The actual name of the game is Magic: The Gathering, but periodically it becomes an obsession for me, and this was one of those times. For those who may not know, this is a collectible card game representing a wizards' duel with cards in the same manner that chess represents two warring kings and their armies. The difference is that with Magic, you get to custom design your own army.
My wife has observed that I spend far more time in deck building than playing the game, and that's true. I used to buy a bunch of cards every time the newest expansion came out, then spend huge amounts of time making new decks and integrating the new cards into my existing decks. Then I realized that there weren't very many new cards making the cut into the existing decks, so I decreased the number of cards I was buying and decided that I would only integrate new cards into existing decks after each block of three expansions rather than after every expansion.
Even that has proven too unwieldy to continue, as I've spent far too much time this past week integrating new cards into a collection that's grown to over fifty working decks (not to mention the cards that haven't made it into decks for one reason or another). Considering that I usually play only about two dozen games a year with friends, it all seems ridiculous, and yet I don't want to stop buying a certain amount of new cards because building new decks with the new cards is half of the fun for me.
And so I've decided to change the new card integration process yet again. Without boring you with all of the details, it comes down to that I'll update the existing decks when I play with them, rather than when expansions come out. I'll set up a system to rotate through all existing decks so I won't spend so damn much time on this process in one shot.
I've recently finished the book "Broken Music", an autobiography from Sting. Considering that he's a songwriter known for his literate lyrics, it's not surprising that he does a fair job writing prose as well. I was hoping for some insights into the inner workings of the Police, which I didn't really get. Sting doesn't appear to have any more of a personal relationship with Andy Summers than you or I might have with any co-worker at the office, though he does speak highly of him as a professional. His personal and musical relationships with Stewart Copeland get some discussion, but there wasn't any information there that you couldn't have gotten from interviews from the Police era. What is interesting is that you learn more about what makes him tick as a human being. He grew up in some rough conditions, which might surprise those with a more highbrow impression of him. You can take the boy out of the neighborhood, but there's always some of the neighborhood in the boy afterward, and it comes through at times. The book is worth reading, even if you aren't a particular fan. If you are a fan, don't expect anything deep regarding the Police, but you can expect a better understanding of what makes their leader tick.
I also recently finished "Anansi Boys" by Neil Gaiman. I'd recommend it if you liked American Gods, though it's not as strong or as sprawling. It's a more personal story.
I'm currently reading "Ethics for the New Millenium" by the Dalai Lama. Inspiring stuff. Reading this, you can't help but see the logic of his approach and wonder why human beings have such a hard time getting along when we essentially agree about the things that really matter. Even before reading this book, I've never understood the common human tendency to insist on dictating to others how they should live their lives. I'm not that far into this book yet, and might have more to say about it after I finish.
I'm still overindulging with Netflix, and we've picked up a DVD collection of 50 classic horor films, so it's been movie week. More on that another time.
I've had the last week off, and my wife had Thursday and Friday to spend with me. We usually take vacation time for the week of our wedding anniversary. We felt as though we should do something special for it, but the fact is that neither of us could think of anything special that we really wanted to do, so for the most part we just rested and watched movies at home. We didn't even buy gifts for each other, though we did buy a new ring for her while we were on a day trip. It's been a relaxing week for me, but the work week calls, and I have no choice but to answer.
We're usually well stocked with Christmas and birthday gifts by now (we have a lot of fall and winter birthdays in the family), but that's not the case this year at all. For some reason, the effort put into preparation to move seems to have taken all of that kind of energy and left us disinclined to focus on that area of life. We didn't even do any special preparation for Halloween, which is normally a favorite holiday with us. We're not going to have any choice but to try to catch up in the next month or so, so it's probably going to be a busy November.
I usually get a lot of writing done during the vacation this time of year, but that wasn't the case this time, primarily due to the Magic obsession. It was my choice, so I can't complain. I hope to get back into writing mode along with my usual routine this upcoming week.
Sunday, October 21, 2007
Sunday, October 07, 2007
Don't Rest Your Head
Don Corcoran guest-GM'd a session of Don't Rest Your Head for my local RPG group on Friday night. I'd bought a copy at GenCon and read it through, but this was my first experience actually playing it.
I'd been a little concerned that we'd spend a lot of time in character creation and not enough time actually playing the game, but that turned out not to be a problem. Don did a great job taking character ideas presented by each of us and tweaking them to make them more setting-appropriate and help us interact in more interesting ways. I have to admit that my own character worked well enough in terms of the setting, but it might have helped if I'd had a more specific goal. It might've been a better character for a long term game than for a single session. Mike H's character was similar in that respect. I don't think we got more than a glimpse of where he could've gone with that character over time.
We started with bits introducing each individual character, occasionally drifting into each other's stories. It reminded me of some Sorcerer sessions I've played. It works well enough as long as all of the individual stories hold the interest of the players who aren't doing anything during that time. Don used the device of having players play the occasional NPC, which keeps everybody involved and brings a bit more color to the NPCs than if the GM played all of them.
The true highlight of the session was actually because of colorful NPCs. Dana and the other Scott played a couple of street corner drug dealers who had us all on the floor laughing. I think I'll have to find an excuse to throw a couple of similar dealers into the Firefly campaign somewhere. :-)
In terms of the actual PCs, Jason gets the award for best start to his story by teleporting into a children's birthday party while on fire. That's hard to match, never mind top.
Don ultimately brought all of the PCs together at an all night diner, where we were collectively attacked by surreal beasties after building up to it by our finding a couple of corpses apparently left behind by said beasties. This ending reminded me of how Call of Cthulhu has lost a lot of power for me because I can recognize most of the commonly used opposition from the smallest hints. In this session, I had no idea what our enemies might be capable of, and in a horror game that makes all the difference.
The game mechanics were clear and simple, yet flavorful, and everyone understood how things were supposed to work very quickly. I plan to run Don't Rest Your Head at a convention sometime if I can come up with enough interesting characters to do a good job of it. It might actually be easier for me to come up with a group with interesting interactions than a single character.
So thanks again to Don for GMing a quality session for us. I look forward to seeing the horror game of his own design that he was telling us about after this session.
I'd been a little concerned that we'd spend a lot of time in character creation and not enough time actually playing the game, but that turned out not to be a problem. Don did a great job taking character ideas presented by each of us and tweaking them to make them more setting-appropriate and help us interact in more interesting ways. I have to admit that my own character worked well enough in terms of the setting, but it might have helped if I'd had a more specific goal. It might've been a better character for a long term game than for a single session. Mike H's character was similar in that respect. I don't think we got more than a glimpse of where he could've gone with that character over time.
We started with bits introducing each individual character, occasionally drifting into each other's stories. It reminded me of some Sorcerer sessions I've played. It works well enough as long as all of the individual stories hold the interest of the players who aren't doing anything during that time. Don used the device of having players play the occasional NPC, which keeps everybody involved and brings a bit more color to the NPCs than if the GM played all of them.
The true highlight of the session was actually because of colorful NPCs. Dana and the other Scott played a couple of street corner drug dealers who had us all on the floor laughing. I think I'll have to find an excuse to throw a couple of similar dealers into the Firefly campaign somewhere. :-)
In terms of the actual PCs, Jason gets the award for best start to his story by teleporting into a children's birthday party while on fire. That's hard to match, never mind top.
Don ultimately brought all of the PCs together at an all night diner, where we were collectively attacked by surreal beasties after building up to it by our finding a couple of corpses apparently left behind by said beasties. This ending reminded me of how Call of Cthulhu has lost a lot of power for me because I can recognize most of the commonly used opposition from the smallest hints. In this session, I had no idea what our enemies might be capable of, and in a horror game that makes all the difference.
The game mechanics were clear and simple, yet flavorful, and everyone understood how things were supposed to work very quickly. I plan to run Don't Rest Your Head at a convention sometime if I can come up with enough interesting characters to do a good job of it. It might actually be easier for me to come up with a group with interesting interactions than a single character.
So thanks again to Don for GMing a quality session for us. I look forward to seeing the horror game of his own design that he was telling us about after this session.
Sunday, September 30, 2007
Clerks II
I'm a fan of the original film, so I couldn't help but rent this one. And I can't help but compare the two, since it's a sequel. Honestly, I don't think the sequel is nearly as funny, but it has more heart. My expectations definitely played a part in how I felt about it, because I was initially expecting a level of comedy that wasn't always happening. There would be laugh-out-loud moments, but sometimes it was a long time between those moments.
It was only about halfway through the film that I truly understood where Kevin Smith was going with this. It was really about choosing a place for yourself in the world, and how making those choices effects friendships. It's not very often that you'll see a movie with a bestiality scene played for laughs that turns out to be actually touching in the end (the movie, not the scene). I very much enjoyed the ending, which brought the story started in the first movie to a perfect close.
The deleted scenes also showed an interesting thing about the movie that could have been. I found the bits about Jay and Silent Bob finding Jesus (which were almost all deleted) to be hilarious, but I suppose they would've offended a lot of people. And after Dogma, the inclusion of those bits could've created the perception that Kevin Smith was generally anti-Christian. I don't think he truly is anti-Christian; I think he just finds certain aspects of Christianity funny. I don't consider myself anti-Christian, and I certainly laughed.
I'd call this one a 6 on a 1-10 scale, bumping it up a notch or two if you're a Kevin Smith fan in the first place, and down two notches if you're easily offended (though I don't see why you'd rent a Kevin Smith film if you are). It's not as good overall as "Chasing Amy", and it's not as funny as some of his other work, but it makes some very real statements about life. I think he's capable of making a great film if he can learn to write dialogue that isn't so damn vulgar all of the time.
I've been known to sling enough profanity around myself to offend more sensitive ears, but why do some writers (Quentin Tarentino is another one) feel that everybody can't finish a sentence without at least one profanity in it? There might be individual characters who speak that way, but not all of them should. How many people do you know who really swear that much? Profanity loses all of its power when overused, and it's just not as inherently funny as some people seem to think it is.
It was only about halfway through the film that I truly understood where Kevin Smith was going with this. It was really about choosing a place for yourself in the world, and how making those choices effects friendships. It's not very often that you'll see a movie with a bestiality scene played for laughs that turns out to be actually touching in the end (the movie, not the scene). I very much enjoyed the ending, which brought the story started in the first movie to a perfect close.
The deleted scenes also showed an interesting thing about the movie that could have been. I found the bits about Jay and Silent Bob finding Jesus (which were almost all deleted) to be hilarious, but I suppose they would've offended a lot of people. And after Dogma, the inclusion of those bits could've created the perception that Kevin Smith was generally anti-Christian. I don't think he truly is anti-Christian; I think he just finds certain aspects of Christianity funny. I don't consider myself anti-Christian, and I certainly laughed.
I'd call this one a 6 on a 1-10 scale, bumping it up a notch or two if you're a Kevin Smith fan in the first place, and down two notches if you're easily offended (though I don't see why you'd rent a Kevin Smith film if you are). It's not as good overall as "Chasing Amy", and it's not as funny as some of his other work, but it makes some very real statements about life. I think he's capable of making a great film if he can learn to write dialogue that isn't so damn vulgar all of the time.
I've been known to sling enough profanity around myself to offend more sensitive ears, but why do some writers (Quentin Tarentino is another one) feel that everybody can't finish a sentence without at least one profanity in it? There might be individual characters who speak that way, but not all of them should. How many people do you know who really swear that much? Profanity loses all of its power when overused, and it's just not as inherently funny as some people seem to think it is.
Sunday, September 23, 2007
The Host
The Host is a South Korean movie that had gained some buzz for the monster in it (shown early and often) and a compelling story. My wife loves a good monster movie, and I knew she hadn't even heard of this one, so I took a chance on it.
The monster lived up to his billing, for the most part. Some of the effects were a bit suspect, but the Lovecraftian look of the beast really worked for me. The source of the monster is only hinted at, but that wasn't really the point. The story is actually about how one family is touched by the actions of the monster.
I have to admit to laughing at most of the acting. I suspect that it boils down to cultural difference, as most of the performances seemed way over the top to me.
The pacing was slower than I'm accustomed to seeing in American movies, but that's a typical difference for most films made elsewhere. The family drama was just okay to my tastes, and I don't think you really learn that much about the characters.
I've read that there's supposed to be an American remake in the works, and as usual, I think that's a very bad idea. There are at least two plot points that I'm sure will be handled differently in the American version, and those two points are almost all of what makes this movie interesting apart from the monster itself. Much of the story focuses on a family coming together to rescue a little girl taken by the monster, and I just can't see an American family placing the same value on family that a South Korean family does. An American family would almost have to be motivated by some serious guilt to take the actions shown here.
Call it a 5 on a scale of 1-10, adding one or two if you have a particular love for well executed monsters or a particular appreciation for South Korean culture.
The monster lived up to his billing, for the most part. Some of the effects were a bit suspect, but the Lovecraftian look of the beast really worked for me. The source of the monster is only hinted at, but that wasn't really the point. The story is actually about how one family is touched by the actions of the monster.
I have to admit to laughing at most of the acting. I suspect that it boils down to cultural difference, as most of the performances seemed way over the top to me.
The pacing was slower than I'm accustomed to seeing in American movies, but that's a typical difference for most films made elsewhere. The family drama was just okay to my tastes, and I don't think you really learn that much about the characters.
I've read that there's supposed to be an American remake in the works, and as usual, I think that's a very bad idea. There are at least two plot points that I'm sure will be handled differently in the American version, and those two points are almost all of what makes this movie interesting apart from the monster itself. Much of the story focuses on a family coming together to rescue a little girl taken by the monster, and I just can't see an American family placing the same value on family that a South Korean family does. An American family would almost have to be motivated by some serious guilt to take the actions shown here.
Call it a 5 on a scale of 1-10, adding one or two if you have a particular love for well executed monsters or a particular appreciation for South Korean culture.
Shadow of the Vampire
I'd read good things about this movie, and thought the idea behind it had a lot of potential. That idea is that the actor playing the vampire in the 1920's film Nosferatu was a real vampire and only the director knew it. The director was so determined to make a great movie that he was willing to do virtually anything to achieve that. The director is ultimately more of a parasite than the vampire. Unfortunately, the execution of that idea didn't really work for me.
The best things about the film were the strong performances from Willem Dafoe and John Malkovich. The sets looked good, evoking a strong feeling of the time period in which the film is set. The script, however, didn't live up to the potential of the premise, and the directing wasn't bad, but didn't add anything.
Call it 5 on a scale of 1-10, maybe adding one if you particularly like one of the lead actors.
The best things about the film were the strong performances from Willem Dafoe and John Malkovich. The sets looked good, evoking a strong feeling of the time period in which the film is set. The script, however, didn't live up to the potential of the premise, and the directing wasn't bad, but didn't add anything.
Call it 5 on a scale of 1-10, maybe adding one if you particularly like one of the lead actors.
Friday, September 21, 2007
A Deep Breath by the Side of the Spiritual Path
I realized I hadn't written anything on the spiritual side of things for a while. I'd gotten into a good meditation routine and done a lot of inspirational reading. Then GenCon shook me out of my routine (in a good way, mostly) and I was off my game for a while after that. I became concerned that I'd lost something in the change of routine.
I finally realized that it was nothing more than that the newness had worn off, that I'd reached the part that mattered, which is truly living the path day to day. Relaxing with that thought, I found comfort again, and actually applied myself better, knowing I'd be staying on this path for a while, at least.
I've had a good week at work. I've felt very centered in spite of the usual adversity that comes with the job. I found the Washington trip inspiring, in a way, in the sense that I felt a sense of community that I don't know if I've ever had at work. I've tended to see myself as very different from the people I've worked with, and kept myself at arm's length. We're all different from everybody else somehow, and I've learned that it's better to emphasize the similiarities if you plan to get along. It's not exactly a new revelation, but each of us have to soak our lessons in over time to really assimilate them. Too often, we haven't really absorbed all of the lessons we think we have, and so we keep experiencing the same problems over and over again until we get it. I'm sure I'll need to get this one again sometime, but I have it for now. :-)
I finally realized that it was nothing more than that the newness had worn off, that I'd reached the part that mattered, which is truly living the path day to day. Relaxing with that thought, I found comfort again, and actually applied myself better, knowing I'd be staying on this path for a while, at least.
I've had a good week at work. I've felt very centered in spite of the usual adversity that comes with the job. I found the Washington trip inspiring, in a way, in the sense that I felt a sense of community that I don't know if I've ever had at work. I've tended to see myself as very different from the people I've worked with, and kept myself at arm's length. We're all different from everybody else somehow, and I've learned that it's better to emphasize the similiarities if you plan to get along. It's not exactly a new revelation, but each of us have to soak our lessons in over time to really assimilate them. Too often, we haven't really absorbed all of the lessons we think we have, and so we keep experiencing the same problems over and over again until we get it. I'm sure I'll need to get this one again sometime, but I have it for now. :-)
Tuesday, September 18, 2007
Talk Like a Pirate Day
September 19th is Talk Like a Pirate Day. I'm sure you hadn't forgotten, but just in case you had, here's a reminder.
I'd talk like a pirate in this entry, but as I write this, Talk Like a Pirate Day isn't until tomorrow, so it's just not time yet.
And if ninjas are more your style, well, December 5th isn't that far away.
I'd talk like a pirate in this entry, but as I write this, Talk Like a Pirate Day isn't until tomorrow, so it's just not time yet.
And if ninjas are more your style, well, December 5th isn't that far away.
Sunday, September 16, 2007
Inland Empire
I finally signed up for Netflix a little over a week ago, and this was my first choice. I was supposed to receive my first movie last Saturday, and when it didn't come, I just wrote it off to the vagaries of mailing time. However, on Sunday morning, a blonde woman I'd never seen before turned up on my doorstep, explaining that she was one of my neighbors and was previously the only person in our neighborhood to her knowledge who had Netflix. She'd received our two movies, but hadn't realized it until she opened them and noticed they weren't the sort of movies she'd choose. She looked at the address and figured out where they were supposed to go, so she brought them to our house. Since she was bringing me a David Lynch film, it would've been more appropriate if she'd finished the conversation by saying something surreal, like "The owls are not what they seem", or that she was already inside my house and offer me her cell phone so I could call her, but she didn't do anything like that. I just thanked her and she went on her way without so much as a cryptic comment.
As for the movie itself, the first half was as good as anything I've ever seen by David Lynch. It was off-kilter while still being something you could follow. Then the wheels fell off, and it was just strange without being particularly interesting other than some truly unsettling images. Critics have said this is his strangest film, and I'd have to agree with that. David Lynch famously said that this movie was "about a woman in trouble", and I don't think he could really say anything more about it because he himself didn't know anything more. I truly don't understand the parts with the sitcom with the people with rabbit heads, apart from the obvious satire of having the audience laugh at inappropriate times just because they're cued to do so.
It appeared to me as though it was chiefly about an actress who was losing the ability to distinguish between fact and fantasy, but even that idea seemed to break down after a while. I don't think David Lynch really has stories to tell; I think he's a painter who falls in love with unsettling moving images.
Call this one a 7 out of 10 if you're a David Lynch fan in the first place, and a 3 out of 10 if you're looking for an actual cohesive story of some kind. I found it worth my time to watch, but it's definitely not for everybody. I'd kick it up to 8 out of 10 if it'd been even a little more cohesive, since the beginning was so strong. If you're going to try David Lynch for the first time, I'd suggest the Twin Peaks series, which is more accessible (probably because other creative minds were involved as well) or "Blue Velvet" (but be prepared for strong sexual and violent content).
It also annoyed me that there were no chapter breaks, leaving the viewer stuck with nearly a three hour movie and no way to watch it in parts. I watched it in two sittings by watching the first half one day, then leaving the first half on the TV with the sound muted while I did other things and catching the second half when it almost caught up to where I'd left off. Mr. Lynch himself believes strongly that movies are meant to be watched beginning to end (which I'm sure is why the DVD has no chapter breaks), and would probably say that the reason I didn't like the second half as much as the first is that I didn't watch it all in one sitting, and that I could have done so, since I left the first half run while doing other things another day. That much is true, but the fact is that it's physically difficult for me to sit still to watch a three hour movie uninterrupted. I'd also like to have been able to revisit parts of the second half to better understand how they fit in with the beginning, and to see how David Lynch achieved some of the more disturbing effects, which was primarily with lighting and unconventional use of sound. I'm sure there are film students who'd love to do the same. However, it's just not worth the trouble it'd take to run the whole film again just to watch a few bits.
I plan to take a lot more chances with my choice of films now, since I'm paying a flat rate and if one of those choices flat out stinks, I can just turn it off and send it back without another thought. This is going to be good.
As for the movie itself, the first half was as good as anything I've ever seen by David Lynch. It was off-kilter while still being something you could follow. Then the wheels fell off, and it was just strange without being particularly interesting other than some truly unsettling images. Critics have said this is his strangest film, and I'd have to agree with that. David Lynch famously said that this movie was "about a woman in trouble", and I don't think he could really say anything more about it because he himself didn't know anything more. I truly don't understand the parts with the sitcom with the people with rabbit heads, apart from the obvious satire of having the audience laugh at inappropriate times just because they're cued to do so.
It appeared to me as though it was chiefly about an actress who was losing the ability to distinguish between fact and fantasy, but even that idea seemed to break down after a while. I don't think David Lynch really has stories to tell; I think he's a painter who falls in love with unsettling moving images.
Call this one a 7 out of 10 if you're a David Lynch fan in the first place, and a 3 out of 10 if you're looking for an actual cohesive story of some kind. I found it worth my time to watch, but it's definitely not for everybody. I'd kick it up to 8 out of 10 if it'd been even a little more cohesive, since the beginning was so strong. If you're going to try David Lynch for the first time, I'd suggest the Twin Peaks series, which is more accessible (probably because other creative minds were involved as well) or "Blue Velvet" (but be prepared for strong sexual and violent content).
It also annoyed me that there were no chapter breaks, leaving the viewer stuck with nearly a three hour movie and no way to watch it in parts. I watched it in two sittings by watching the first half one day, then leaving the first half on the TV with the sound muted while I did other things and catching the second half when it almost caught up to where I'd left off. Mr. Lynch himself believes strongly that movies are meant to be watched beginning to end (which I'm sure is why the DVD has no chapter breaks), and would probably say that the reason I didn't like the second half as much as the first is that I didn't watch it all in one sitting, and that I could have done so, since I left the first half run while doing other things another day. That much is true, but the fact is that it's physically difficult for me to sit still to watch a three hour movie uninterrupted. I'd also like to have been able to revisit parts of the second half to better understand how they fit in with the beginning, and to see how David Lynch achieved some of the more disturbing effects, which was primarily with lighting and unconventional use of sound. I'm sure there are film students who'd love to do the same. However, it's just not worth the trouble it'd take to run the whole film again just to watch a few bits.
I plan to take a lot more chances with my choice of films now, since I'm paying a flat rate and if one of those choices flat out stinks, I can just turn it off and send it back without another thought. This is going to be good.
Saturday, September 15, 2007
Adventures in DC
I've complained often enough about my job, so let me say something positive about it this time. This past week, as a reward for good results the last two quarters, the company I work for gave our entire department the day off and took us on a trip to Washington, DC at their expense. Not every company would do something like that.
We started out with a continental breakfast and the actual bus trip to DC, where we boarded a large boat for an extended lunch buffet and boat ride. The boat had four decks, and we had lunch on the bottom deck. Afterward, most of us went to the top deck, which was open and allowed us to enjoy the sun and the sights. We had a beautiful day for the trip and took full advantage of that fact.
The boat also had on-board entertainment, which is worth discussing in more detail. The entertainment was three singer/dancers (one white woman and two black men) and a DJ, who provided pre-recorded tracks for the performances of the others. The choice of material was largely 70's era Cheesy Lounge Act Rhythm and Blues. Yes, it was as bad as it sounds. As a former musician myself, I have to give them credit for professionalism. They were trying incredibly hard to keep the energy level up and keep the audience engaged. On the downside, they were musically competent at best. I'll give them credit for knowing their limitations and being smart enough to work within them, unlike many performers I've seen elsewhere. I'm not qualified to judge dancing skill; I'll just say I wasn't overly impressed. They were ignored by their intended audience for the most part, but managed to get about two dozen people up to dance with them for the last two or three songs as we were pulling back into port.
In all fairness, it was a very tough audience. About a third of the audience was our group, which was far more interested in catching some nice weather topside than in paying attention to singer/dancers. Another third was an organization of elderly folks, many using wheelchairs or walkers and not likely to be hitting the dance floor any time soon. The remaining third was a birthday party for a woman who appeared to be in her late 20's or early 30's, but most of her group seemed to be elderly women who, again, weren't likely to be doing any dancing.
I found myself wondering what it would be like making a living singing/dancing to largely indifferent audiences. Yes, you're making a living doing what you love, but I know from personal experience that indifferent audiences are no fun at all. Performing for an indifferent audience is damn hard work. And I had no way to know if they genuinely enjoyed the musical material (which helps a lot), or if someone else chose it and they were just hired to do the show someone else paid them to do. Making a living in show biz ain't all it's cracked up to be.
After the boat ride, we were dropped off at the Smithsonian Air and Space Museum and given about 2 1/2 hours of free time. We broke off into groups, depending on what people wanted to see, and soon we were all over Washington. I personally stayed at the Air and Space Museum with a group of women I'm friendly with at work. We initially went to a display that was only temporarily in this museum, which included various culturally significant objects from another museum that was presently under construction. We saw the hat Abe Lincoln had been wearing the night he was shot, the actual R2D2 and C3PO used in the Star Wars movies (a true moment of geek ecstasy), one of Prince's custom guitars, and the famous signpost from the M*A*S*H TV series showing how far the camp was from a number of different places.
At that point, the ladies had had enough museum experience for them and went outside to enjoy the weather, leaving me to cover the rest of the Air and Space Museum myself. This was a Good Thing in my book, since it allowed me to focus on what I wanted to see without worrying about anyone else. I was able to see most of the rest of the museum, though I'd love to see everything else another time.
The courage and stupidity that human beings are capable of often amazes me. I saw some of the spacecraft used in the 70's, and can't believe that anyone would stake their lives on absolutely everything going right with those spacecraft so far away from anyone being able to help them. You have to wonder why someone would be willing to risk their life for what amounts to intellectual curiosity, and yet I find it admirable that human beings would go so far simply to learn. I visited a display of World War I items, and was horrified by the realities of the trench warfare of the time. What could possibly be worth that price in human lives and misery?
Everyone reassembled in front of the Air and Space Museum for a trip to a superb sea food restaurant for dinner, then we went home. The trip home put a damper on what had been a wonderful day, as there had been a number of car accidents and heavy traffic that added an hour and a half to an already long trip home. I had this hilarious vision of one of the accidents involving someone insured with us, and this entire busload of people with various specialties pulling over and handling every aspect of the claim on the spot ten minutes after it had happened. We didn't get back until 11:30 PM on a weeknight, and virtually all of us had to be at work at about 8 AM the following day. Some of us lived as far as an hour's drive from home; I was fortunately far luckier than that, only living about a ten minute drive away.
Things were quiet the following day at work, but I've got to put credit where it's due and say that, as far as I know, everybody had a great time and would do it again in a heartbeat. Hopefully the next couple of quarters will go as well and we'll get to do something else as good.
We started out with a continental breakfast and the actual bus trip to DC, where we boarded a large boat for an extended lunch buffet and boat ride. The boat had four decks, and we had lunch on the bottom deck. Afterward, most of us went to the top deck, which was open and allowed us to enjoy the sun and the sights. We had a beautiful day for the trip and took full advantage of that fact.
The boat also had on-board entertainment, which is worth discussing in more detail. The entertainment was three singer/dancers (one white woman and two black men) and a DJ, who provided pre-recorded tracks for the performances of the others. The choice of material was largely 70's era Cheesy Lounge Act Rhythm and Blues. Yes, it was as bad as it sounds. As a former musician myself, I have to give them credit for professionalism. They were trying incredibly hard to keep the energy level up and keep the audience engaged. On the downside, they were musically competent at best. I'll give them credit for knowing their limitations and being smart enough to work within them, unlike many performers I've seen elsewhere. I'm not qualified to judge dancing skill; I'll just say I wasn't overly impressed. They were ignored by their intended audience for the most part, but managed to get about two dozen people up to dance with them for the last two or three songs as we were pulling back into port.
In all fairness, it was a very tough audience. About a third of the audience was our group, which was far more interested in catching some nice weather topside than in paying attention to singer/dancers. Another third was an organization of elderly folks, many using wheelchairs or walkers and not likely to be hitting the dance floor any time soon. The remaining third was a birthday party for a woman who appeared to be in her late 20's or early 30's, but most of her group seemed to be elderly women who, again, weren't likely to be doing any dancing.
I found myself wondering what it would be like making a living singing/dancing to largely indifferent audiences. Yes, you're making a living doing what you love, but I know from personal experience that indifferent audiences are no fun at all. Performing for an indifferent audience is damn hard work. And I had no way to know if they genuinely enjoyed the musical material (which helps a lot), or if someone else chose it and they were just hired to do the show someone else paid them to do. Making a living in show biz ain't all it's cracked up to be.
After the boat ride, we were dropped off at the Smithsonian Air and Space Museum and given about 2 1/2 hours of free time. We broke off into groups, depending on what people wanted to see, and soon we were all over Washington. I personally stayed at the Air and Space Museum with a group of women I'm friendly with at work. We initially went to a display that was only temporarily in this museum, which included various culturally significant objects from another museum that was presently under construction. We saw the hat Abe Lincoln had been wearing the night he was shot, the actual R2D2 and C3PO used in the Star Wars movies (a true moment of geek ecstasy), one of Prince's custom guitars, and the famous signpost from the M*A*S*H TV series showing how far the camp was from a number of different places.
At that point, the ladies had had enough museum experience for them and went outside to enjoy the weather, leaving me to cover the rest of the Air and Space Museum myself. This was a Good Thing in my book, since it allowed me to focus on what I wanted to see without worrying about anyone else. I was able to see most of the rest of the museum, though I'd love to see everything else another time.
The courage and stupidity that human beings are capable of often amazes me. I saw some of the spacecraft used in the 70's, and can't believe that anyone would stake their lives on absolutely everything going right with those spacecraft so far away from anyone being able to help them. You have to wonder why someone would be willing to risk their life for what amounts to intellectual curiosity, and yet I find it admirable that human beings would go so far simply to learn. I visited a display of World War I items, and was horrified by the realities of the trench warfare of the time. What could possibly be worth that price in human lives and misery?
Everyone reassembled in front of the Air and Space Museum for a trip to a superb sea food restaurant for dinner, then we went home. The trip home put a damper on what had been a wonderful day, as there had been a number of car accidents and heavy traffic that added an hour and a half to an already long trip home. I had this hilarious vision of one of the accidents involving someone insured with us, and this entire busload of people with various specialties pulling over and handling every aspect of the claim on the spot ten minutes after it had happened. We didn't get back until 11:30 PM on a weeknight, and virtually all of us had to be at work at about 8 AM the following day. Some of us lived as far as an hour's drive from home; I was fortunately far luckier than that, only living about a ten minute drive away.
Things were quiet the following day at work, but I've got to put credit where it's due and say that, as far as I know, everybody had a great time and would do it again in a heartbeat. Hopefully the next couple of quarters will go as well and we'll get to do something else as good.
Monday, September 10, 2007
Fluid the Third
The beginning of last night's Firefly session was everything I want Fluid to be. I'd brought some ideas of my own in case nobody else did, and as it turns out I used almost none of my prepared ideas.
The original idea had been that this session was going to be about the PCs disrupting a poker game being run by a powerful crime syndicate to repay a favor the PCs owed to another powerful crime syndicate. The players decided that the best way to disrupt the game was from the inside, and spent most of this session kidnapping an arms dealer who'd worked both sides during the Unification War, with the idea that one of the characters would take his place in the poker game. They created and named this key NPC themselves; I just played him. Most (if not all) of the group contributed elements to the situation, which ultimately involved literally catching the arms dealer with his pants down at a local brothel. They succeeded, but not without complications, several of them self-inflicted to add interest to the story, which was exactly what I was trying to accomplish!
On the downside, the session then bogged down into planning the actual infiltration, which everybody agreed was Not Fun. Mike H. made a suggestion that tapped into some ideas I'd read about roleplaying "caper films" on rpg.net, which is that you never actually do the planning, but play out the situation starting with the beginning of a plan (the characters board the ship to infiltrate the poker game) and spontaneously add elements that are retroactively determined to have been part of the planning all along, even though the planning never actually appeared "on screen". But of course, no plan survives contact with the enemy, and there will be complications. This is exactly the sort of thing that Fluid is intended to make possible, and I'm excited about trying it in the next session.
Mike H. also brought up another important idea, which is that it might be necessary to determine the scale of a scene before actually starting to play it out. My original idea had been that the players would effectively determine the scale of a scene by adding detail during parts of greater interest to them, and glossing over the less interesting parts. In practice, however, we tended to find ourselves at a fairly fine level of detail because that's the way roleplaying is usually done, even though the players themselves would've preferred a more "big picture" approach to the particular scene in which this issue emerged. I'd prefer to keep things more fluid if we can, but when all of the players agree that they would've preferred a result different than the one we had, then it's time to consider a different approach.
I'm very encouraged by the way the system worked, for the most part, because it encouraged exactly the behavior I wanted from the players, which tends to result in a story with maximum buy-in on their part. There are bugs to work out yet, but it feels like the right track.
The original idea had been that this session was going to be about the PCs disrupting a poker game being run by a powerful crime syndicate to repay a favor the PCs owed to another powerful crime syndicate. The players decided that the best way to disrupt the game was from the inside, and spent most of this session kidnapping an arms dealer who'd worked both sides during the Unification War, with the idea that one of the characters would take his place in the poker game. They created and named this key NPC themselves; I just played him. Most (if not all) of the group contributed elements to the situation, which ultimately involved literally catching the arms dealer with his pants down at a local brothel. They succeeded, but not without complications, several of them self-inflicted to add interest to the story, which was exactly what I was trying to accomplish!
On the downside, the session then bogged down into planning the actual infiltration, which everybody agreed was Not Fun. Mike H. made a suggestion that tapped into some ideas I'd read about roleplaying "caper films" on rpg.net, which is that you never actually do the planning, but play out the situation starting with the beginning of a plan (the characters board the ship to infiltrate the poker game) and spontaneously add elements that are retroactively determined to have been part of the planning all along, even though the planning never actually appeared "on screen". But of course, no plan survives contact with the enemy, and there will be complications. This is exactly the sort of thing that Fluid is intended to make possible, and I'm excited about trying it in the next session.
Mike H. also brought up another important idea, which is that it might be necessary to determine the scale of a scene before actually starting to play it out. My original idea had been that the players would effectively determine the scale of a scene by adding detail during parts of greater interest to them, and glossing over the less interesting parts. In practice, however, we tended to find ourselves at a fairly fine level of detail because that's the way roleplaying is usually done, even though the players themselves would've preferred a more "big picture" approach to the particular scene in which this issue emerged. I'd prefer to keep things more fluid if we can, but when all of the players agree that they would've preferred a result different than the one we had, then it's time to consider a different approach.
I'm very encouraged by the way the system worked, for the most part, because it encouraged exactly the behavior I wanted from the players, which tends to result in a story with maximum buy-in on their part. There are bugs to work out yet, but it feels like the right track.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)