Quote:
Originally Posted by sir_pudding
What is the issue then?
|
No "issue." I'm arguing that I detect a criticism of the genre in the way the unrealism of DF is presented. And I get that there is a respect for the genre as it is, and don't think that the two are mutually exclusive. I walked back my "demeans" phrasing because that didn't get at what I was trying to say (and says more about my reaction than it does about what I'm reacting to). And none of this is to suggest that the way DF is presented is "wrong" in any way. It's not mine; it is what it is. And I'll eat it all up and ask for seconds.
But the humor in DF is not the humor in other genre RPGs. It's self-aware in a
different way. A way that the writers have multiply pointed out. I sense there is a critique of the underlying assumptions about hack-and-slash gaming that goes beyond the tongue-in-cheek elements you find elsewhere. Whether that's intentional or not is beyond my ability to determine. Perhaps as Kromm suggested it's a requirement of the context in which the series is being written. And intent does matter; I am not a post-modernist by any stretch. Regardless, I cannot imagine paragraphs 2 and 4 of DF1 showing up anywhere else (or, really, showing up in the DF supplements by other writers). I see what its purpose is. I'm on board with said purpose. But I feel that it overshoots the mark. (And that's where my observations become critique themselves.)
(Edit: fixed wrong paragraph reference)