We picked up this one at the same time as "Casino Royale", as we've had good results with Asian films working for all three of us. My father-in-law had to travel out of the area before getting to see if, but that's just as well since he probably wouldn't have enjoyed the intricicies of the plot.
This was a historical story, with Chow Yun Fat as the Emporer and Gong Li as the Empress. The plotting of the members of the royal family is the best reason to see this film. There are many lavish visual moments, too. The individual fight scenes are adequate, but don't bother if those are the reason you'd rent a movie like this one. If you like director Zhang Yimou's "Hero" and "House of Flying Daggers", you'll probably like this one, too. Otherwise, it's worth seeing, if not especially memorable outside of a huge battle sequence, which was done with an enormous number of extras, not with CGI! Call it a 7 out of 10, going up to an 8 if you especially enjoy the director's other work and don't mind the greater focus on intrigue and reduced number of individual fight scenes as compared to other movies of the type.
Monday, September 03, 2007
Casino Royale
Allow me to preface this review by pointing out that I'm not much of a fan of the James Bond films. Oh, they're fun in a predictable, cotton candy sort of way, but I won't go out of my way to see one. Well, unless we're in search of one of those movies my father-in-law, my wife, and I can watch together.
"Casino Royale" starts out by showing us a different sort of Bond than usual. This one is more raw, brutal, and unpolished than the Bond to which we've become accustomed. It turns out that he has just been promoted to the 00 level. I enjoyed this, since it opened up the possibility that Bond might actually screw up, and sure enough, he does.
The plot, too, is earthier. There are no Bad Guys with metal teeth or razor-edged throwing hats; there's just a guy with a nasty agenda who is good at No Limit Texas Hold 'Em (notably not baccarat, presumably so more people could follow what was happening in the game itself).
There are two "Bond girls", and they were attractive enough, though one of them has almost nothing to do in the movie. The other does have real story significance, but little chemistry with new Bond Daniel Craig.
I don't want to spoil anything for those who haven't seen the film, so I won't give away any plot details. I'll just say that for once, Bond is a real character, rather than a video game cursor, and I enjoyed that. Having said that, Daniel Craig is miscast as Bond. When Vesper Lind says he's charming at their first meeting, you don't feel it, and it makes you pointedly aware that she's only saying it because the script requires it. The flaw isn't in the script. I can easily visualize a young Sean Connery saying the exact same lines and coming off as a good deal more playful.
It's sad to see that the script had real promise to reinvent Bond, but the casting missed that opportunity. The two leads just don't have the necessary chemistry to pull off this script. I still enjoyed it just because it was a different approach, and they even gave Judi Dench a real part, rather than largely wasting her as they usually do on a Bond film. I'd give it a 7 out of 10 for most audiences, but 6 out of 10 if you prefer traditional Bond, or even 8 out of 10 if you buy into Daniel Craig's performance as Bond more than I did.
"Casino Royale" starts out by showing us a different sort of Bond than usual. This one is more raw, brutal, and unpolished than the Bond to which we've become accustomed. It turns out that he has just been promoted to the 00 level. I enjoyed this, since it opened up the possibility that Bond might actually screw up, and sure enough, he does.
The plot, too, is earthier. There are no Bad Guys with metal teeth or razor-edged throwing hats; there's just a guy with a nasty agenda who is good at No Limit Texas Hold 'Em (notably not baccarat, presumably so more people could follow what was happening in the game itself).
There are two "Bond girls", and they were attractive enough, though one of them has almost nothing to do in the movie. The other does have real story significance, but little chemistry with new Bond Daniel Craig.
I don't want to spoil anything for those who haven't seen the film, so I won't give away any plot details. I'll just say that for once, Bond is a real character, rather than a video game cursor, and I enjoyed that. Having said that, Daniel Craig is miscast as Bond. When Vesper Lind says he's charming at their first meeting, you don't feel it, and it makes you pointedly aware that she's only saying it because the script requires it. The flaw isn't in the script. I can easily visualize a young Sean Connery saying the exact same lines and coming off as a good deal more playful.
It's sad to see that the script had real promise to reinvent Bond, but the casting missed that opportunity. The two leads just don't have the necessary chemistry to pull off this script. I still enjoyed it just because it was a different approach, and they even gave Judi Dench a real part, rather than largely wasting her as they usually do on a Bond film. I'd give it a 7 out of 10 for most audiences, but 6 out of 10 if you prefer traditional Bond, or even 8 out of 10 if you buy into Daniel Craig's performance as Bond more than I did.
Ghost Rider
You've got to admit that the Ghost Rider himself is an arresting image, even if you're not especially a comics fan. I wanted to like this movie, but have to admit that there just wasn't much to it.
This version of how Johnny Blaze becomes the Ghost Rider should have resonance. I won't spoil it for those who haven't seen the film, but while it's not lacking in dramatic elements, the execution isn't there. You just don't feel it when you watch it. It might've worked better if that story had been the film, and the whole thing had built up to him becoming the Ghost Rider, but I think a lot of people would've been more than a little annoyed if the cool visual they paid to see was just a short bit at the end of a 90 minute family drama.
Nicholas Cage played Johnny Blaze as too much like Elvis Presley for me. That aspect made it too unintentionally funny, and didn't give the Johnny Blaze character any personality of his own. Eva Mendez was fine, if nothing special, as the Hollywood-required love interest. And the actor playing Blackheart (I can't remember his name) frankly looked like a low budget vampire through much of the movie, so I found it hard to take him any more seriously than I took Cage as Johnny Blaze. Peter Fonda didn't convey the proper weight in playing Mephistopheles, but few actors can. Sam Elliot mumbled his way through his part, but that fit the character, so it worked well enough for me.
The plot twist in which Sam's part in things is revealed isn't a twist at all if you've been paying any attention, and especially not if you've seen the movie trailer. The actual Ghost Rider bits and the climax of the film have visual interest, but that's all. Maybe I just wasn't in the mood for this film, but I just didn't feel anything while I was watching it. The script wasn't bad (if predictable), so I have to lay most of the blame on the acting, and possibly some on the directing. Call this one a 5 on a 1-10 scale, rating it a little higher if you place a high priority on cool visuals, and a little lower if you're looking for an actual story.
This version of how Johnny Blaze becomes the Ghost Rider should have resonance. I won't spoil it for those who haven't seen the film, but while it's not lacking in dramatic elements, the execution isn't there. You just don't feel it when you watch it. It might've worked better if that story had been the film, and the whole thing had built up to him becoming the Ghost Rider, but I think a lot of people would've been more than a little annoyed if the cool visual they paid to see was just a short bit at the end of a 90 minute family drama.
Nicholas Cage played Johnny Blaze as too much like Elvis Presley for me. That aspect made it too unintentionally funny, and didn't give the Johnny Blaze character any personality of his own. Eva Mendez was fine, if nothing special, as the Hollywood-required love interest. And the actor playing Blackheart (I can't remember his name) frankly looked like a low budget vampire through much of the movie, so I found it hard to take him any more seriously than I took Cage as Johnny Blaze. Peter Fonda didn't convey the proper weight in playing Mephistopheles, but few actors can. Sam Elliot mumbled his way through his part, but that fit the character, so it worked well enough for me.
The plot twist in which Sam's part in things is revealed isn't a twist at all if you've been paying any attention, and especially not if you've seen the movie trailer. The actual Ghost Rider bits and the climax of the film have visual interest, but that's all. Maybe I just wasn't in the mood for this film, but I just didn't feel anything while I was watching it. The script wasn't bad (if predictable), so I have to lay most of the blame on the acting, and possibly some on the directing. Call this one a 5 on a 1-10 scale, rating it a little higher if you place a high priority on cool visuals, and a little lower if you're looking for an actual story.
What the Bleep Do We Know?
Dr. Aether had seen this movie and sent a copy to me via Amazon. Thanks, Doc!
This is an unconventional film. You wouldn't want to rent this one if you're expecting a typical narrative. It essentially covers the area where science (in the form of quantum physics) meets spirituality (in the form of no specific belief set in particular). The general point is that the cutting edge of science seemingly corresponds with a belief that we are all, in effect, linked to one another as part of the universe.
Probably the most interesting single point is that we can effectively practice being happy. Forget about venting anger, because what you're actually doing is practicing to be angry, and you'll find yourself correspondingly more prone to angry behavior in the future. There is scientific evidence that supports the position that, like any conventional skill, your brain adapts to get better at whatever you do. The result is that if you practice being happy, you will get better at being happy in the future, the same as if you practiced tennis every day, your tennis skills would eventually improve.
This ties in well with my recent Buddhist reading, which takes the same position without the scientific support, and I can confirm with my own anecdotal evidence that it does in fact seem to hold up. I've never been happier, and my external circumstances haven't changed significantly.
As a piece of entertainment, well, the beginning is very slow, repeating a lot of information most people probably already know, but it picks up a little further on. There is a plot involving Marlee Matlin as a photographer who isn't very happy, though the plot seems to be there just to provide continuity for the segments with various scientists discussing the places where quantum physics and spirituality come together. Marlee has an amusing experience at a wedding (working as the photographer) that helps her to understand how she can be happier, and puts it into practice.
Yes, it sounds a little sappy, but who doesn't want to learn how to be happier? The supporting scientific information and admission that there's still so much science doesn't know (though it's interesting to see where it's pointing) keeps it from being too saccharine. For a person receptive to the nature of the information being provided (which would include me), I'd call it a 7 out of 10. For a general audience, I think they'd be bored by the first twenty minutes or so, then find the wedding scenes amusing, so call it a 5 out of 10 for general audiences.
This is an unconventional film. You wouldn't want to rent this one if you're expecting a typical narrative. It essentially covers the area where science (in the form of quantum physics) meets spirituality (in the form of no specific belief set in particular). The general point is that the cutting edge of science seemingly corresponds with a belief that we are all, in effect, linked to one another as part of the universe.
Probably the most interesting single point is that we can effectively practice being happy. Forget about venting anger, because what you're actually doing is practicing to be angry, and you'll find yourself correspondingly more prone to angry behavior in the future. There is scientific evidence that supports the position that, like any conventional skill, your brain adapts to get better at whatever you do. The result is that if you practice being happy, you will get better at being happy in the future, the same as if you practiced tennis every day, your tennis skills would eventually improve.
This ties in well with my recent Buddhist reading, which takes the same position without the scientific support, and I can confirm with my own anecdotal evidence that it does in fact seem to hold up. I've never been happier, and my external circumstances haven't changed significantly.
As a piece of entertainment, well, the beginning is very slow, repeating a lot of information most people probably already know, but it picks up a little further on. There is a plot involving Marlee Matlin as a photographer who isn't very happy, though the plot seems to be there just to provide continuity for the segments with various scientists discussing the places where quantum physics and spirituality come together. Marlee has an amusing experience at a wedding (working as the photographer) that helps her to understand how she can be happier, and puts it into practice.
Yes, it sounds a little sappy, but who doesn't want to learn how to be happier? The supporting scientific information and admission that there's still so much science doesn't know (though it's interesting to see where it's pointing) keeps it from being too saccharine. For a person receptive to the nature of the information being provided (which would include me), I'd call it a 7 out of 10. For a general audience, I think they'd be bored by the first twenty minutes or so, then find the wedding scenes amusing, so call it a 5 out of 10 for general audiences.
The Gamers
My friends Don and Joanna were kind enough to lend me their DVD of "The Gamers" by Dead Gentleman Productions post-GenCon. They'd just purchased it, but had seen the movie before, so were willing to let me borrow it, and so I'll start this entry by thanking them.
"The Gamers" is a short film made by gamers for gamers (it won a prize for best fan film at GenCon 2003), so it has to be judged by the standard of other films made by non-professionals. It's obviously low budget, and the acting isn't polished, to say the least. That said, it's enormously entertaining stuff if you understand the references.
The film follows a group of gamers as they're playing a session of an ongoing Dungeons & Dragons campaign, intercut with the same actors playing out their adventures in character in full costume. The game is obviously D&D, though the serial numbers have been filed off to keep the filmmakers out of trouble. The movie even begins by showing the character sheets on screen as part of the opening credits, so you know something about the D&D characters even before they've been shown on screen for the first time if you know the game. One memorable joke involves the character of a player who didn't show up for this particular session. The character spends most of his time standing around doing nothing, utterly uneffected by everything going on around him no matter what happens, because the player isn't present to say what the character is doing, but the character's presence has been established as part of the story's continuity. This wouldn't be especially funny to the average person, but for any gamer who has had exactly that thing happen in their home campaign (and it's happened to almost anyone who has played an ongoing campaign), it's frickin' hilarious to actually see it on the screen. Another of the best jokes is funniest if you're familiar with a particular common D&D rule (though they do a good job of setting up an explanation to make it work if you don't happen to know the rule).
They've hit this one out of the park, in that they obviously know their audience and play to it beautifully, knowing exactly what common elements of RPGs will look utterly ridiculous on screen. The low budget and weak acting works very much for them because it fits the context so perfectly. I recommend this film highly if you've done any amount of roleplaying, especially Dungeons & Dragons. I don't think a non-gamer would laugh nearly so hard, but it's not made for them.
The disc is filled out with a bunch of other work by Dead Gentleman Productions, which I can't recommend. The two Syphilitic Ninja Vampires sketches are mildly funny, in the way that those lame Saturday Night Live sketches involving a one-joke character beaten into the ground sometimes are. Their theme song is the funniest part of the sketches, and I suspect it was written before the sketches were. The remaining material just isn't that good. It reminded me of weak Second City TV material, and I'm not a fan of SCTV in the first place.
In short, if you've ever played D&D, pick up this disc at a convention some time and watch "The Gamers", even though the non-gamers in your life probably won't get it, but don't expect much from anything else on the disc. Call it 8 out of 10 for "The Gamers" and 3 out of 10 for everything else for the few mildly amusing sketches.
"The Gamers" is a short film made by gamers for gamers (it won a prize for best fan film at GenCon 2003), so it has to be judged by the standard of other films made by non-professionals. It's obviously low budget, and the acting isn't polished, to say the least. That said, it's enormously entertaining stuff if you understand the references.
The film follows a group of gamers as they're playing a session of an ongoing Dungeons & Dragons campaign, intercut with the same actors playing out their adventures in character in full costume. The game is obviously D&D, though the serial numbers have been filed off to keep the filmmakers out of trouble. The movie even begins by showing the character sheets on screen as part of the opening credits, so you know something about the D&D characters even before they've been shown on screen for the first time if you know the game. One memorable joke involves the character of a player who didn't show up for this particular session. The character spends most of his time standing around doing nothing, utterly uneffected by everything going on around him no matter what happens, because the player isn't present to say what the character is doing, but the character's presence has been established as part of the story's continuity. This wouldn't be especially funny to the average person, but for any gamer who has had exactly that thing happen in their home campaign (and it's happened to almost anyone who has played an ongoing campaign), it's frickin' hilarious to actually see it on the screen. Another of the best jokes is funniest if you're familiar with a particular common D&D rule (though they do a good job of setting up an explanation to make it work if you don't happen to know the rule).
They've hit this one out of the park, in that they obviously know their audience and play to it beautifully, knowing exactly what common elements of RPGs will look utterly ridiculous on screen. The low budget and weak acting works very much for them because it fits the context so perfectly. I recommend this film highly if you've done any amount of roleplaying, especially Dungeons & Dragons. I don't think a non-gamer would laugh nearly so hard, but it's not made for them.
The disc is filled out with a bunch of other work by Dead Gentleman Productions, which I can't recommend. The two Syphilitic Ninja Vampires sketches are mildly funny, in the way that those lame Saturday Night Live sketches involving a one-joke character beaten into the ground sometimes are. Their theme song is the funniest part of the sketches, and I suspect it was written before the sketches were. The remaining material just isn't that good. It reminded me of weak Second City TV material, and I'm not a fan of SCTV in the first place.
In short, if you've ever played D&D, pick up this disc at a convention some time and watch "The Gamers", even though the non-gamers in your life probably won't get it, but don't expect much from anything else on the disc. Call it 8 out of 10 for "The Gamers" and 3 out of 10 for everything else for the few mildly amusing sketches.
Tuesday, August 21, 2007
GenCon 2007
My GenCon 2007 got off to a rough start when my ride had a flat tire shortly after arriving at my house (causing us to leave three hours later than planned), followed by a speeding ticket along the way. Still, neither of those obstacles prevented us from getting there, and the way I looked at it, we'd gotten our bad luck behind us and things were going to get better from there. I got to know Don and Joanna a lot better, which is a Good Thing; 20 or so hours together in the car round trip will do that. Thanks to the two of them for being willing to cart me along.
A blow-by-blow description of my GenCon would probably be boring, so I'll just comment on some highlights. First off, hats off to the restaurants of Indianapolis in general! The service was generally good and friendly, the food was good, and the waits generally (if not always) reasonable. They really go all out to make us feel welcome.
I'd heard about GenCon's legendary exhibition hall, but was still overwhelmed by the sheer size of it. Incredible! I spent time there every day, and could've easily spent more. I didn't actually spend all that much money, but it wouldn't have been hard to go way over budget. I picked up the indie game "Don't Rest Your Head", The Book of Unremitting Horror, a couple of Firefly related T-shirts, and far more dice than I'm likely to need, including some particularly cool Q-Workshop dice that'll be my new main set.
Seeing all of the costumes was also a new experience. I've seen the occasional costume at game conventions, or more often at science fiction conventions, but never so many at once! There's something very cool about an environment in which people can dress however they like, however unusual that approach might be, and reasonably expect that others will accept it without blinking.
IPR's Games on Demand turned out to be our "go to" option, since we'd made a decision well in advance not to plan too much to do. We tried a survival story game called "Giger Counter" that's intended for stories where the monster(s) kill the characters off one by one, then the monster wins or a few stragglers manage to survive. It was good for what it was, if narrow in scope. In another session, Don Corcoran's Artesia game using tarot cards for resolution resulted in a pretty good story. We were able to try the Shab-al-Hiri Roach, run by Jason Morningstar, which contained some good ideas, but I think we needed more players to get the intended effect.
I learned to play a board game called Puerto Rico. I'd heard from some friends (primarily people with PAGE) that it was good, but this was my first experience with it. I wouldn't say I was blown away, but I'd certainly be willing to play it again.
I played in a Hollow Earth game on Sunday that wasn't to my taste. The GM clearly enjoyed doing his descriptions of how events played out and knew his historical references. My problem with the game was that he violated one of my cardinal rules: Let the players play. The scenario was an utter railroad job in which we had no control at all over how events played out. We could only try to make the ride more flavorful, and even that was difficult because the GM would cut you off as soon as you paused, launching into one of his elaborate descriptions. Frankly, he didn't need any players, except to be an audience. I appeared to be in the minority at the table, as the other players (including the friends who came in with me) seemed to enjoy the session well enough, but I was extremely frustrated. I don't think the GM was a bad guy; I just put it down to style clash and would avoid playing a game he's running in the future. I know there are some GMs who claim that the only way you can wrap up a story in four hours is to railroad it, but I know from personal experience that that's simply not true. I rarely railroad as a GM, and usually manage to keep it invisible to the players when I do (with false choices, or other similar devices).
The best reason to go to GenCon was simply to hang out with people whose company I enjoy. I'm very much an anti-cell phone person, but even I have to admit that cell phones were essential to having any chance at all of getting people together for dinner from their varied locations. I tried like heck to get together with everybody I wanted to, but there just wasn't enough time. My apologies to those I didn't reach, if you happen to read this.
I found myself reminded once again that I enjoy GMing far more than playing, as my own events went well across the board. The Sorcerer event was probably the best of the bunch, with all four players bringing their A game to the table and Dr. Aether contributing the occasional NPC. Bringing my In Nomine scenario "Lilim Faire" out of the vaults again was a blast, with the two Lilim players leading the way. "A Slice of Blackwoods" went well enough, though the in-party differences boiled over more than usual, and one of the players didn't take that well.
I had a fantastic time and definitely plan to go to GenCon again. Sooner would be much better than later, so I'll see what I can do to make it happen again next year. One change I would make would be to plan one session per day as a player in addition to GMing one session per day, with the planned sessions in the morning or evening, leaving the afternoons free for the exhibit hall or other improvisation. I would also plan to meet some of my friends for some meals instead of relying on winging it each time. There's just too much literal ground to cover on foot to get away without some planning.
A blow-by-blow description of my GenCon would probably be boring, so I'll just comment on some highlights. First off, hats off to the restaurants of Indianapolis in general! The service was generally good and friendly, the food was good, and the waits generally (if not always) reasonable. They really go all out to make us feel welcome.
I'd heard about GenCon's legendary exhibition hall, but was still overwhelmed by the sheer size of it. Incredible! I spent time there every day, and could've easily spent more. I didn't actually spend all that much money, but it wouldn't have been hard to go way over budget. I picked up the indie game "Don't Rest Your Head", The Book of Unremitting Horror, a couple of Firefly related T-shirts, and far more dice than I'm likely to need, including some particularly cool Q-Workshop dice that'll be my new main set.
Seeing all of the costumes was also a new experience. I've seen the occasional costume at game conventions, or more often at science fiction conventions, but never so many at once! There's something very cool about an environment in which people can dress however they like, however unusual that approach might be, and reasonably expect that others will accept it without blinking.
IPR's Games on Demand turned out to be our "go to" option, since we'd made a decision well in advance not to plan too much to do. We tried a survival story game called "Giger Counter" that's intended for stories where the monster(s) kill the characters off one by one, then the monster wins or a few stragglers manage to survive. It was good for what it was, if narrow in scope. In another session, Don Corcoran's Artesia game using tarot cards for resolution resulted in a pretty good story. We were able to try the Shab-al-Hiri Roach, run by Jason Morningstar, which contained some good ideas, but I think we needed more players to get the intended effect.
I learned to play a board game called Puerto Rico. I'd heard from some friends (primarily people with PAGE) that it was good, but this was my first experience with it. I wouldn't say I was blown away, but I'd certainly be willing to play it again.
I played in a Hollow Earth game on Sunday that wasn't to my taste. The GM clearly enjoyed doing his descriptions of how events played out and knew his historical references. My problem with the game was that he violated one of my cardinal rules: Let the players play. The scenario was an utter railroad job in which we had no control at all over how events played out. We could only try to make the ride more flavorful, and even that was difficult because the GM would cut you off as soon as you paused, launching into one of his elaborate descriptions. Frankly, he didn't need any players, except to be an audience. I appeared to be in the minority at the table, as the other players (including the friends who came in with me) seemed to enjoy the session well enough, but I was extremely frustrated. I don't think the GM was a bad guy; I just put it down to style clash and would avoid playing a game he's running in the future. I know there are some GMs who claim that the only way you can wrap up a story in four hours is to railroad it, but I know from personal experience that that's simply not true. I rarely railroad as a GM, and usually manage to keep it invisible to the players when I do (with false choices, or other similar devices).
The best reason to go to GenCon was simply to hang out with people whose company I enjoy. I'm very much an anti-cell phone person, but even I have to admit that cell phones were essential to having any chance at all of getting people together for dinner from their varied locations. I tried like heck to get together with everybody I wanted to, but there just wasn't enough time. My apologies to those I didn't reach, if you happen to read this.
I found myself reminded once again that I enjoy GMing far more than playing, as my own events went well across the board. The Sorcerer event was probably the best of the bunch, with all four players bringing their A game to the table and Dr. Aether contributing the occasional NPC. Bringing my In Nomine scenario "Lilim Faire" out of the vaults again was a blast, with the two Lilim players leading the way. "A Slice of Blackwoods" went well enough, though the in-party differences boiled over more than usual, and one of the players didn't take that well.
I had a fantastic time and definitely plan to go to GenCon again. Sooner would be much better than later, so I'll see what I can do to make it happen again next year. One change I would make would be to plan one session per day as a player in addition to GMing one session per day, with the planned sessions in the morning or evening, leaving the afternoons free for the exhibit hall or other improvisation. I would also plan to meet some of my friends for some meals instead of relying on winging it each time. There's just too much literal ground to cover on foot to get away without some planning.
Monday, August 20, 2007
Have an Unspeakable Day!
It's H. P. Lovecraft's birthday! If you don't already know who he is, he's one of the most influential horror writers of all time, and you're probably aware of him from a secondary source, even if you haven't read any of his work directly.
And if you have read his work directly, I don't need to tell you that it'll bend your mind in new ways when you read it.
I'd hoped that I might post something from GenCon at some point while I was at the convention, but was far too busy for that to be even a possibility. I'll be posting on the subject some time in the next few days. For now, I need to get some rest!
And if you have read his work directly, I don't need to tell you that it'll bend your mind in new ways when you read it.
I'd hoped that I might post something from GenCon at some point while I was at the convention, but was far too busy for that to be even a possibility. I'll be posting on the subject some time in the next few days. For now, I need to get some rest!
Saturday, August 04, 2007
Reflections on Fluid
The form that Fluid is taking is, not surprisingly, fluid. I've realized that I was actually trying to write two (possibly mutually incompatible) games into one, and I have to make some choices if I'm going to make this work. So, I'm going to think out loud here about what exactly I'm trying to achieve, to clarify it in my own mind.
First off, I'm trying to achieve simplicity. I want Fluid to be a game that people can understand and be able to play with only a few minutes of explanation at most. The story should progress almost as quickly and easily as people can speak. I want fight scenes as fast and furious as an action film. I don't want lengthy and complicated character sheets or rules. And yet, the characters should have depth and real differences between one another, as much as in any piece of fiction.
Secondly, I want to give more narrative power to the players than they have in most RPGs. This is for two reasons. One reason is that I believe a group of people will have more interesting ideas than any single GM. Another reason is that the more power the players have, the less preparation should be necessary on the part of the GM (selfish, I know, since I'm usually the GM). The players should also be more invested in the story if they have personal input rather than just reacting to what they're given.
There are some indie games that give players narrative power, but most of those have left me with an empty feeling, and I really hadn't pieced together what could be wrong with players describing how a scene plays. This is sometimes referred to as "author's stance", as opposed to the player describing his actions from a first person point of view. It distances the player from his character, and to me, there's an important tension that's lost when that happens. And yet, I want players to be able to add to the setting and contribute plot elements of their own. I want to work toward a situation where the GM and players can all contribute on the fly to some degree, which should put that tension back in, since nobody will know with any certainty what to expect next.
So, I'm going to take another run at the rules, and I'd like to give copies to all of the players this time, so they'll have a better grasp on what we're doing, and perhaps help me work out any remaining bugs. I have another session scheduled for 8/12. The character sheets, unfortunately, will be changing since the last session, but the good thing is that they'll actually be far simpler than the original version, due to the influence of the Unistat session at DexCon. I think I have a better grip now on what I'm trying to do, and hopefully that will show.
First off, I'm trying to achieve simplicity. I want Fluid to be a game that people can understand and be able to play with only a few minutes of explanation at most. The story should progress almost as quickly and easily as people can speak. I want fight scenes as fast and furious as an action film. I don't want lengthy and complicated character sheets or rules. And yet, the characters should have depth and real differences between one another, as much as in any piece of fiction.
Secondly, I want to give more narrative power to the players than they have in most RPGs. This is for two reasons. One reason is that I believe a group of people will have more interesting ideas than any single GM. Another reason is that the more power the players have, the less preparation should be necessary on the part of the GM (selfish, I know, since I'm usually the GM). The players should also be more invested in the story if they have personal input rather than just reacting to what they're given.
There are some indie games that give players narrative power, but most of those have left me with an empty feeling, and I really hadn't pieced together what could be wrong with players describing how a scene plays. This is sometimes referred to as "author's stance", as opposed to the player describing his actions from a first person point of view. It distances the player from his character, and to me, there's an important tension that's lost when that happens. And yet, I want players to be able to add to the setting and contribute plot elements of their own. I want to work toward a situation where the GM and players can all contribute on the fly to some degree, which should put that tension back in, since nobody will know with any certainty what to expect next.
So, I'm going to take another run at the rules, and I'd like to give copies to all of the players this time, so they'll have a better grasp on what we're doing, and perhaps help me work out any remaining bugs. I have another session scheduled for 8/12. The character sheets, unfortunately, will be changing since the last session, but the good thing is that they'll actually be far simpler than the original version, due to the influence of the Unistat session at DexCon. I think I have a better grip now on what I'm trying to do, and hopefully that will show.
Sunday, July 29, 2007
Harry Potter and the Register of Cash
I recently finished reading "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows" and saw the movie "Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix". My lovely wife read "Deathly Hallows" while I was at DexCon and pressed me to read it right away so she could talk to me about it. Then, since she was already in Potter mode, she wanted to go to see the movie.
Regarding "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows", a number of reviews I'd read said that the critic was impressed by how J. K. Rowling had neatly tied up a number of long term threads in the last book. I wasn't as impressed, frankly. I felt that there were some elements that turned up in the last book for which the groundwork hadn't truly been established. The peculiarities of wands certainly weren't developed very much in the earlier books, then became of critical importance in this one. There were a few emotional reactions from some of the characters (primarily Harry's sudden and over-the-top anger with Lupin in one scene) that made little sense to me, and the ending included doing something with a powerful magical item that strikes me as flat out stupid and obviously dangerous.
Don't misunderstand me; I didn't hate the book. I just didn't like it as much as several of the previous books and felt that it was logically weak in spots. On the plus side, it did tie up some of the loose ends in very cool ways, including some elements I'd almost entirely forgotten. I really enjoyed the reappearance of characters from the very beginning. The final fate of virtually every character worked well for me, and I'm sure will more than satisfy the age group for which the series was written. My wife had come up with a far darker ending that I preferred to the one in the book, but I believe that ending would've been too much for the audience that's grown up with Harry. I can't see how they can possibly fit all of this into a cohesive movie, but of course they're going to have to try.
As for "Order of the Phoenix", they did a good job of condensing this one down to movie size. I really missed the deeper characterizations of the individual members of the Order, but that's the sort of thing that naturally had to give in to the time constraint. In fact, I'd say that the movie version was better in that Harry doesn't come off as being as whiny as he did in the book, which became annoying to me after a while. Big points to Imelda Staunton as Dolores Umbridge. I hated the character in the book, but there was exactly enough of her in the movie, and the actress nailed the part. It would've been very easy for her to go too far or not far enough with this character, and she did neither. Gamers may find it amusing to note that I read somewhere that she'd make a great voice for the Computer in a Paranoia game. I have to agree.
The ending of the movie makes sense if you've read the book (though the look of it differs significantly from the book in some respects), but I suspect that someone unfamiliar with the books and only trying to follow the story from the content of the films would be confused about what was going on in the end. I don't think someone only watching the films will have a clue about what Harry and his friends are actually doing in the Ministry of Magic toward the end (though I love the look the director gave those scenes). I found myself reminded of a night I spent watching David Lynch's movie version of "Dune" with two friends, explaining everything as we watched so they'd understand what was going on. Normally I'd consider it rude for someone to talk through an entire film we were watching as a group, but they kept asking questions and I kept answering them, and finally just gave running commentary. Afterwards, they both said that without my ongoing commentary, they'd have had no idea of what was happening and would've just given up and turned it off.
I've thoroughly enjoyed the Harry Potter books, and might even re-read them one of these days. Time will tell if they're actually the classics some say they are. And I'll definitely go the theater to see the remaining movies, if only to see how they adapt the books. The movies have been well executed, on the whole. I'll predict that these stories get re-made about 10-15 years after the last movie is released, probably in the form of a TV series or miniseries rather than movies. The actors playing the kids in the current movies will do at least cameo appearances in adult roles.
Regarding "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows", a number of reviews I'd read said that the critic was impressed by how J. K. Rowling had neatly tied up a number of long term threads in the last book. I wasn't as impressed, frankly. I felt that there were some elements that turned up in the last book for which the groundwork hadn't truly been established. The peculiarities of wands certainly weren't developed very much in the earlier books, then became of critical importance in this one. There were a few emotional reactions from some of the characters (primarily Harry's sudden and over-the-top anger with Lupin in one scene) that made little sense to me, and the ending included doing something with a powerful magical item that strikes me as flat out stupid and obviously dangerous.
Don't misunderstand me; I didn't hate the book. I just didn't like it as much as several of the previous books and felt that it was logically weak in spots. On the plus side, it did tie up some of the loose ends in very cool ways, including some elements I'd almost entirely forgotten. I really enjoyed the reappearance of characters from the very beginning. The final fate of virtually every character worked well for me, and I'm sure will more than satisfy the age group for which the series was written. My wife had come up with a far darker ending that I preferred to the one in the book, but I believe that ending would've been too much for the audience that's grown up with Harry. I can't see how they can possibly fit all of this into a cohesive movie, but of course they're going to have to try.
As for "Order of the Phoenix", they did a good job of condensing this one down to movie size. I really missed the deeper characterizations of the individual members of the Order, but that's the sort of thing that naturally had to give in to the time constraint. In fact, I'd say that the movie version was better in that Harry doesn't come off as being as whiny as he did in the book, which became annoying to me after a while. Big points to Imelda Staunton as Dolores Umbridge. I hated the character in the book, but there was exactly enough of her in the movie, and the actress nailed the part. It would've been very easy for her to go too far or not far enough with this character, and she did neither. Gamers may find it amusing to note that I read somewhere that she'd make a great voice for the Computer in a Paranoia game. I have to agree.
The ending of the movie makes sense if you've read the book (though the look of it differs significantly from the book in some respects), but I suspect that someone unfamiliar with the books and only trying to follow the story from the content of the films would be confused about what was going on in the end. I don't think someone only watching the films will have a clue about what Harry and his friends are actually doing in the Ministry of Magic toward the end (though I love the look the director gave those scenes). I found myself reminded of a night I spent watching David Lynch's movie version of "Dune" with two friends, explaining everything as we watched so they'd understand what was going on. Normally I'd consider it rude for someone to talk through an entire film we were watching as a group, but they kept asking questions and I kept answering them, and finally just gave running commentary. Afterwards, they both said that without my ongoing commentary, they'd have had no idea of what was happening and would've just given up and turned it off.
I've thoroughly enjoyed the Harry Potter books, and might even re-read them one of these days. Time will tell if they're actually the classics some say they are. And I'll definitely go the theater to see the remaining movies, if only to see how they adapt the books. The movies have been well executed, on the whole. I'll predict that these stories get re-made about 10-15 years after the last movie is released, probably in the form of a TV series or miniseries rather than movies. The actors playing the kids in the current movies will do at least cameo appearances in adult roles.
Monday, July 23, 2007
DexCon 2007, Part Two
After my second GURPS session, I tried to find out where the poker tournament was being held and whether or not there was room for me to play. I eventually tracked it down, and in fact there was room for me, so I signed up, barely getting in. While I've played a lot of poker against automated opponents, this was only the fourth time I've played against human beings.
I did well enough overall, finishing in about the middle of the pack. Not bad for a newbie. As it turns out, I was at a particularly dangerous table to start. We were down from nine players to four relatively quickly, since most of the other tables had only eliminated one or two players in the same time frame. Our surviving four players were merged with the three remaining from the other especially dangerous table. All three of those players had a fair sized chip stack, which I wasn't happy to see since my own pile was relatively low by that point. I eventually went out on a bad beat, going all in with the Ace and Jack of clubs, while my opponent had Ace/Three, off suit. The flop came up King, Three, Three, and I was done, barring a miracle that never came.
Most of the table was playing far more loosely than I ever would, which threw me for a loop initially. I only actually played about a dozen hands, winning three or four of them, and my only bluff was successful. I suspect that if I'm going to improve my results, I'm going to have to play more hands and take calculated risks more often. It was a good start, and I'm more than willing to try it again next year. Steve Edelman threatened to tie me to a chair and force me to join the poker game at the next MEPACon I attend. I don't think that'll actually be necessary, since I now know I can play poker publicly without completely embarrassing myself.
And so ended Saturday. I'd hoped to get up early to play in Mike Miller's Sunday morning game, but that clearly wasn't going to happen with me getting to bed at about 3 AM. I did manage some dealers' room time before having lunch with Michele Mishko, and located a copy of a game called Family Business. My friend John Lach had introduced this one at the local game night before he moved, and it had gone over big, but I hadn't been able to find a copy for myself until now. For the most part, I wasn't especially impressed with the dealers' room, but in all fairness to the dealers, I wasn't much in the market for anything right now, since I'm picky about bringing more stuff into the house at this time.
My Sunday In Nomine session didn't happen. Lowell was signed up, and asked if it'd be okay if he played it again. I would've been okay with that if his playing would've made the difference as to whether or not the event happened, but there was really only one other player contemplating joining us, and that was that.
So I joined Andrew Morris' Unistat session. I'd heard Andrew's prior Unistat sessions getting noisy at previous cons, which is always a good sign that the players are having a good time, and I'd had him as a player in my own sessions before, so I knew he could be entertaining at the table. I didn't know the other players (apart from Lowell, who'd also joined this game), though I think I'd seen at least two of them around at conventions before. For this particular session, there was no advance preparation whatsoever. The game started with the players deciding what would be fun to play and creating appropriate characters for it. We ultimately ended up with three rival mad scientists (including myself) competing for status and trying to fight off an invasion of pterodactyl people with ray guns and a zeppelin as a launching platform in 1960's London. The other two player characters were the robot I'd built (which, unknown to me, had just achieved sentience) called PS3 and the innocent niece of one of the others. Some of the more prominent NPCs were Kip, a genetically modified four-armed and four-legged monkey that worked for one of the others as a lab assistant, and Shepp, a large ape clone of the body the other mad scientist had put his own brain into (Shepp himself wasn't very bright). In the end, the three mad scientists reluctantly cooperated to save the day (though we continued to jockey for credit), the niece ended up transformed into a dragon/human hybrid in order to save her life, and the robot was destroyed, though not before he convinced me to recognize the fact of his sentience, and that that sentience was a valuable thing worth trying to replicate.
The system itself is dirt simple. Everybody except the GM starts out with the same number of sides of dice, and chooses which dice they're going to use. The GM starts with as many dice as everybody else combined. In a conflict, each party to it decides how many dice they're going to put in until all agree on exactly what is at stake in the conflict and how many dice they're willing to put into it, at which point the dice are rolled. The player with the highest number wins the conflict and decides what exactly happened, while the player putting in the largest number of dice earns the right to narrate the result as to how it happened. Sometimes this is the same player, and sometimes it isn't. The players then trade dice, meaning that the player who put the most dice into winning the conflict is effectively giving away a disproportionate amount of narrative power to the other player, which tends to keep control of the game relatively balanced among the players. What is the Unistat? It's one characteristic that makes your character distinct from the others, and you get an extra die from the GM to use in a conflict when your special characteristic comes up.
Unistat is similar conceptually to Fluid, but simpler. I'm going to have to think about this. Fluid may be unnecessary. One main difference is that Fluid characters are more fully fleshed out, which is probably better in a long term game. Unistat gives the players more input as to how important a conflict is to them, which is good, and the fact that the dice get passed around distributes narrative control. One of the other players questioned how viable a long term Unistat game would be, and I really don't know the answer to that. If I continue developing Fluid, it's likely to be influenced by Unistat in some way. I might get the effect I'm looking for by allowing players to add one permanent characteristic to their character each session (if they choose to do so) to flesh them out over time, and just use Unistat rules for the flow of play.
Overall, I had a good time at DexCon this year. Two of my three events went off and ran well. I got to spend some time with various friends. I played in a live poker tournament and did reasonably well in it. I found a game of interest in the dealers' room, and played a very enjoyable session of a system that may already do what I've been trying to achieve with Fluid. I plan to go back again next year, as I have the last several years.
I did well enough overall, finishing in about the middle of the pack. Not bad for a newbie. As it turns out, I was at a particularly dangerous table to start. We were down from nine players to four relatively quickly, since most of the other tables had only eliminated one or two players in the same time frame. Our surviving four players were merged with the three remaining from the other especially dangerous table. All three of those players had a fair sized chip stack, which I wasn't happy to see since my own pile was relatively low by that point. I eventually went out on a bad beat, going all in with the Ace and Jack of clubs, while my opponent had Ace/Three, off suit. The flop came up King, Three, Three, and I was done, barring a miracle that never came.
Most of the table was playing far more loosely than I ever would, which threw me for a loop initially. I only actually played about a dozen hands, winning three or four of them, and my only bluff was successful. I suspect that if I'm going to improve my results, I'm going to have to play more hands and take calculated risks more often. It was a good start, and I'm more than willing to try it again next year. Steve Edelman threatened to tie me to a chair and force me to join the poker game at the next MEPACon I attend. I don't think that'll actually be necessary, since I now know I can play poker publicly without completely embarrassing myself.
And so ended Saturday. I'd hoped to get up early to play in Mike Miller's Sunday morning game, but that clearly wasn't going to happen with me getting to bed at about 3 AM. I did manage some dealers' room time before having lunch with Michele Mishko, and located a copy of a game called Family Business. My friend John Lach had introduced this one at the local game night before he moved, and it had gone over big, but I hadn't been able to find a copy for myself until now. For the most part, I wasn't especially impressed with the dealers' room, but in all fairness to the dealers, I wasn't much in the market for anything right now, since I'm picky about bringing more stuff into the house at this time.
My Sunday In Nomine session didn't happen. Lowell was signed up, and asked if it'd be okay if he played it again. I would've been okay with that if his playing would've made the difference as to whether or not the event happened, but there was really only one other player contemplating joining us, and that was that.
So I joined Andrew Morris' Unistat session. I'd heard Andrew's prior Unistat sessions getting noisy at previous cons, which is always a good sign that the players are having a good time, and I'd had him as a player in my own sessions before, so I knew he could be entertaining at the table. I didn't know the other players (apart from Lowell, who'd also joined this game), though I think I'd seen at least two of them around at conventions before. For this particular session, there was no advance preparation whatsoever. The game started with the players deciding what would be fun to play and creating appropriate characters for it. We ultimately ended up with three rival mad scientists (including myself) competing for status and trying to fight off an invasion of pterodactyl people with ray guns and a zeppelin as a launching platform in 1960's London. The other two player characters were the robot I'd built (which, unknown to me, had just achieved sentience) called PS3 and the innocent niece of one of the others. Some of the more prominent NPCs were Kip, a genetically modified four-armed and four-legged monkey that worked for one of the others as a lab assistant, and Shepp, a large ape clone of the body the other mad scientist had put his own brain into (Shepp himself wasn't very bright). In the end, the three mad scientists reluctantly cooperated to save the day (though we continued to jockey for credit), the niece ended up transformed into a dragon/human hybrid in order to save her life, and the robot was destroyed, though not before he convinced me to recognize the fact of his sentience, and that that sentience was a valuable thing worth trying to replicate.
The system itself is dirt simple. Everybody except the GM starts out with the same number of sides of dice, and chooses which dice they're going to use. The GM starts with as many dice as everybody else combined. In a conflict, each party to it decides how many dice they're going to put in until all agree on exactly what is at stake in the conflict and how many dice they're willing to put into it, at which point the dice are rolled. The player with the highest number wins the conflict and decides what exactly happened, while the player putting in the largest number of dice earns the right to narrate the result as to how it happened. Sometimes this is the same player, and sometimes it isn't. The players then trade dice, meaning that the player who put the most dice into winning the conflict is effectively giving away a disproportionate amount of narrative power to the other player, which tends to keep control of the game relatively balanced among the players. What is the Unistat? It's one characteristic that makes your character distinct from the others, and you get an extra die from the GM to use in a conflict when your special characteristic comes up.
Unistat is similar conceptually to Fluid, but simpler. I'm going to have to think about this. Fluid may be unnecessary. One main difference is that Fluid characters are more fully fleshed out, which is probably better in a long term game. Unistat gives the players more input as to how important a conflict is to them, which is good, and the fact that the dice get passed around distributes narrative control. One of the other players questioned how viable a long term Unistat game would be, and I really don't know the answer to that. If I continue developing Fluid, it's likely to be influenced by Unistat in some way. I might get the effect I'm looking for by allowing players to add one permanent characteristic to their character each session (if they choose to do so) to flesh them out over time, and just use Unistat rules for the flow of play.
Overall, I had a good time at DexCon this year. Two of my three events went off and ran well. I got to spend some time with various friends. I played in a live poker tournament and did reasonably well in it. I found a game of interest in the dealers' room, and played a very enjoyable session of a system that may already do what I've been trying to achieve with Fluid. I plan to go back again next year, as I have the last several years.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)