It's Wednesday, so please remember to go to the Sluggy Store and throw money at Pete.


-----
Vote for Sluggy Freelance at Top Web Comics.
Please remember to vote everyday!

Since no one has ever seen the thing how do they know there is only one monster. There could be multiple monsters of the same type, or multiple monsters of different types.

I guess they know there is only the one due to giant footprints and treeline damage. {checks strips where we see the monster} Mega Daebo jumped directly on the wagon so it left no footprints and didn't damage any tree lines (as far as I can tell).

Also: Torg and Riff are real gamers. They totally forgot about their witch quest for this side-quest.

They went out to hunt monsters, so from this point of view the witch quest ist the side-quest and the monster hunt is the main quest.
But they are probably connected...

Hey, this is no spec, in the Sluggyverse everything is somehow connected!

Apparently the little girl's parents survived and the mayor didn't mention anyone dying; the monster only grabs draft-animals.

Unfortunately ... Nope!
The parents weren't on the cart. The little girl said that she wanted to see Mommy and Daddy in Humpshir (where today's strip takes place). And the woman on the cart was a adressed as "yer grandma" which indicates that this couple were the grandparents of the little girl...

I'm confused. The definition of "gem" is "a precious or semi-precious stone". With that definition, can a gem be useless?

I suppose that useless is different than valueless, but if the gem has value, then it's useful, no?

What's precious to some cultures/time lines, might be useless in others.

To name two examples:

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_an ... _gold.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulip_mania

Diamonds are only so expensive because they tell us they are. And we fell for it through decades of marketing.

It's just a rock.

Much like silver and gold, gems are basically "useless" (my term for an item having no practical use). Now a days we have industrial cutters, lasers, and circuit boards, but to most people all gems are "worthless" and back in the day they didn't even have these high tech uses.
But they do have "value" (my made up term for having monetary value attached).

But in D&D some gems can be used in spells (making them highly desired) while other are not (making them garbage).

My fellow European, I don't see your point. Kar98 (I don't know where he's from) just mentioned that some things were cosidered precious to some cultures/time lines and valueless to others.

Tulips are a fitting example. They are very cheap today but were very expensive in 1636/37 in the Netherlands. That's a widely accepted fact and your quote doesn't disprove any price tables.
I don't see why it matters, how many people were involved, went bankrupt or were sent to prison.

Torg and Riff have been all about killing monsters for quite a long time (http://archives.sluggy.com/book.php?cha ... 2016-04-15).

Well that started quite the conversation. But the point was missed. "Gem" by definition is "precious or semi-precious". That suggest "usefulness" even if it's use is only defined by an artificial value. "Useless gem" is therefore a misnomer. If this society considers them truly useless, then he could have used a term like "Pretty rock," "shiny crystal," or "colorful stone;" none of which imply value or usefulness.

On the other hand, I suppose he could have been being snarky by pointing out that this thing 'of value' is actually just useless.

Given the following context of starving to death, I'd go firmly with your snarky explanation. Perceived value of the usefulness of aesthetics drops significantly at death's door.