You've specifically said that you don't like Greyhawk. So I'm kind of curious as to why someone that doesn't like Greyhawk would suggest what others should do to "understand" Greyhawk.
This is a confusing question. Are you asking this honestly, or is it some sort of rhetorical device? I couldn't even begin to count the media properties/IPs I both understand and dislike. Indeed, very often seeing how something works is a cause to dislike it (c.f. the Sword of Truth series, once you've realized it's all libertarian/objectivist propaganda and messed-up BDSM stuff which real BDSM people likely frown at, it's unreadable - and it wasn't very readable to start with).
I mean, if you did English Lit, or Film Studies, did you like all the works you came to understand? I sure didn't. Some I did turn around on totally (Wuthering Heights, for example), but a lot just got more annoying (King Lear). Or god, what about something like Birth of a Nation (extreme example I know but your argument here is bizarre) - it's gross to start with, and as you see how it's put together and understand DW Griffith's goals, it's only more grotesque.
With GH I dunno if I actually dislike it as much as am unimpressed with it and think it needs a massive rejig if it wants to work in the modern era.
So... why can I not have those opinions, if I have the rule book, but have never seen the show?
No-one said you couldn't have those opinions. I really wish you'd stop dramatizing this and making yourself the victim at every turn. You've done it in a huge percentage of your responses here.
However, everyone has opinions, and ignorant opinions aren't worth much.
If you've never seen Buffy and are going on opinions from completely different sources, particularly culturally distant ones (anime) or pre-Buffy ones, you're likely to greatly misunderstand the tone, dynamic, and so on. Equally, if you're looking at a bunch of post-Buffy sources which largely sought to emulate Buffy (of which there have been many, including the recent Warrior Nun), you might be absolutely fine, and even understand stuff someone who had only seen Buffy didn't, because the derivative works had made it more obvious.
The only thing I cannot possibly make an opinion on is how accurately the Buffy RPG emulates the TV show. But, even on that, I can potentially make some insights into whether or not that is a good thing. For example, I am vaguely aware that Buffy is supernaturally powerful do to her being Chosen, and that delegates many other characters to support roles. So, I could very easily make an informed opinion on how designing a game where only one person can do the monster killing and has a starring role can be incredibly difficult and there are many pitfalls at making other people at the table feel like extras.
Sure, but this is filled with assumptions on your part. Buffy isn't the only one who can do the monster killing in Buffy, for example. This is one of the points the RPG makes - there are basically two types of character as a result.
But you're not really contradicting my point here. If you comment on a Buffy RPG without understanding the source material, then you opinion may or may not be informed or valuable, depending on a lot of factors. Whereas if you understood the source material, or at least directly derivative works, it would be vastly more likely to be valuable, and you'd be better placed to assess the value of your own input.
I've seen this before with RPGs - someone critiques some particular mechanic heavily, not understanding the purpose of the mechanic, because they don't understand the tone/source material. Sometimes this is a failing of the RPG itself. Sometimes, though, people come in really hard saying some mechanic sucks, when they just don't get the context it exists in. And because this is the internet, instead of saying "Oh, I guess that makes sense in context", they often just double-down. Sigh.
I mean, and unlike you here, I'm willing to admit I've been the guy in the wrong, especially when I was younger. I had strong opinions about stuff I profoundly didn't get. When I learned more about it, I felt like an idiot. But people attemping to explain it to me at the time had little impact - whereas understanding the context did.
You know what the funniest thing is about this? I've read quite a bit of dark fantasy and stuff that is likely inspired and riffing off of Sword and Sorcerery.
See, this is kind of what I'm talking about though - you're assuming that, and it's full-blast assumption.
Part of the problem is of course the definition of "dark fantasy". It's used in a lot of different ways, about a lot of different things (whereas S&S, interestingly, has a more narrow and reliable range of things it is applied to - it's one of the few fantasy subgenres which does). There is stuff categorized as "dark fantasy" that does solidly overlap with S&S, or even is also S&S (fantasy subgenres are rarely exclusive), like Elric or Kane.
But then there's tons of other stuff like Clive Barker or Stephen King's fantasy stuff which isn't much like S&S, or has minor points of similarity, but is called "dark fantasy", and that's without even talking about stuff like Anne Rice.
So is it possible? Yes. But what sort of dark fantasy are you talking about?
How is appreciating it in a different way a problem? What, are there now correct ways to like something too?
What's with the victim complex here? Did I say it was a problem? It's not, and I am kind of surprised you're claiming you're an English major but this is throwing you. It does mean, however, that you're going to read the setting very differently. There may be stuff that just doesn't make any sense to you without context.
