting.

Here's a new question...

Wanda knew the plan and Parson's crucial part in it. Why did she accept Parson's demotion from Chief Warlord, and Ansom's promotion? Part of me thinks she realizes she can push Stanley only so far. So she accepted Ansom, if only for the bonus he provided, and continued to consult Parson informally as much as she could. I imagine she also put Ansom in vulnerable positions (like setting him with the isolated force at Exposition Bridge) in the hopes that something might happen to him, so Stanley might recant and make Parson chief warlord again -- which he did, but only due to Maggie's meddling.

Also, remember that Maggie is a thinkamancer. She is one of the people that Janis said "only sort of" think they know why Parson was summoned. For what purpose does Maggie think Parson was summoned? Does Maggie have yet another secret she has been hiding from Parson? Or was she kept out of the loop because she was part of the Maggie-Jack-Misty link-up while Parson's scroll was crafted and Parson summoned?

Food for thought.

[joosy]

Here's a new question...

Wanda knew the plan and Parson's crucial part in it. Why did she accept Parson's demotion from Chief Warlord, and Ansom's promotion? Part of me thinks she realizes she can push Stanley only so far.

Wanda believes in Fate. She is also following a set of Predictions - the main one being that she would attune to an Arkentool. It is not clear how 'in' she is on Janis and Marie's entire plan - just the parts that involve her directly. She does vette every one of Ansom's strategies by Parson but does not seem to be concerned that he is not CWL. That would indicate that Parson being CWL is not part of her predictions. The fact that Wanda has not returned to the Magic Kingdom since being attuned also means that, barring messages via thinkagrams/hat magic, she has had no contact with Marie and is following Fate on a path towards other unfulfilled predictions.

Building on what I commented earlier; most of the denizens of Faq that we have seen have a reckless, almost suicidal devotion to Fate and take huge risks that make those around them consider them deranged. It may be that the entire culture of Faq was a slavish devotion to Fate and they accepted that the destruction of themselves and their kingdom was necessary in order for them to achieve their overall goal of an end to the constant state of war on Erf.

Also, remember that Maggie is a thinkamancer. She is one of the people that Janis said "only sort of" think they know why Parson was summoned. For what purpose does Maggie think Parson was summoned? Does Maggie have yet another secret she has been hiding from Parson? Or was she kept out of the loop because she was part of the Maggie-Jack-Misty link-up while Parson's scroll was crafted and Parson summoned?
Food for thought.

I believe Janis was referring to the thinkamancers involved in the forging of the SPWL scroll. I don't think she meant all thinkamancers. Maggie believes in Parson and is loyal to him based on what she saw him do during the Battle of Gobwin Knob.

[wrecan]

I believe Janis was referring to the thinkamancers involved in the forging of the SPWL scroll. I don't think she meant all thinkamancers.

Why would multiple thinkamancers be necessary? In all the links we've seen, only one thinkamancer is needed. in fact, we've never had any indication that any caster cooperation would need multiple casters of the same school. If Janis meant to indicate the thinkamancer who assisted in the scroll-making, he would have named him/her as she named Hubble. At a minimum, she'd have referenced one thinkamancer.

I think it more likely that Janis assumes (rightly or not) that thinkamancers share info through links. (Maybe thinkamancers are notorious gossips.)

But you are right that it's probably limited to Magic Kingsdom thinkamancers (or a subset thereof). For Bunny -- Transylvito's thinkamancer -- seems to have no knowledge of Parson at all. If she had, she would have told Don King and/or Caesar (unless she's in on the plan, which I find exceptionally unlikely).

Maggie believes in Parson and is loyal to him based on what she saw him do during the Battle of Gobwin Knob.

The question isn't why Maggie is loyal to Parson, but whether Maggie is included in the "thinkamancers" that "only sort of" know Janis and Marie's plan. You've convinced me that she isn't.

[Syal]

The whole multiple SPWL discussion makes me wonder if Charlie wasn't summoned in the same fashion. His plans seem almost like someone toying with his opponents; he just wants to see how big he can make his army before he wipes everybody out, and he makes sure nobody gets so powerful that they can pose a real threat. Add the fact that he saw an exploit for Parson that wouldn't have worked had Faq stayed there, the whole turn-ending spell, and the "more than perfect" comment, it seems possible that he's the result of an earlier spell, though probably not from the same people or for the same reasons.

[wrecan]

The whole multiple SPWL discussion makes me wonder if Charlie wasn't summoned in the same fashion.

I wondered that too. If anybody else might qualify as the PWL, it would be Charlie. if it was made, it wasn't by Janis, though. She seems to be under the impression that the invented the spell. It would be interesting to learn that Marie had cast the spell earlier and summoned Charlie. Maybe she originally had the Arkendish, and used it in a link with a Findamancer to summon Charlie. She looks for someone who can wage war, but has no interest in conquest, thinking thiese are the qualities she needs to end war.

Charlie immediately attunes to the Arkendish, which abruptly breaks the link, killing the Findamancer. Marie tells Charlie her vision to end war with his help, and Charlie rebels, declaring that he loves making war. He will use the Arkendish to wage war unceasingly, not for conquest, but for its own sake. He starts out as a barbarian, and eventually establishes Charlescomm as a base of operations.

Marie flees to the bubble kingdom of FAQ, where she reconsiders her plan. She realizes her mistake -- the Perfect Warlord must be unaware of his larger role or he might rebel against it. She also finds Wanda and realizes her destiny to attune to an Arkentool. Perhaps she will even get the dish back from Charlie! Of course, it doesn't work that way.

Still, that's my epileptic tree for the day!

[Oberon]

We've already seen a bit of that. He's said to be one of the most popular casters pre-decrypted. The only connection that he has to Wanda or the SPW spell is that he's on the same side as the two. And he's still been subjected to shunning and outright violence because he's the nearest target for them to vent on. The neutrality of the Magic Kingdom is starting to unravel - no one likes the decryption, and some casters are proving themselves willing to deny GK business because of it.

Good points. Which reinforces the disparate nature of the MK, with Janis, Marie, and their fellow conspirators intentionally crafting a scroll for GK (at least Marie intended it for Wanda, a GK unit), and other MK casters refusing to sell to Sizemore, a caster on the same side.
But some difficulty in purchasing healomancy scrolls is a fairly long step from GK being cut off from MK goods and services. Even now Janis and Marie are watching and rooting for Parson, their hopes for breaking Erfworld.

If there's been anything that's actually portrayed the MK like this, I'd like to see it please. I myself don't remember seeing trimancer links in the MK, or any unit in the MK that isn't a caster - dolls, golems, and uncroaked can't enter the MK, so maybe they can't even be created in the MK? Indeed, the point of the MK is that the casters aren't geared up to go to war. And as far as we know if a side does fear an attack by the MK, there's an easy solution - seal up the portal.

Lots to discuss here. We know that the MK employs caster links to create items, so we don't have to be shown pictures to accept that it does happen.
As for the non-caster units, I agree that this is speculative. We haven't seen these units in the MK, some think that since they are not living that they can enter but I am skeptical. I don't think it is relevant, however, as the odds in any direct assault are still ridiculously in favor of the MK vs. the 5 or so attacking casters. And that is assuming that casters ordered to attack the MK would even do so, or perhaps simply enter and turn.
As for sealing up a portal, this is also speculative. We don't know how they are created, if they just come with any city or capitol site, or if it is possible for them to be destroyed without also destroying the city they are in. To much unknown here, and no evidence to support any theory on portal sealing/destruction.

Even Charlie's best threat against Parson was literally made in part by asking Parson how to do it.

Hmmm, kinda. Charlie had the force he needed to defeat the GK garrison and take Parson and the bracer. He only asked first if 8 (I think that's the right count) archons could do it, and when the answer was 'no' he then asked "how many archons do I need to take the GK garrison?" and got that count from Parson, and then sent them. (My own theory is that Charlie can teleport archons using the dish. Perhaps only from his city. And that he had 8 archons handy, but needed to port in the remaining force he would need to take the GK garrison. But that is incidental to this discussion.) Charlie could win, and he knew it, he just wanted to do it with the least amount of archons which could otherwise be off earning him shmuckers elsewhere.

And speaking of Charlie, and revisiting a point from earlier in the thread, I thought of another reason why Charlie wants Parson out of the picture so badly. He's humiliated. Parson has not just outguessed him but consistently turned his best schemes back on him, even profiting at his expense (the bit where he examined Charlie's smart decision to avoid letting him out of the Mathamancy deal and informed Charlie that he had gained far more than Charlie had in that conversation?). Charlie is bitter and furious about being beaten like that, not to mention the horrendous security breach that the Decrypted Archons represent. His primary motive in eliminating Parson may be less fear of his power and more seeking revenge for outsmarting him.

It's possible, but I don't see Charlie as being that way. He has never expressed this to anyone we've seen him speak to, but given his enigmatic nature this is not a huge support against your theory. The archons have been GK units for so long now that the security issue is long past being relevant. Charlie knows that Parson is no fool, and Charlie should simply assume that Parson knows everything that the archons could possibly tell Parson about Charlie. But in the conversations Charlie has had with Parson Charlie hasn't seemed to be bitter, even if he acknowledges their rivalry. I think Charlie genuinely believes that Parson is a threat to the Erfworld status quo, and that status quo is the method Charlie uses to build his own source for positive upkeep. And you can recognize that a person is a threat to your livelihood without hating them as an individual, or feeling humiliated and bitter about them.

[Oberon]

The Positive Upkeep Discussion

I said it is likely possible to reach upkeep positive or better by taming dwagons to harvest on the same turn you get them [...]

Ah, I missed that, thanks for the correction. And it's a good point which should help a Side such as GK to trend towards positive upkeep.

What Parson was saying is its impossible for a side in Erfworld to support itself without fighting.
Charlie might be able to with his single city and telecom industry.
The original Faq supported itself by selling its army as mercenary forces.
GK has massive resources in its gems, but still runs in a negative upkeep just like any other kingdom.

I think that when you say "without fighting" you mean "without expanding through fighting", not "without any fighting at all." Assuming that I am correct:
Charlie can, obviously. With only one city providing income, and no CWL to reduce the city upkeep, he must be on positive upkeep or he wouldn't be able to maintain such a huge archon army. But his methods include hiring out archons to fight.
FAQ did also, but also hired out units to fight.
GK might be able to, especially using the method fjolnir detailed above. The gems will run out, they did before. I suppose it's possible to tri-mancer or bi-mancer link specifically to allow Sizemore to locate more hidden gem deposits, but unless they are renewable this is still a finite solution. With the combination of archon scouting and Stanley taming, harvesting feral dwagons might be key for a positive upkeep GK. But that's just a single Side. The 'fix' that the MK conspirators need is one which can apply to all Sides, or a single Side which conquers all other Sides and is then able to maintain a neutral or positive upkeep.

[joosy]

Why would multiple thinkamancers be necessary? In all the links we've seen, only one thinkamancer is needed.

Probably there was just one but I imagine this spell involved more than one trimancer linkup. Also, they may have needed more than one master class thinkamancer to unravel the linkup(s) when done (much like what they did for maggie/sizemore/wanda)