I just don't get the love for OOTS

[ArisKatsaris]

I guess I'm an ex-fan. I liked it when I thought it was about poking fun at the humorous implications of D&D tropes. I stopped liking it when I came to the conclusion that it was just an extended rant against "Lawful Good" and the point of view that implies.

I think you really came to a very erroneous conclusion. Most of Roy's afterlife adventure was about how most of his flaws were about him not being lawful ENOUGH. Same with his dad, who's jerkdom is again revealed to be a deficiency in lawfulness atleast as much as a deficiency in goodness.

Yeah, Celia is sometimes portrayed as Lawful to the point of utter cluelessness -- but other non-Lawful characters like V or Haley or Shojo are seen as chaotic to the point of sometimes falling into undisciplined cruelty - untrustworthy even to their friends. Each alignment has its virtues, each alignment has its moral traps.

Anyway, I really think you came to the wrong conclusion - I've hardly ever seen Lawful Good defended as well as in this comic. Were you still reading when Roy was judged in the afterlife? If not, I'd urge you to read those strips atleast.

 

[jmucchiello]

The problem with appreciating OOTS it transitions from a gag-a-comic strip to an epic story. The epic story is great but like the first season of Babylon 5 doesn't appear very often in the first 100+ strips.

It's funny the talk about Elan being a moron. Read yesterday's strip #647 and tell me Elan is still a moron. He's grown as a character. Believably. And it is that believability that keeps people coming back. At least, those folks who are not upset that the ratio of rules gags to story gags is much lower than in the first 100 strips.

{can't resist mild sidetrack}

I generally set my standard at a season: if a series can't catch me by then, well, I've given it a fair shake. When I had to sit through the first season of Babylon 5 and Charmed as a result, you can bet that I never fully trusted the taste of the people who recommended those programs again.

Unfortunately, had you asked a fan of B5 how to "get into" B5 and told them "I'm only going to give it one season". They would have told you to watch season 3. Then once you were hooked, you could go back and watch season 1. Season 1 has 2 stories that are core to major story arc contained in the first 4 seasons. In season 3 80% of the episodes are major contributers to the arc. This was how the show was planned.

{back on target}
Similarly, if you want to know why OOTS is good, you can't start from strip #1. I'm not sure where the best strip to start from is, but having flipped through the books a bit, I'm going to pick 190. From 190 to 251 covers the essence of OOTS pretty nicely without relying TOO much on prior information and the mix of comedy/story is pretty decent.

 

[Lord Pendragon]

I think that OotS have evolved over the years to be a very different sort of strip than it started as. When I first read it, it was a funny comic about the rules and situations involving 3.5 D&D. Rich has been playing D&D for a long time, and has a sense of history that worked into the strip as well.

After the initial dungeon adventure was over, the strip sort of changed...

This is exactly it. Rich made a conscious decision to prioritize the strip's story over its humor at that point.

I loved OotS in its first, "prioritize-the-funny" stage. It was a witty examination of the quirks of the D&D system, with other bits thrown in here or there for their comedic value. It was also relevant nearly every week, since it focused on the game system I used in my weekly sessions.

After Rich decided funny wasn't as important as story, I've largely lost interest in OotS. I have a fondness for the characters, but I don't look for "story" from comic strips. I read novels for that. It didn't help that he decided not to evolve with the game his strip is based on, making the strip somewhat obsolete as well.

I do still read OotS. Sometimes it's still funny. But it's no longer a regular occurance for someone to ask, "Did you catch the latest OotS?" at my gaming table. For the most part, it's appeal has diminished with its humor in my circle.

 

[Particle_Man]

I find it funny and the characters believable. For example, the temptation/corruption of V is a hell of the lot more believable than Anakin Skywalker's fall from grace.

 

[Wulfram]

It was better before it got plot

Particularly before the characters started "developing"

 

[Piratecat]

It was better before it got plot

Particularly before the characters started "developing"

Heh. Not everyone agrees (me amongst them.)

One of the things I love about Rich is that he fully and publicly agreed that he'd lose some fans when he focused on plot. Whether you like it or not, he went into his story development with his eyes open.

 

[Arnwyn]

In short, they're saying that you're not giving it a fair reading and thus your opinion is unfounded and invalid.

They might be saying that... but they would be unreasonable doing so - under any normal and practical circumstance.

Because:

I teach television studies, so I think I can explain why they say that. What you're doing (reading a dozen comics of more than 640) would be the equivalent of walking out on a film after a few scenes or of dropping a book after 10-15 pages. Forming such an extreme judgment after experiencing something like 2 percent of the work can only be justified if the work is spectacularly bad or offensive.

And how long does it take a film to show "a few scenes"? And how long does it take to read "10-15 pages"? Exactly - not much.

Now, let's compare that to reading, what, 200-300 strips? Hmmmm... doesn't sound like it's worth going through all that if the strip hasn't caught you long before spending all that time reaching that point. Especially for the casual consumer of entertainment (and that's all this is).

In addition, long form serial narrative works like comics or like television programs base many of their effects on building up slowly over time or depend on character developments that are foreshadowed in small and large ways over years. To sample a long form serial narrative is to basically deny the validity of long form serial narratives.

And really - there's nothing inherently wrong with that if there are other factors involved (you know, like people having lives and other limits on that oh-so limited resource called 'time'). To ignore the time factor is, AFAIC, unreasonable.

It could be, in fact, that if something is designed as a 'long form serial narrative', and it doesn't catch someone fairly quickly (thus forcing one to spend an inordinate length of time evaluating it), then that in itself could easily be seen as a legitimate criticism.

Edit: And, yes, this stance makes evaluating television programs (which can be more than 100 hours in length) very laborious.

Indeed it does - but I suspect those who follow your specific criteria are extremely few and far between. I'd go so far as to say your vocation provides further evidence of your relative uniqueness in how you, personally, evaluate 'long form serial narratives'.


I'm willing to give JeffB the benefit of the doubt and say that yeah, he probably spent "enough" time to determine - for himself - whether he gave it a fair shake or not.

 

[jmucchiello]

And how long does it take a film to show "a few scenes"? And how long does it take to read "10-15 pages"? Exactly - not much.

A few minutes/scenes of a movie are probably more like 50-60 pages of a 600+ page webcomic which is why my recommendation was to read a specific 60-odd pages and not the first 60.

But at this point I doubt he's going to change his mind. I'm confused as to what he expected from this thread really.

 

[JeffB]

Well I certainly didn not mean to come off as trolling- I suspect my using the word "fanboy" offended some, but I didn't mean it in the derogatory sense. I'm a "fanboy" of many things

To use a term someone else posted- I don't understand the "happygasms"- so I was curious to hear what is it that causes so many fans to gush on about it, have it quoted in sigs, and feel the need to post "NEW OOTS IS UP!!!!!!!!" every few days. No I wasn;t looking to be convinced, I know what I do and do not like, but often when someone doesn't understand something, they try to.. at the least.

As an example- I'm a huge fan of "Wings of the Luftwaffe"- when it's on TMC I guess you might say I have a happygasm- but I don't hit my fave relevant messageboard and put up a post every few days proclaiming "NEW WOTL is ON AT X'oclock! ".

I thought it was a cartoon about D&D, in the way that something like P&D, or Wormy is a cartoon about D&D- didn't know there was a meta-plot and "screwed if you miss an episode" B5-esque vibe. Perhaps that is a big reason I don't care for it. At any rate, thanks to those who cared to explain what is they like about it.

 

[coyote6]

I think the "New OotS" threads pop up for three reasons:

(1) OotS is D&D-related, and thus relevant to ENWorld (a lot of people probably heard of it first through ENWorld);
(2) due to Rich's health, he updates irregularly, so a notification of a new comic being posted is nice, especially for those that aren't using an RSS feed;
(3) by now, it's traditional to post such a thread

Also, lots (and lots and lots) of people do go to messageboards to talk about movies, TV shows, books, comics, articles etc., that they enjoy. How many boards have a Media Lounge, or something like it? I'm sure if there's a Wings of War message board (there probably is one, somewhere), you might be able to find a "Wings of the Luftwaffe" discussion thread on it.