#ignore the anachronisms that’s intentional | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

plantsjustwannahavefun · 6 months

Text

The connection between Izzy and Buttons in S2

Guys, I just realised something about the connection between Izzy and Buttons that could actually explain why Izzy had to die in a way that affirms the show's internal logic instead of actively contradicting it.

So, OFMD has always had a very... interesting relationship with reality. On the surface, it *is* based in reality, of course. As intentionally historically inaccurate as it is, it's still based in real life history. It's not fantasy. And yet, it's always lived in that weird liminal space between reality and fantasy. I would argue that a liberal use of huge intentional anachronisms such as singing a 20th century song in an 18th century show counts as a fantasy element. And death being treated as essentially nonexistent for characters who aren't villains, to the point where it deliberately makes fun of all real life biology and physics laws to make the characters practically unkillable so physical threats can safely be used for non-lethal drama or comedy, that's also a fantasy element. Even things like dream sequences and hallucinations (both ghosts and near death experiences) can also be said to blur the lines between reality and fantasy.

Still, in S1 all of those elements were still used in a way that had plausible deniability. Was it in any way realistic that a character could recreationally stab himself in the guts dozens of times and apparently it was totally safe and risk-free and resulted in nothing more than a scratch as long as you kept to the left side? Of course not. But it's possible to ignore it and let it slide if you try hard enough. It's still not a tangible proof of anything magical.

But what happens in S2? A man turns into a bird. Literally. This could easily have been left intentionally ambiguous, but it wasn't. It happened for real. Buttons got a book of transmogrification, found the right vessel, and bam. He's a seagull now. The first real, tangible act of magic in the book.

Narratively, the purpose of that moment was to make Ed believe that people are capable of change. Including himself. And it doesn't seem like there's anything more to it. But what does this actually mean for the internal logic of the show? It upsets the balance. A show that only had a certain level of subtle magical realism suddenly got a very tangible act of magic. What if OFMD world works just like any typical fantasy world? Meaning that there is such a thing as a certain balance that has to be maintained. So if Buttons got some "extra magic"... This meant that an equal amount of magic had to be taken away from somewhere else, in order to balance out the scales.

Now, who could be said to have an extraordinary amount of OFMD magic this season? None other than Izzy hands. The guy survived not one, not two, but THREE "fake death" experiences. He was now officially part of the unkillable Muppet cast. He even managed to utilise his new wooden leg - which, while adorable and maybe well made, is surely not very well ergonomically suited to replace a real leg - and regain his swordsmanship skills, and by episode 8 he barely had a limp anymore. And wasn't his performance just pure magic? Not just the massive anachronism but the way he had it in himself to sing a song like that in the first place, dressed in beautiful drag? The way he seemed to have such a massive amount of perfect character growth in such a short amount of time?

Well, this is what I'm saying: Izzy had to die as a consequence of Buttons becoming a bird. Izzy was the character whose OFMD magic got taken away to compensate. He lost the absurdist comedy style OFMD armour that he and every other character had this season. So of course he got killed by some stupid stray bullet that injured him offscreen, the way you'd see happen in real life, or in "serious" shows like Black Sails or Game of Thrones. And in his left side, to boot. Because the magic no longer applies. Of course getting shot in the left side of your stomach would be just about as lethal on average. And that's how we got that completely serious and dramatic deathbed scene too. Because that's what happens in real life or "realistic" TV shows. That's what happens when that little bit of subtle magic is lost.

#Izzy hands #ofmd buttons #ofmd #our flag means death #ofmd s2 #ofmd s2 spoilers

31 notes · View notes

dailyadventureprompts · 2 years

Note

Why is your writing so dense with modernistic moralism? It seems like a losing approach, fighting against the structure of the game systems you write for instead of the more intriguing project of embracing past mindsets—not the recent past, which is boringly wrong—but more distant, wildly ‘wrong’ (or perhaps merely different if you’re feeling postmodern) of so much of history—instead of these bizarre pastiches of modern morals shaped like a caricature of the past struggling to withstand their own internal contradictions and the rigours of the medium

/srs

Alright, I'm not sure whether you're honestly trying to learn about a different point of view here, or if you're just upset that a content creator you follow isn't reinforcing your world view. So I'm going to give a good faith answer to your question first (part a), and then rip your argument apart for the entertainment of others like an Edwardian doctor in an operating theatre (part b). Feel free to respond to whichever part best matches with your actual intent.

Part A: The basis of your premise is flawed because D&D has never been a game about historical accuracy, and thus there is no "historical mindset" to return to. From it's earliest days d&d has been a work of fantasy as evidenced by all the dragons and wizards and spaceships, and like all works of fantasy what's included in the world is a matter of preference on behalf of its creators.

Like all creatives my work represents my own values, values that are shared by a large segment of the population and an increasingly large (if not dominant) part of the RPG market. However much you'd like to think that adherence to/emulation of the past is a virtue, most of the hobby flat out disagrees, preferring anachronism with allowances for genre conceit.

When it comes to morals, it's a simple fact that I and those like me don't find it fun to be racist/sexist/generally bigoted not only because those things are blemishes against humanity, but because we have had to overcome many of those prejudices ourselves including when we were getting into this hobby. We are well acquainted with bigotry, why would we wish to glorify it when we ourselves are its victims?

Part B: If you're wondering why my work is so full of moralizing, it's because I'm a moral person who's trying to make the world a better place with his art. Unlike you, who's evidently so behind the times that you need to pretend to be in the past so that you can pass your prejudice off as "historically accurate".

I'm very interested in what you mean by "fighting against the structure of the game systems" because newsflash, the game systems can change. The rules are something we made up because we thought they'd work and where they've broken down we've begun replacing them with something we think would work better. Same goes for the narrative conventions that the hobby has built up over the past 50 years, if something doesn't work we fix it, we move on, and life improves for everyone. That's the exact same ethos behind the "modernistic moralism" you seem to have such a problem with.

As for a "losing approach", I hate to break it to you anon but our victory is inevitable. D&D is for the queers now, the hobby caters to us more than it does you and in a few short years we'll be the ones publishing the thing. Same goes for all pop culture, though it's a long and bloody battle conservatism is losing the culture war and pretty soon the talking points of the right will seem as antiquated as serfdom and the divine right of kings.

There's no contradiction in including modern struggles in my work because it's the same struggle we've been fighting against ignorance and tyranny for all of human existence. There's nothing "intriguing" about putting yourself in the shoes of the oppressor when you know they're wrong, and then trying to orchestrate an opportunity to play the hero. It's sad, and I'm not sure whether it's because you're afraid of change, or you just don't care about other people.

TLDR: I write characters that have blue hair and pronouns because the people that play the game have blue hair and pronouns

#bad opinions #d&d #dungeons and dragons #irl politics #heavy topics

247 notes · View notes