Ep 55 of The Letters Page - Parse

I'm back, did you miss me? That's because you're not as accurate as today's hero, Parse.

Why yes, I might have not posted for 2 weeks just for that crappy joke…

Listen to today’s podcast here.

They say the quote on Segmentation Fault is from the fight between Parse and Revenant, just that Revenant was muttering it under his breath.

But in Editors Note 11, they said it was an instance where the art and quote don't match -- that Marc Benedetto said it to her in her backstory.

• If Revenant didn't know the identities of Setback and Parse until after the company was sold to him after Vengeance, then what's the explanation from Vengeance #4 when he tells Parse that she's fired? More in Parse's episode, but part of the side story going on here is that Kim, having the ability to see connections and weaknesses now, is able to piece together that RevoCorp is owned by Baron Blade and goes to the boss to show him and figure out what's going on. "That's ridiculous!" "But what about all this evidence?" "You shouldn't even have access to those files. I think it goes without saying that you're fired." The flavor text and art on "Segmentation Fault" don't coincide.

So what gives, C+A?

Yeah I was confused by that as well since I believe that was my question.  Maybe they realized it did match up after their wall of sticky notes?

Anyways, I thought it was leaning that way based on how they said much earlier that Parse killed Spite but I didn’t expect she would be murder town early on.  

I wonder who's more murdery in the early stories, Parse or Expatriette.

Hard to say.  We didn’t get any kind of kill count with Expat.  

I could feel the bit where they said "Parse could come up with the right answer but wouldn't have the people skills to convince others she really does know what she's talking about" because that's pretty much one of the main stories of my life. :P (I particularly feel like I end up having to say "I told you so" way too often versus what I would prefer regards actually being allowed to avert problems in the first place.)

Otherwise, though, I supposed it's a thing where I'm both very logical AND extremely moral, and in fiction (and sometimes often real life too) you very often only get to have one or the other, pick one.

So part of me's like "yay another super-analytical but also socially-awkward data-oriented person!" and then you get to the part where she's kind of ruthless and cavalier about arrowing things and then the ambivalence sets in.

Though this is less of a complaint against the character and more just me not being sure how to feel about her.

Edit: Almost forgot to register my shock that apparently Prime War is going to tell the story of the end of the Miststorm universe? D: Geez, what are the Prime Wardens going up against?

I really like that they answered my question (and that they got such a kick out of it!) But yeah, the inconsistency in the answer confused me.

Still, great episode, and I was really pleasantly surprised to hear them answer my question from like 20 episodes ago.

Boy, this episode was bananas. :V

I have to assume "end of the Miststorm Universe" is going to signal some kind of reboot or retooling. Given Tactics is being rewritten from he ground-up, rules-wise (from all I've come to understand), it would be fitting.

Not a lot of banter this time around, but I didn't miss it, so C&A shouldn't feel too bad. Crunchy episodes packed full of reveals and story are just fine!

Oh man, but Adam is obviously the cool dad of the Letters Page. First he references Homestarrunner, now the FenslerFilms GI Joe PSAs? :D That made my day.

As an aspie myself I really identify with everything about Parse: How she's not good with people, but great at insulting and making them feel bad; thinking she knows so much more than other people, only to have the consequences blow up on her face; Ignoring certain unwritten rules that everybody else follows, and coming off as ruthless; Feeling a bit like a machine. The murders... Not so much. 

Also, I can confirm this about aspies: All of us can do sweet arrow tricks. 

You thought Oblivaeon came from actual nothingness? No, no, no, no, no. 

Nothingness is the name of his father.

(Mr. Nothingness was my father. Call me Oblivaeon.)

And this time, they're down Nightmist, Tachyon, Ra, La C., Medico, and a host of other people.  Can they X-treme their way out of this one?

If what you say is true, I would like to know why I was not passed on this essential trait. Just because it's not technically AS, technicalities are-

Wait, did I ever try? Be right back.

EDIT: Hey guys, check out what I can do! Oh my gosh this is AWESOME!

That makes a lot of sense now that you put the theory out there. Still makes me feel bad for my favorite band of heroes, tho…

This is sort of me, except it's less that I deliberately ignore unwritten social rules and more that I keep running into the problem that the unwritten social rules make no sense at all compared to the actual observable social rules.

And so then people get mad at me for always coming up with the observable rules instead of the unwritten rules and it's like, "How am I supposed to figure out/follow rules that make literally no sense?" and in turn people seem to react in what looks to me like totally bizarre and random ways.

(Is it possible to only be autistic about social stuff? )

I have a theory that Parse's murder phase being explained by Asperger's syndrome is partly due to the fact that Asperger's wasn't quite as understood in the mid-nineties (where they went into her background, if I remember correctly), and that her more modern portrayal is kind of an apology for that. Not an apology, but... I suck at words. 

Anyway, they didn't answer my question, but I honestly don't mind. It was something very esoteric about which Aboriginal nation she came from. I guessed Wurundjeri, which is the main people whose ancestors occupied what we now call Melbourne; but again, I doubt it's something that the writers (or C and A, for that matter) really would have thought hard about, so I'm not really cut up about it. 

I would also suspect early appearances they probably didn’t even identify her as having Asperger’s Syndrome but that they did identify later on when they delved further into her origins.  

Oh, I got that impression, as well. I just feel like it might have been a situation where a neuroatypical character gets written better as new information is learned about how the brain works. 

Well, one thing I definitly took away from all this is that I've been thinking about Parse's deck totally wrong. I should have been thinking about her as a 'super-computer analyzer' style character opposed to a 'trick archer'.

Guess I'll just have to wait for Sentinels of Earth-Prime to get my trick-archer in Bowman, or further refine my fan-deck. :)

Yeah, I’m kind of curious as to why Parse’s base power is straight-up “deal 2 damage” instead of something like, maybe, “Parse deals 1 target 1 damage, increase the next damage dealt to that target by 1.” That would have (90% of the time) the same effect on the total damage dealt, but would fit a little better thematically.

Agreed; that'd be more thematic and definitely push her farther away from the archer-stereotype, though it might slightly take away from Targeting Arrow.  With that said, I wouldn't have an issue with making the effective text on Targeting Arrow into her base power, then replacing it with a card capable of scanning/manipulating other hero decks.  Perhaps something like, "Reveal the top 3 cards of each Hero's deck.  Place those cards back on top of their relevant decks in any order you choose."

I think her base power fits fine.  She is a taking out people with her bow regularly and she hasn’t had the computer part of her personality take full control.  

It also works well with Parse's backstory.  Original Parse was a straight-up murderer and not a team player.  It might have been nice to see another card that represented more of her story arc (solo vilgilante to team player to Fugue State), but it makes sense as-is.

@MindWanderer and Powerhound:  I grok your arguments, and I don't disagree.  But are we really supposed to be playing "80s-vigilante/murderer/borderline-villain" Parse?  I don't think it's an accident that we first get to play her in Vengeance: the first real event in which she actively works *with* heroes and has her proverbial "Come to Jeebus" moment of "Man...maybe I'm not as infallible as I thought I was."  

Not saying that the base arrow-shot is a-thematic; just that a power that might demonstrate her targeting of weak points might provide something that's more in line with her role as a hero, rather than as a murderous loner.

Again she wasn’t in Fugue State mode until OblivAeon so her base power makes sense since she would be relying more on Archery skill.   Certainly other powers could be used but I don’t see any thematic issue with her base power.  

Also, from a playtesting standpoint, we weren’t super aware of the distinction during playtesting either. We knew she did some of the info stuff, and she had several damage dealing cards. The true nature of her powers wasn’t something we were privy to.

I mean, I’d change the power but leave Targeting Arrow alone - that way, she has several ways to “mark” targets and could even do it multiple times per turn. That seems like it fits the way the character uses her arrows while still allowing her to be murder-y.

Wait, you never use Parse to kill targets with 2 hp left?  Changing the power this way would kill a huge amount of utility.

I use it to plink off targets.  I also combine the power with Critical Multiplier to either take a specific target or make sure my bonus isn’t eaten up by a villain/environment which causes self damage.  

I was actually thinking that Parse's base power could be "1 irreducible projectile damage" - it would reflect the careful targeting well, and while it wouldn't do much damage on its own, it would interact great with Critical Multiplier, Targeting Arrow, and other damage boosters to punch through heavy-DR enemies. 

Well, sure I do, but that’s my point: she’s not supposed to be the trick archer character, as we’ve just learned.

And that leads back into why the power makes sense.  She does make use of her bow but she isn’t doing anything special with her arrows.  

I’m not sure how to get trick archer from her deck, to me it comes across as a very utilitarian deck; she can analyse things, find the weak spots and when she wants to do damage, no frills, she just does damage.
She doesn’t have the fancy tricks in there you might expect from Hawkeye or Green Arrow, especially their earlier stories, so I don’t get the whole trick archer angle from her at all anyway.

She uses a bow? That's about it. :B You're right, though, she never really fit the archetype.

Agreed, which is why I asked the question of "Was she ever in that archer-archetype during the design process."  As it turned out, the answer was an emphatic 'no', which is cool unto itself.

I should re-listen to the episode to verify, but my understanding was that Marc Benedetto did say that at the time of the fight, but was muttering it under his breath in a way that Parse didn't hear.

That's what they said this episode.

In Editors Note 11, they gave a different explanation.