myowndesertplaces

[myowndesertplaces]

rare Zac Oyama monologue

[myowndesertplaces]

Okay one more. In honor of Kristen Stewart,

I Was Broken by Marcus Foster is a Laudna song.

Who Laughs Last by Lord Huron ft Kristen Stewart is an Imogen Temult song.

You're welcome.

[myowndesertplaces]

Who Laughs Last by Lord Huron ft Kristen Stewart is an Imogen Temult song.

You're welcome.

[myowndesertplaces]

Watching Jordan Miller sing the Canadian national anthem tonight for the Four Nations Face-Off reminds me that Highway 6 by The Beaches is a BeauYasha song

K bye.

[myowndesertplaces]

idk I kind of feel like I'm an idiot bc I actually enjoyed cr 3 from the jump to the end but like the blogs who follow bc I feel they are definitely more articulate and insightful than me are like "the whole thing was meaningless and pointless! matt fumbled everything!" so maybe I'm wrong to have liked it all? I'm not really sure where I'm going with this sorry

I think one thing to keep in mind is that many (and in fact, I would argue, most!) people who are critiquing the story and construction have also generally enjoyed the campaign as a whole! Certainly I don't know anyone who stuck it out through the end who did not overall enjoy watching it, for various reasons; I know there are people who hate watch, which I think is an absurd and honestly really stupid waste of time, but from my experience they are normally making snide and vicious tweet-length posts rather than long considerations of what isn't working for them.

There are also a lot of levels of critique—I've greatly enjoyed a lot of moments in isolation that I simultaneously felt weakened, contradicted, or even actively undermined the structure of the story as a whole, but those moments were still really fun and interesting beats. The Arch Heart's cameo comes to mind, as does, in hindsight, some of the construction of the post-Solstice split, but there are plenty of others of higher or lower impact on the story. In the finale the Raise Dead falls into this place very strongly, so I'm going to talk about it at length for a moment, since it was an absolutely stellar moment for me personally and as such I do think it serves as very illustrative of an example where I simultaneously fucking love a moment while finding it worth significant critique. I think it also touches on the critiques you're referring to, which I would summarize overall as the idea that many of the outcomes feel influenced negatively by pulled punches on the part of the DM rather than a flaw of one player or another. (Also, I want to talk about it cuz I love it. :3) This got very long but I think that to your point, it is worth examining in this amount of depth.

First, the good: it is an absolutely phenomenal culminating point of an arc that was only really concluded in summary; I have, as noted earlier this week, written at length about how Essek is never situated as a protagonist, which is functionally fine and even good. He ends up tied very strongly to Caleb's arc, and moves in the narrative in such a way after 2x97 that allows Caleb to reach a concluding note, and strengthens that narrative. So we only really hear about the outcome of Essek's choices, his inevitable leave from the Dynasty, in the summarization of the campaign 2 epilogue. This is not inherently a problem, because he is not a protagonist. But this moment does functionally create a material representation of that denouement, and in particular the tension between the outcomes of his poor choices and the better—potentially even good!—person he is trying to be as a result of the Nein's influence, which does strengthen his arc in its own right.

This moment also, hilariously, bears out my argument from this post. That the resurrection should only work with this intervention, particularly while the Nein are involved, does follow through on the Nein's general positioning within Exandria. Essek's leave happening without a fight (and, frankly, with only one attempted Counterspell) both makes for a very well-paced moment and also maintains the overall sense of story that the Nein impart when they are on screen; I'm thinking again of how their Ruidus episodes feel, much like their campaign and their post-campaign one-shots, like an intrigue action thriller series, and this fits well in that framing.

So overall, it is a fantastic moment... for the Nein. The Nein are not the protagonists of this story. They exist in the world, and are such active agents that they do continue to develop and exert motion on the narrative into this campaign, and frankly, I think this would have been fine if the party given ownership of this story and campaign did not abdicate their responsibility for it with unfortunate frequency. They do not exert a strong control over their story, which is at odds with the fact that the Nein do, and are present and also involved by the nature of their ending. It completely overshadows Ashton's heroic moment, in that the culminating action beat of this sequence is Essek getting away, which kind of takes the wind out of the sails of the Hells' involvement in the gods' outcome. It doesn't negate it, certainly, but it does refocus the story from them to, for some reason, Essek. So in this sense, it occurs at the expense of the Hells.

I find that while the handwaving of using dunamantic intervention to push Raise Dead beyond its limits (if indeed the reason it didn't originally work was because Ashton's brain was essentially gone) fits fine and even well within the framework of the Nein's story, and an NPC being able to do so without a roll is fine, since NPCs are vehicles the DM uses to guide the story, this is a significant divergence from the overall mechanics of the world at large; even the Nein had to do a full ritual for the resurrection of their tiefling. Matt put those mechanics in place specifically to create narrative meaning behind resurrections, which can feel very unmotivated and like a get out of jail free card in D&D, and while it's been noted that this would've really strained the runtime beyond its existing length, prioritizing it at the cost of, for instance, more truncated end notes for the Nein and Vox would've bolstered the Hells' presence in an ending to their own story that even many of their fans felt was ultimately lacking.

Giving the resurrection full weight would've also given Ashton's sacrifice and the Hells' involvement more narrative weight; the reason the other parties are involved at all is because the Hells were truly running on fumes by that point, but any lack of involvement this created could've been alleviated by having them directly involved through pre-established ritual elements that are not contingent on them having any mechanical offerings. So this moment sits within the context of critique that I agree with: that it felt like a pulled punch that ultimately also served to decenter the Hells within their own narrative, when it could've been used with more deliberate narrative force.

At the same time, I fucking love it, and watched it four times in a row yesterday, because it is so good—and it is, as I described, narratively and thematically coherent in one sense! And I think that is one issue of the campaign: many, many great moments are excellent and coherent in a certain framework but are weaker to varying degrees when considered as one piece of a larger whole. There are so many frameworks at play in this narrative, and not enough direct intervention to manage those as frameworks rather than as a single story, but at the same time, I think those frameworks are far more apparent if you're really looking for them, and that's much more difficult, if not impossible, when you're in the midst of them and telling the story.

I also don't think this means one cannot critique this; in fact, I would say this is more an issue of being a serialized narrative than an improvised one, which is often how critique of it has been pushed back against within the fandom. I was thinking about this as I'm currently in a course on, quite literally, how to critique comics, and we discussed this week how Marjane Satrapi said in an interview after making the film adaptation of Persepolis, which was first a serialized comic, that she ended up preferring the film, and I speculated that was because with a film, one has the ability to make a more cohesive narrative purely by virtue of the fact that with a serialized form, you cannot go back and make retroactive edits when new developments come to light. This is something that long-running comics must constantly navigate (as do many long TV shows), and in extreme circumstances such as decades-old comic franchises, ends up resulting in infinite timelines and hand-waving, which becomes so ridiculous that at this point it's a meme. In that scenario, though, it is not presented as a non-contradictory story, let alone a cohesive one.

Many of the critiques of campaign 3 are operating within the idea that this is presented as one overarching narrative. (And honestly, comics and other narratives that don't utilize that presentation are also still critiqued on that merit by people who greatly enjoy the texts they're critiquing anyway.) Within that context, I feel that the framing of the Raise Dead, as well as much of what would be my critique of the other pieces I referenced (the Arch Heart's cameo and some of the party-split sections) if I was to do the same kind of rundown of those, actively undermine this presentation by introducing and forefronting too many conflicting frameworks that are not interwoven well enough to create a single, cohesive overarching narrative.

This is a very long-winded way to illustrate my point, which is that I would really encourage reading critique not as a lack of enjoyment of the campaign, let alone a suggestion that no one should've enjoyed it (and if you did, then you're not smart enough to know better), but as a way to engage with the text(s) as presented within one framework or another. I think this is sometimes obscured in online fandom spaces, where we're not engaging in critique in as formal of a sense as one would in, say, an academic setting, where the norms generally dictate the framework one is using is explicitly stated if not fully delineated within the critique, but it is, more often than not, still implicitly present within the critique.

And as a final note, I would also really urge everyone reading others' opinions on something they enjoy to resist the urge to elide their own opinions from the conversation, even if you don't feel as articulate or as well-versed in critique. Critique is a trained skill, so it is certainly something one can pick up if they are inclined, and at the same time, someone doing it does not mean they are inherently right—and in fact, with all argumentative writing, it is up to the reader to consider the argument and decide whether or not they agree with it. (You can decide that you disagree with me about the Raise Dead! Just because I wrote a thousand words on it does not inherently make my interpretation truth; it's just an interpretation. You get to say whether or not you think my interpretation makes sense based on the evidence presented.) Even here I'm using the framework of some critique that others have made, but I don't delineate in full myself. In doing do I'm not presuming that you agree, but I am presuming that you've read it and know what I'm referring to. Strictly speaking it's also not even saying that I take that critique as true; it's saying that I feel the conclusions drawn are applicable as a basis for my argument. If you wanted, you could even say that you feel that my argument is irrelevant to you because you don't feel those critiques are true! But you ultimately do have to be the one to decide any of that, which does involve a balance between a confidence in the formation of your own opinions on the text and an openness to entertaining others'.

[myowndesertplaces]

Listen, I have seen many a posts to the tune of "Hozier is a fae god!" Or "Florence is a fae god!" And I am here to tell you that neither of them are fae gods. Paramours, probably, maybe members of an Entourage, but gods? No.

You want to know who an actual fucking fae god is???

Kendrick Lamar.

The pettiness. The creativity. The persuasiveness. The accuracy. He had 110 million people across the nation today singing "a minooooor" like it was fucking nothing. This man has cast a thousand-year curse on Aubrey Graham's bloodline that cannot be undone through mortal means.

Now, THAT is some fae god level shit.

[myowndesertplaces]

i hope every single one of you outlives these hateful fucks on the news right now. i hope each and every one of you is able to find joy and support throughout these tumultuous times and i hope you get to live so fiercely as yourself. i hope you wake up one day to news that you’ve outlived those pieces of absolute shit and whether that brings you joy or relief or hope or what have you, i hope you live to see that day

[myowndesertplaces]

the fact that people keep interpreting the word "consequences" to be exactly and only "punishment" and knee-jerk responding to it with "why do you want my precious Bells Hells pookies punished" frankly says a lot about more about you than it does about those who feel that C3 as a narrative never followed through on consequences for anything

this is ESPECIALLY evident when it is remembered that we're all talking about a story and doing narrative analysis and media critique here, yes, all of us, even the casual commentaries, debriefs and post-mortems of the campaign is analysis. consequences. narrative follow through. the consequential story beat that carries the weight and concluded a prior set up. results, negative or positive or neutral, that are incurred as a consequence of what happened before. a continuity of narrative logic. actions that result in the expected and prior established weight and outcome. feeling like things consistently matter and affect things meaningfully on various levels, including the personal.

[myowndesertplaces]

This is so gay my heart might just burst

[myowndesertplaces]

well, all in all, Campaign 3 is certainly not my favorite and I think its weaknesses existed to the very end because many of those weaknesses are structural, so they weaken what are really interesting and fun concepts and ideas and even narrative outcomes that I'm otherwise super into by just not giving them the support or time they deserve or by not framing them in the most impactful way, but I very much hesitate to even consider calling it The Bitter End. i have my criticisms as always, and I've had them from the start because they remain, but in the end, i bear no ill will, for lack of a better term, toward how it all shook out. it's fine, i suppose. the campaign is alright, all said and done.

it's ultimately okay, it's sometimes fun, it's sometimes even great and there's some interesting stuff to chew on as a worldstate and going forward, quite liked the stuff already set up for what shenanigans—for better, worse, and morally neutral—that the gods will be getting up to in their upcoming lives.

easy come, easy go, I suppose

[myowndesertplaces]

Goddammit Aabria, making me cry listening to a faithful woman talking to her god.

[myowndesertplaces]

Confirmation that the Chained Oblivion is different from the rest of the pantheon is comforting, as much as any of this can be "comforting."

[myowndesertplaces]

Some of the criticisms of C3 sure become stark when you compare C2’s opening regional lore breakdown to C3’s. In retrospect, everything Matt talks about in C2’s opening gets explored, both the physical regions he’s talking about and the political/societal tensions that are going on there. It’s a great way to look back and see how far the M9 went over the course of their campaign. Meanwhile, so much of the historical and cultural detail of Marquet just completely disappeared after the Apogee Solstice, and none of it ever really became relevant to any of the Hells’ stories. C3 didn’t have to be a story about these sorts of things to be a good story, but the fact that that regional intro was there but ended up not being engaged with at all and has no relevance on the destination we’ve arrived at speaks to the divide between what Matt probably imagined and what the players ended up making of it.

[myowndesertplaces]

i drawed

You can thank the incredible courierninetytwo on AO3 (also here on Tumblr as @theivorytowercrumbles for c0mming this piece :) Check out their work, they're a fantastic writer!

My reference:

[myowndesertplaces]

some gems from the donation reel

[Image IDs: A series of donation names: "bjald fjord come homes to me", "essek's well-kept feet", "Bolo is Predathos (Confirmed)", "I filled Dorian's keep with monsters", "C-Pop Industries Shipping Department", "essek's very tired thesis advisor"]

[myowndesertplaces]

"What does Orym use, Whisper?"

Never change Sam. Never Change.

[myowndesertplaces]

My jaw hurts I'm laughing and smiling so much.

The world sucks right now, but this is so much fun.