Last night, Tom Grant of the excellent I've Been Diced podcast came over and we played a couple of games.
The first game we played was Worthington Games's Hearts and Minds. What happened to the components here? I look at Worthington as the "little company that could," and back when Cowboys came out, they had really upgraded their components. Linen finish on the board and counters and thicker counters were the component highlights of the -- in the end -- underwhelming cowboys. Similarly, Prussia's Defiant Stand, a worthy addition to the block game lineup had very nice components, and the minis in Napoleon's War were a nice addition. But Hearts and Minds' components are a real shame. The map is too small and the control counters are too big. The cards are of the quality of the Jim Palmer baseball card that I tore off my Hostess Cupcakes box back in 1973 (or the quality of the first edition of Talisman, whichever you prefer). Too bad. It is a high profile blemish on what I actually think is a very good game.
There are a number of things going on in Hearts and Minds that I like, but I'd like to focus on the card play specifically. There are two innovations here. A number of games have the "event or ops" choice, with some notable cards allowing both. ALL of Hearts and Minds's cards offer both options. In H&M, you pay some or all of a card's ops (or even, in some rare cases, more than a card's ops, more on how to do this later) in order to activate the event. This in a lot of ways makes the choice a bit harder because now you know you're going to do something with the ops and the question becomes how many do I really need and is this event worth the price paid?
In addition to this is the idea of stockpile ops (in game parlance RPs). You can squirrel away the unused ops of a card in order to use them later. Most of the time you can add only 2 of these ops to enhance the ops of your card. Sometimes, the event of a card (usually in campaign cards) will allow you to spend more of these stockpiled ops. And sometimes, like in the case of the Tet offensive, you need to cash in a number of these stockpiled ops in order to activate the event on the card.
The game also comes with a red deck and a blue deck, with events uniquely advantageous to each side. But, interestingly, H&M also adds a third deck of black cards which are divided equally and shuffled into each deck, making these decks consistently unique.
I also love the "spend ops for combat" rule, which means that you can keep a battle going in the same turn, the ability of enemy units to occupy the same area on the board, and the ability to move through enemy units, paying an extra movement point to do so if the units qualify as hindrances (if they are veteran units).
The game was Tom's first, and my first in a long time (I think over a year). Tom was a novice and asked me about which side to play and, for some reason, I thought the Blue (US and allies) side was the easier to play. Ummm...I was wrong. The Red player just has so many opportunities to cause havoc and responding as the blue player is a daunting task. Needless to say, the Tet Offensive was overwhelming and in our 1967-1969 playtest, I was able to AV in 1968. (Note: another interesting thing about this game is its ability to be adapted. You choose the start year and the finish year and setup and victory conditions scale accordingly. What a clever idea!).
Even with the lopsided results, our play of the game only reinforced my belief that this is one of the best games published recently. I love new ideas and mechanics (or at least new combinations or approaches to these) and I think Hearts and Minds fits the bill nicely. It is definitely in my Hot Ten again and may be moving into my Top Ten in the near future.
Then we played another one of my recent favorites, Summoner Wars. Summoner Wars is another fascinating game. It has the limited units and board spaces of Manoeuver, along with the cards-as-units aspect of Battleground: Fantasy Warfare. I love the unique aspects of each army. My army last night, the Sand Goblins, were able to get to the board fairly quickly and while they were not very powerful offensively, they had very nice hit point values, making it more difficult to kill the little bugbears. Tom's army was the darkness-themed Shadow Elves, which played entirely differently. I would also like to note my personal favorites, the armies of Ret-Talus, the undead army, which plays so differently due to its units consistently rising from the dead. Tom and I split, with me winning the first game in a war of attrition and him completely outmaneuvering then assassinating my summoner in the second game.
Future topic: War of the Ring with my son (being played tonight)
Friday, August 10, 2012
Wednesday, August 8, 2012
WBC 2012: AAR
Well, I'm back from my annual pilgrimage to Lancaster, PA. After having to prepare for meetings today and tomorrow, I have some time to blog a quick AAR. Of course, the many discussions at WBC make me want to blog more extensively about some topics (ethics in gaming, for instance), but we'll see what chaos the school year brings.
I used to leave whoa early in order to get to the Wilderness War tourney on Wednesday. But the last few years I've ponied up a bit more and paid to stay on Tuesday night. So I usually arrive around dinner time on Wednesday, eat something fast and crappy (I'm looking at you, Wendy's!), then check in and get to gaming.
A change in plans this year was that we decided to stay on site for the con. I do have some quibbling, but, overall, I really enjoyed staying at the host. First off, we had room 206, which is now my favorite room in the whole place. It was about 3 rooms away from the lobby, as opposed to the last time Scott and I stayed there where I think we had to literally walk a quarter mile to get to the room. And, of course, it was better than staying off site.
My quibbles are few, the major one being that the bar no longer serves food! I loved getting a burger at the bar at off times, as opposed to eating the convention offerings (not bad, just not as good in my opinion). But this year, I lost that option.
I arrived on Tuesday night after a record setting drive of 2 hours and 15 minutes. I don't think I was going particularly fast, but I think my departure time (closer to 2 than to 4) really made a difference as traffic was light the whole way. I must have missed that New Oxford rush hour this year.
After arrival, Owen and I were invited by a young man (about 14 by my estimation) to play Stone Age. I am not very experienced at this game, but I have played a few times. One very nice thing was getting a chance to play with a veteran and getting to play a practice turn before actually playing the game. Got it. Take a farm on your first placement if possible. Due to some mistakes and some luck on rolls, I ended up jumping ahead in farms and, when we had to quit a little early (I would estimate about 3 turns left), I had a lead and was counted victor! A win! A very palpable win!
My friend Kevin then joined Owen and me for a game of Middle Earth Quest. Our little group has gotten way too good at Sauron so the evil one, this time being played by Kevin, absolutely crushed the forces of good. I blame myself for my ineffectiveness. Oh well.
After this, Kevin taught us Cargo Noir, which, while being totally in the Euro category, was not a bad way to pass an hour. Kevin won again.
On Wednesday, my cycle of scheduled open games began with a Space Empires 4x game against TJ. I'm pretty sure I've chronicled my change from tournaments to open gaming and my further change from open gaming to scheduled open gaming. Any way, TJ and Space Empires was first up.
It was my first time playing the game. I was a big fan of Stellar Conquest when I was in college (a LONG time ago) and I found this game an able successor. There was a great deal of bookkeeping in the game, but I did enjoy the customized ships and the discovery aspect of the game. Random initial placement seemed to have caused some problems. In particular, TJ's colonies all seemed to cluster around his homeworld, allowing his income to escalate rapidly to the point that, when I discovered his ships finally, he had built more ships and they were more technologically advanced. This could be an impediment to competitive play, but the experience of exploring and building fleets and colonies were quite enjoyable. I do have some issues with the whole 4x phenomenon (Eclipse, Twilight Imperium, etc.), and concerns with the end game (capturing an opponent's capitol planet), but I think that Space Empires actually is a simple game on the whole which plays relatively quickly. I will be giving it another play.
After Space Empires, I played a game of Kingdom of Heaven with my friend Paul. We played the intro scenario. I am not thrilled with the graphics on the counters, where the stylized "medieval" font is practically illegible to aging eyes. I also find that the CRT, which many times is used to balance out the crazy randomness of a straight die roll, actually seems to do the opposite at the higher levels. I also am concerned at the possibilities of having "dead cards," unplayable in any practical way, in your hand. But for some reason I did like the event cards and the entire feel of the game. I like the diplomatic rules and the harrowing rules which allow a smaller army to cause the larger one to attrit more often, a seeming necessity for the Muslim player. I also really like the variety of scenarios, including one pitting the Mamluks against the Mongols, a fascinating moment in history that I really cannot wait to play out. We were both inexperienced so my Crusaders quickly ran the Muslim armies off the board. Wait. Is that two victories in two days? Wait for it, my friends, you may see a trend.
TJ taught Dominant Species the Card Game to my son and some others while I talked my nephew through the confusing googlemaps directions to the Lancaster Host. After his arrival, we ended up playing a couple of quick games before turning in for the night. The first game up was Cargo Noir, which Chad won. then Owen, Kevin and I lost a game of Battlestar Galactica to Brian and Chad's Cylons. The most notable part of Battlestar (other than another game where all the humans died) was my inability to keep my eyes open. Kevin at one point noted that "In space, no one can hear you yawn."
Thursday morning started with Rune Wars, fast becoming one of my favorite go-to games. I find it the best balance between adventure/dungeon-crawl games and wargames. I like the six rune autovictory and the five year time limit. I also find that while it is easy to make yourself irrelevant (which I have done on occasion), it is also possible to fight your way back. Hemmed in by massive armies? Have your heroes go out and succeed in quests. Out of heroes? Build a massive army and take someone else's dragon runes. I also love the variety of ways to gather resources, both through expanding your empire and through carefully occupying key cities. Any way, the forces of the Uquar the Undying ended up winning in the end through finding a hidden passage through the careful building of armies and playing of tactics cards to go from 3 rune wars to 6 in two seasons. And guess what? I won! Again!
We followed this up with a quick play of Richard Garfield's King of Tokyo. Man, that was a fun game. It was quick, entertaining, a little funny, and very light. If it weren't so expensive, I might just buy it. It's based on Yahtzee with a nice system of spending on power cards layered into the game. But it is a lot of price for such short game play. Did I mention that I won this too?
The next game I played was one that is fast becoming one of my favorites. TJ, Tom the Tinker, John and I played a game of Imperial 2030. While I think I enjoy the original more (especially since there's an app for that), I do enjoy the interesting interplay of investing in a country and actually running it. This also takes care of the "gang up on the leader" phenomenon, this time by having the thematically odd investments in different countries. You can get ganged up on, but it is more important that you take advantages of your opportunities to invest in what will become stronger countries. The 2030 variant seemed to have less of countries changing hands than its ancestor, but the key continued to be investing, not military might. I ended up winning in a slightly controversial way (is a lie really a lie when you meant what you said when you said it but circumstances seemed to dictate that when it came time to honor the deal it no longer made sense -- okay, rationalizing much?). Wait. Is that three wins in a row?
We ended the night with a session of Last Night on Earth, my second game and, by far, the most fun I have played. The game is pure silliness. Roll for move. Lots of crazy card plays. An almost impossible situation for the humans. But if you ham it up enough and take it for what it is, it can be a real blast. My zombies won against TJ, John, Brian and Owen's humans. Highlight? Hard to say. Was it Johnny the former quarterback getting a death hug from the zombie hero Jenny?
Friday began as Thursday ended. With a win for me. What kind of surreal week was this? I played Successors against Larry, Chad, and TJ. The part of the game I most enjoyed was definitely the fact that we all came to the table playing a game we didn't know, but to which we had read the rules. No one was teaching and we all clarified points for each other. Honestly, I'd rather have all my learning sessions go this way in the future. Any way, I like Successors, but it definitely has some Bergish elements. Richard Berg has really great ideas that either end up being overdone in the rules or are cancelled out by other parts of the game that, in the end, make it unplayable. The mess that became Medieval was, at its core, a really interesting game, but it really needed more components and more playtesting. Successors is a much better game. Consider it the proto-Sword of Rome. I like the unique setup of having randomly drawn generals. I also like the extension of the Hannibal rules into a multiplayer format. I further like the tactics rating being the lowest number you can roll on each die in a 2d6 combat roll. Really! A LOT is right about this game. But then there are the parts that are just overcooked (as opposed to the undercooked Medieval). You have Victory Points you're tracking. Okay, I'm with you. You also have Legitimacy Points, indicating the perception of your fit to be Alexander's successor. Still with you. Layered on top of LP is Prestige, a number that you add to your LP in order to find the temporary legitimacy of a particular general (as opposed to LP, which applies to an entire faction) when things like who the Royal Macedonians will fight for are figured. What? That's just unwieldly. Add to this the problems that all random setups have, that you may end up with a highly unbalanced setup. And, lastly, you really need to understand how powerful certain generals and certain areas of the board are before you start playing. I won with Antipater at 23 VP on Turn 2, but it was probably more due to an inability to recognize how powerful this general and his advantageous position in relation to Greece was. Still, I'll take the victory!
Next up came Slapshot, which I had just bought at the vendors. Well, it was only 23 dollars. Not bad as a fast paced random game, but it's a little too random and a little too long for me. I hope to pull it out during next year's hockey season and get my Munchkin-playing son to join Owen and me for a game, but beyond that, I don't see it getting too much playtime. Well, at least I got to play it. Owen won.
Next up, we were waiting for people to finish other games and join us, so I showed Owen and Brian how to play Dominion. I like Dominion. It's a little boring now that I understand that it's (almost) "all about the money," but I still enjoy it as a quick filler. I won again, but Owen played very well for his second time.
Next up came what I am willing at this point to call my favorite Euro, Dungeon Lords. This worker placement game really clicks for me. I have always seen Euros as building a machine then watching it work. Maybe you're building a shipping or building machine in Puerto Rico. Maybe it's a Province generating machine in Dominion. But I like the idea of my machine being one to crunch up the adventurers. I'm not very good at it after two plays, but I can't wait to play it again. AJ wins against Owen, Brian and me. He runs away with it due to his ability to amass awards at game's end.
We followed this up with a seven player Seven Wonders, another game I enjoy (largely because of how quickly it plays) and which I thought I wasn't very good at. But I won! Kevin made a little illegal play and undid it at the very end to give me the victory, but I'll take it.
We ended a very long day with a tainted zombie win in Last Night on Earth as Kevin and I defeated Joe, TJ, Owen and Brian, at least partially due to a rules misunderstanding. Oh well. At least it was just Last Night.
I also want to insert here the power of the nap. I forced myself on Thursday and Friday to take naps in order to nip the problem of late night dozing off at the table and it worked like a charm. It's incredible how much a one hour snooze can help when you stay up 4 hours later than normal.
Saturday
Well, the last day of the con. We started off playing the sequel to Martin Wallace's Struggle of Empires, called (in German) Age of Reason. This changes some things fairly significantly. Now, instead of building armies, your nations have their military forces represented by cards. Also, instead of the tile draw, you can only have special abilities for the current war, then they become available again. I see this as simulating the nature of technology. One nation goes ahead, everyone catches up, then a nation goes ahead in another technological area. All the other nations catch up, and on and on it goes. Any way, I liked the new game. I can't decide whether or not I like it better than Struggle. It's certainly a different game, one that takes different strategies. For instance, you had better know how your forces stack up against others. The British will NOT get traction in the land-locked German States. And the colonies are where you make bank. Like I said, needs another play. Rick wins the seven player game as Russia.
And one more game. Dominant Species the Card Game. I had heard that this was a quicker Dominant Species. Well, after playing it, all I can say is "Did you play an early prototype or something?" This game had nothing from Dominant Species in it, other than the theme and the images. I ended up feeling that the special event cards really unbalanced the game. I will play it again, but I may try it without those events first. Joe won going away and I felt totally screwed by my cards. Oh well. There's always next year.
So, another great time at a great con. I hope that next year I'm ready to delve into tournaments again, but I will still balance that with scheduled open gaming. DonCon, as it has been called, is still my favorite convention, but I have some others on my bucket list. We'll see how they measure up.
Definites for next year: scheduling open gaming, staying at the Host, napping.
I used to leave whoa early in order to get to the Wilderness War tourney on Wednesday. But the last few years I've ponied up a bit more and paid to stay on Tuesday night. So I usually arrive around dinner time on Wednesday, eat something fast and crappy (I'm looking at you, Wendy's!), then check in and get to gaming.
A change in plans this year was that we decided to stay on site for the con. I do have some quibbling, but, overall, I really enjoyed staying at the host. First off, we had room 206, which is now my favorite room in the whole place. It was about 3 rooms away from the lobby, as opposed to the last time Scott and I stayed there where I think we had to literally walk a quarter mile to get to the room. And, of course, it was better than staying off site.
My quibbles are few, the major one being that the bar no longer serves food! I loved getting a burger at the bar at off times, as opposed to eating the convention offerings (not bad, just not as good in my opinion). But this year, I lost that option.
I arrived on Tuesday night after a record setting drive of 2 hours and 15 minutes. I don't think I was going particularly fast, but I think my departure time (closer to 2 than to 4) really made a difference as traffic was light the whole way. I must have missed that New Oxford rush hour this year.
After arrival, Owen and I were invited by a young man (about 14 by my estimation) to play Stone Age. I am not very experienced at this game, but I have played a few times. One very nice thing was getting a chance to play with a veteran and getting to play a practice turn before actually playing the game. Got it. Take a farm on your first placement if possible. Due to some mistakes and some luck on rolls, I ended up jumping ahead in farms and, when we had to quit a little early (I would estimate about 3 turns left), I had a lead and was counted victor! A win! A very palpable win!
My friend Kevin then joined Owen and me for a game of Middle Earth Quest. Our little group has gotten way too good at Sauron so the evil one, this time being played by Kevin, absolutely crushed the forces of good. I blame myself for my ineffectiveness. Oh well.
After this, Kevin taught us Cargo Noir, which, while being totally in the Euro category, was not a bad way to pass an hour. Kevin won again.
On Wednesday, my cycle of scheduled open games began with a Space Empires 4x game against TJ. I'm pretty sure I've chronicled my change from tournaments to open gaming and my further change from open gaming to scheduled open gaming. Any way, TJ and Space Empires was first up.
It was my first time playing the game. I was a big fan of Stellar Conquest when I was in college (a LONG time ago) and I found this game an able successor. There was a great deal of bookkeeping in the game, but I did enjoy the customized ships and the discovery aspect of the game. Random initial placement seemed to have caused some problems. In particular, TJ's colonies all seemed to cluster around his homeworld, allowing his income to escalate rapidly to the point that, when I discovered his ships finally, he had built more ships and they were more technologically advanced. This could be an impediment to competitive play, but the experience of exploring and building fleets and colonies were quite enjoyable. I do have some issues with the whole 4x phenomenon (Eclipse, Twilight Imperium, etc.), and concerns with the end game (capturing an opponent's capitol planet), but I think that Space Empires actually is a simple game on the whole which plays relatively quickly. I will be giving it another play.
After Space Empires, I played a game of Kingdom of Heaven with my friend Paul. We played the intro scenario. I am not thrilled with the graphics on the counters, where the stylized "medieval" font is practically illegible to aging eyes. I also find that the CRT, which many times is used to balance out the crazy randomness of a straight die roll, actually seems to do the opposite at the higher levels. I also am concerned at the possibilities of having "dead cards," unplayable in any practical way, in your hand. But for some reason I did like the event cards and the entire feel of the game. I like the diplomatic rules and the harrowing rules which allow a smaller army to cause the larger one to attrit more often, a seeming necessity for the Muslim player. I also really like the variety of scenarios, including one pitting the Mamluks against the Mongols, a fascinating moment in history that I really cannot wait to play out. We were both inexperienced so my Crusaders quickly ran the Muslim armies off the board. Wait. Is that two victories in two days? Wait for it, my friends, you may see a trend.
TJ taught Dominant Species the Card Game to my son and some others while I talked my nephew through the confusing googlemaps directions to the Lancaster Host. After his arrival, we ended up playing a couple of quick games before turning in for the night. The first game up was Cargo Noir, which Chad won. then Owen, Kevin and I lost a game of Battlestar Galactica to Brian and Chad's Cylons. The most notable part of Battlestar (other than another game where all the humans died) was my inability to keep my eyes open. Kevin at one point noted that "In space, no one can hear you yawn."
Thursday morning started with Rune Wars, fast becoming one of my favorite go-to games. I find it the best balance between adventure/dungeon-crawl games and wargames. I like the six rune autovictory and the five year time limit. I also find that while it is easy to make yourself irrelevant (which I have done on occasion), it is also possible to fight your way back. Hemmed in by massive armies? Have your heroes go out and succeed in quests. Out of heroes? Build a massive army and take someone else's dragon runes. I also love the variety of ways to gather resources, both through expanding your empire and through carefully occupying key cities. Any way, the forces of the Uquar the Undying ended up winning in the end through finding a hidden passage through the careful building of armies and playing of tactics cards to go from 3 rune wars to 6 in two seasons. And guess what? I won! Again!
We followed this up with a quick play of Richard Garfield's King of Tokyo. Man, that was a fun game. It was quick, entertaining, a little funny, and very light. If it weren't so expensive, I might just buy it. It's based on Yahtzee with a nice system of spending on power cards layered into the game. But it is a lot of price for such short game play. Did I mention that I won this too?
The next game I played was one that is fast becoming one of my favorites. TJ, Tom the Tinker, John and I played a game of Imperial 2030. While I think I enjoy the original more (especially since there's an app for that), I do enjoy the interesting interplay of investing in a country and actually running it. This also takes care of the "gang up on the leader" phenomenon, this time by having the thematically odd investments in different countries. You can get ganged up on, but it is more important that you take advantages of your opportunities to invest in what will become stronger countries. The 2030 variant seemed to have less of countries changing hands than its ancestor, but the key continued to be investing, not military might. I ended up winning in a slightly controversial way (is a lie really a lie when you meant what you said when you said it but circumstances seemed to dictate that when it came time to honor the deal it no longer made sense -- okay, rationalizing much?). Wait. Is that three wins in a row?
We ended the night with a session of Last Night on Earth, my second game and, by far, the most fun I have played. The game is pure silliness. Roll for move. Lots of crazy card plays. An almost impossible situation for the humans. But if you ham it up enough and take it for what it is, it can be a real blast. My zombies won against TJ, John, Brian and Owen's humans. Highlight? Hard to say. Was it Johnny the former quarterback getting a death hug from the zombie hero Jenny?
Friday began as Thursday ended. With a win for me. What kind of surreal week was this? I played Successors against Larry, Chad, and TJ. The part of the game I most enjoyed was definitely the fact that we all came to the table playing a game we didn't know, but to which we had read the rules. No one was teaching and we all clarified points for each other. Honestly, I'd rather have all my learning sessions go this way in the future. Any way, I like Successors, but it definitely has some Bergish elements. Richard Berg has really great ideas that either end up being overdone in the rules or are cancelled out by other parts of the game that, in the end, make it unplayable. The mess that became Medieval was, at its core, a really interesting game, but it really needed more components and more playtesting. Successors is a much better game. Consider it the proto-Sword of Rome. I like the unique setup of having randomly drawn generals. I also like the extension of the Hannibal rules into a multiplayer format. I further like the tactics rating being the lowest number you can roll on each die in a 2d6 combat roll. Really! A LOT is right about this game. But then there are the parts that are just overcooked (as opposed to the undercooked Medieval). You have Victory Points you're tracking. Okay, I'm with you. You also have Legitimacy Points, indicating the perception of your fit to be Alexander's successor. Still with you. Layered on top of LP is Prestige, a number that you add to your LP in order to find the temporary legitimacy of a particular general (as opposed to LP, which applies to an entire faction) when things like who the Royal Macedonians will fight for are figured. What? That's just unwieldly. Add to this the problems that all random setups have, that you may end up with a highly unbalanced setup. And, lastly, you really need to understand how powerful certain generals and certain areas of the board are before you start playing. I won with Antipater at 23 VP on Turn 2, but it was probably more due to an inability to recognize how powerful this general and his advantageous position in relation to Greece was. Still, I'll take the victory!
Next up came Slapshot, which I had just bought at the vendors. Well, it was only 23 dollars. Not bad as a fast paced random game, but it's a little too random and a little too long for me. I hope to pull it out during next year's hockey season and get my Munchkin-playing son to join Owen and me for a game, but beyond that, I don't see it getting too much playtime. Well, at least I got to play it. Owen won.
Next up, we were waiting for people to finish other games and join us, so I showed Owen and Brian how to play Dominion. I like Dominion. It's a little boring now that I understand that it's (almost) "all about the money," but I still enjoy it as a quick filler. I won again, but Owen played very well for his second time.
Next up came what I am willing at this point to call my favorite Euro, Dungeon Lords. This worker placement game really clicks for me. I have always seen Euros as building a machine then watching it work. Maybe you're building a shipping or building machine in Puerto Rico. Maybe it's a Province generating machine in Dominion. But I like the idea of my machine being one to crunch up the adventurers. I'm not very good at it after two plays, but I can't wait to play it again. AJ wins against Owen, Brian and me. He runs away with it due to his ability to amass awards at game's end.
We followed this up with a seven player Seven Wonders, another game I enjoy (largely because of how quickly it plays) and which I thought I wasn't very good at. But I won! Kevin made a little illegal play and undid it at the very end to give me the victory, but I'll take it.
We ended a very long day with a tainted zombie win in Last Night on Earth as Kevin and I defeated Joe, TJ, Owen and Brian, at least partially due to a rules misunderstanding. Oh well. At least it was just Last Night.
I also want to insert here the power of the nap. I forced myself on Thursday and Friday to take naps in order to nip the problem of late night dozing off at the table and it worked like a charm. It's incredible how much a one hour snooze can help when you stay up 4 hours later than normal.
Saturday
Well, the last day of the con. We started off playing the sequel to Martin Wallace's Struggle of Empires, called (in German) Age of Reason. This changes some things fairly significantly. Now, instead of building armies, your nations have their military forces represented by cards. Also, instead of the tile draw, you can only have special abilities for the current war, then they become available again. I see this as simulating the nature of technology. One nation goes ahead, everyone catches up, then a nation goes ahead in another technological area. All the other nations catch up, and on and on it goes. Any way, I liked the new game. I can't decide whether or not I like it better than Struggle. It's certainly a different game, one that takes different strategies. For instance, you had better know how your forces stack up against others. The British will NOT get traction in the land-locked German States. And the colonies are where you make bank. Like I said, needs another play. Rick wins the seven player game as Russia.
And one more game. Dominant Species the Card Game. I had heard that this was a quicker Dominant Species. Well, after playing it, all I can say is "Did you play an early prototype or something?" This game had nothing from Dominant Species in it, other than the theme and the images. I ended up feeling that the special event cards really unbalanced the game. I will play it again, but I may try it without those events first. Joe won going away and I felt totally screwed by my cards. Oh well. There's always next year.
So, another great time at a great con. I hope that next year I'm ready to delve into tournaments again, but I will still balance that with scheduled open gaming. DonCon, as it has been called, is still my favorite convention, but I have some others on my bucket list. We'll see how they measure up.
Definites for next year: scheduling open gaming, staying at the Host, napping.
Friday, July 20, 2012
Quick Post: The Dark Knight Rises
Well, I went to see the film of the summer today. Not at midnight or 3am, at 10:40am.
First, let me say that if you're going to see a movie on opening day, 10:40 is a pretty good time to see it. There was hardly anyone in the theater. As I entered the sixteen theater cinema, I was the only person in line for a ticket and the only person in line for a soda (I gave up getting popcorn years ago - I can only afford so much!). The first patrons I saw were in good old theater one and there were about ten of us. I really wanted to stand up at one point and ask them to pause the film so I could go to the bathroom.
I'll keep this short and spoiler-free. I was intrigued by Neil Gaiman's comments that "preferred the last movie [The Dark Knight], but this is a better Batman movie, and, I suspect, a better film." How could you like something more that was not as good a film? I'm not sure. I tried to rationalize it by saying that I prefer Anchorman, but recognize that The Artist is a better film.
Any way, when it comes down to it, I only slightly disagree with Gaiman. I still think The Dark Knight is the better film. Christopher Nolan is brilliant and takes a decidedly uninteresting villain in Bane (who came across to me as a "cautions on the use of steroids" villain back when he first appeared) and made him somewhat compelling. And Anne Hathaway is great as Catwoman. But neither of them packs the punch of Heath Ledger's Joker. Both movies were epic in their own ways. The Dark Knight played with the entire cityscape and gave us a view of Gotham that was recognizeable, gritty and only minimally cartoonish (even with such a potentially cartoonish villain as the Joker - see Jack Nicholson's portrayal for an example how cartoonish he could be). The Dark Knight Rises does an incredible job of tying together the compelling moments of the first two films into an outstanding climax. In short, I loved it. But I still love The Dark Knight more.
First, let me say that if you're going to see a movie on opening day, 10:40 is a pretty good time to see it. There was hardly anyone in the theater. As I entered the sixteen theater cinema, I was the only person in line for a ticket and the only person in line for a soda (I gave up getting popcorn years ago - I can only afford so much!). The first patrons I saw were in good old theater one and there were about ten of us. I really wanted to stand up at one point and ask them to pause the film so I could go to the bathroom.
I'll keep this short and spoiler-free. I was intrigued by Neil Gaiman's comments that "preferred the last movie [The Dark Knight], but this is a better Batman movie, and, I suspect, a better film." How could you like something more that was not as good a film? I'm not sure. I tried to rationalize it by saying that I prefer Anchorman, but recognize that The Artist is a better film.
Any way, when it comes down to it, I only slightly disagree with Gaiman. I still think The Dark Knight is the better film. Christopher Nolan is brilliant and takes a decidedly uninteresting villain in Bane (who came across to me as a "cautions on the use of steroids" villain back when he first appeared) and made him somewhat compelling. And Anne Hathaway is great as Catwoman. But neither of them packs the punch of Heath Ledger's Joker. Both movies were epic in their own ways. The Dark Knight played with the entire cityscape and gave us a view of Gotham that was recognizeable, gritty and only minimally cartoonish (even with such a potentially cartoonish villain as the Joker - see Jack Nicholson's portrayal for an example how cartoonish he could be). The Dark Knight Rises does an incredible job of tying together the compelling moments of the first two films into an outstanding climax. In short, I loved it. But I still love The Dark Knight more.
Tuesday, July 10, 2012
AAR: Pseudocon 23
We had a huge turnout for Pseudocon this year. Twenty three gamers on Friday and twenty two on Saturday crammed into my humble abode to play games and visit with each other, some of us for the first time in about a year.
Before I get started on my reports, I have to make a quick note. The hits of the con were the space 4x game Eclipse and the new sequel to Here I Stand, Virgin Queen. I probably should learn to play both of them, but I had read some negative things about Eclipse that made it a game that, while I'd like to play, I had enough reservations that I allowed the many players who seemed much more interested take priority. As for Virgin Queen, there were two problems. The first is my mixed history with Here I Stand. I want to like the game, but I feel like every time I play people have to tell me what to do. It's very similar to criticisms of co-op games where it feels like I'm an actor in a play produced by one of the other players. I really believe that, were I to play it regularly, I'd end up really liking the game, but I just always move it down on the list when I'm selecting games to play. The second reason was that Pseudocon is about playing as many games as I can with as many people as I can. So I was reluctant to play a longish game. Maybe I'm just getting soft in my old age.
Any way, here's a quick(ish) rundown of my plays for the weekend:
Friday was a day for evil to triumph.
The first stop, of course, for Pseudocon, is the Game Selection Game. Everybody stands around, waiting for something to play, and it usually takes a few stronger souls (in our group, one of these is usually Scott) to commit and get a game going. Last year, TJ came up with a great idea - using index cards. The idea is simple. If you wish to, propose a game by putting it on the central table (in my case, this is my dining room table). Everyone then has an index card on which they've written their name. They place the card on the game they would like to play. It leads to some funny moments with people moving three games together and placing the card on three games at once, but pretty quickly it becomes clear what has support and what doesn't. People then migrate their cards accordingly. Usually, one game fills up and moves off to get started, then another, then the poor two souls who have chosen Dominant Species either play a two player game or change their votes and play one of the other games being offered.
The first round of this led me to play Runewars with the Banners of War expansion. Kevin, AJ and I were the players (this led Kevin to say "why do we do this again?" because that is our usual summer gaming group). I like Runewars a lot. I think it does the medieval fantasy wargame very well. It solves the multi-player problem by making player elimination an outlier as far as options go and one that will inevitably lead to an immediate victory if you're able to conquer one player, which is much more difficult than the other options available. It also does a nice job of folding in the idea of "heroes" and "questing," making it a key component (the easiest way to get new dragon runes) while not having it take over the game. I think it definitely belongs on my "hot list" and may make it to my top ten one day. The expansion adds some excellent options, especially for the weak elves and I love the new "title" card in the game that profound affects your ability to manage your resources. Great game. Kevin won, unfortunately.
A five player game of Battlestar Galactica, Scott's latest favorite game, was the next one out of the chute. Owen and I turned out to be father-son Cylons (kind of an oxymoron - don't they come from resurrection ships?). The game was fun with Scott recognizing my Cylon nature immediately (this isn't saying much, I don't think he's ever had a game where he didn't accuse me of being one). But due to a great run of luck and a great "megacrisis" or whatever those things are called, Owen and I were able to take the population meter to "0" and win the game. Of course, that makes it a Pyrrhic victory because we without any population, who were we going to crush under the heels of our shiny chrome boots?
Next up was Middle Earth Quest. Scott has now decreed that the game is "a quality game," which is pretty high praise from him. We played a three player game, and I, as Sauron, recorded the win. I've documented my love for this game a number of times. It is my truly guilty pleasure.
We ended up playing until about 2am and then turned in early (for Pseudocon!).
Saturday brought a few more plays for me, along with one of those games no one really likes to play.
After everyone arrived (around 10am), we again played the Game Selection Game. I tend to lurk around on the edges of this until the very last minute, jumping into whatever game needs a player that I have at least a passing interest in. Willing to play? Passing interest? Sounds like 1812: The Invasion of Canada. We played a five player of this, ending in, of all things, a tie! I have come to really enjoy playing this game, but, for whatever reason, it is one that I am happy to play, just not excited to play. A lot more games are falling into this category these days.
After this came what can become the most painful "game" of the con or any con which you host, The Lunch Game. This is one of those games that's not really a game, like the Game Selection Game. But, if not done properly, it can really go downhill quickly. I thought it would be great to order subs online, get payment, and go and pick up the subs between games. But a major storm had run through the area the night before and knocked out power to the area (except for Fortress White). This meant that the sub shop was packed with people without power AND that their online order taking system was down. Not the order-CREATING site, just the order-CONFIRMATION. So, after placing the order and arranging payment, the sub shop NEVER received the order. Brutal. Two hours down the drain. Thankfully, Joe jumped in and put together a pizza order (phase two of the Lunch Game). Next year, it's back to paper menus and every man for himself (or at least every "sub group" for themselves). It's the problem to be worked out for next year.
After the lunch craziness, we ended up playing Seven Wonders. We played with a number of new players. I like Seven Wonders as a 30 minute filler. It's fast paced and I love the "pass your hand" mechanic. I can't say I play the game well at all, but I still enjoy it. But over an hour of it? Ugh. And that's what I got on Saturday. The main problem was a large number of players (I think we had 7) playing a game that was new to them. Seven Wonders, though, is fast paced! ... Unless you have extensive kibitzing and strategy talk, and that's what we had. I'll still play the game, I just won't play it under the same circumstances.
Next up was a round of Battlestar with Scott being a Cylon and the incompetent humans never even reaching Cobol. It wasn't really our incompetence as much as it was some really bad luck from the Fate deck. Battlestar is another guilty pleasure. It's quick, too, which helps.
Next up Scott and I played a game of Hannibal. Hannibal (me) made it into Italy, but wasn't agressive enough. Then he was kicked out and pinned a consul up in Gallia. But that wasn't enough. As Scott pointed out, I needed to use Hannibal aggressively, rather than just using him as a threat with no follow-through. Scott slowly accumulated power and fended off my lesser generals and I forfeited right before the arrival of Scipio.
The last game of the con for me was a five player Age of Empires III. Another interesting game. I think, in a lot of ways, it is a better version of Dominant Species (it's tighter and shorter, which I like). And it's also one of those games that I don't own and, consequently, don't play very often. I thought I was making decisions but I didn't triangulate all of the variables very well. And I ended up coming in dead last. Oh well.
So, the con on the whole was a huge success. We had the largest turnout ever. The T-shirts were something of a success (we'll see how often they get worn), and, when I was lucky enough to be evil, I won a couple of games (one as Sauron, one as a part of a Cylon team). Next con, WBC! I've already started my scheduling of games. Contact me if you're interested in setting something up in open gaming.
Before I get started on my reports, I have to make a quick note. The hits of the con were the space 4x game Eclipse and the new sequel to Here I Stand, Virgin Queen. I probably should learn to play both of them, but I had read some negative things about Eclipse that made it a game that, while I'd like to play, I had enough reservations that I allowed the many players who seemed much more interested take priority. As for Virgin Queen, there were two problems. The first is my mixed history with Here I Stand. I want to like the game, but I feel like every time I play people have to tell me what to do. It's very similar to criticisms of co-op games where it feels like I'm an actor in a play produced by one of the other players. I really believe that, were I to play it regularly, I'd end up really liking the game, but I just always move it down on the list when I'm selecting games to play. The second reason was that Pseudocon is about playing as many games as I can with as many people as I can. So I was reluctant to play a longish game. Maybe I'm just getting soft in my old age.
Any way, here's a quick(ish) rundown of my plays for the weekend:
Friday was a day for evil to triumph.
The first stop, of course, for Pseudocon, is the Game Selection Game. Everybody stands around, waiting for something to play, and it usually takes a few stronger souls (in our group, one of these is usually Scott) to commit and get a game going. Last year, TJ came up with a great idea - using index cards. The idea is simple. If you wish to, propose a game by putting it on the central table (in my case, this is my dining room table). Everyone then has an index card on which they've written their name. They place the card on the game they would like to play. It leads to some funny moments with people moving three games together and placing the card on three games at once, but pretty quickly it becomes clear what has support and what doesn't. People then migrate their cards accordingly. Usually, one game fills up and moves off to get started, then another, then the poor two souls who have chosen Dominant Species either play a two player game or change their votes and play one of the other games being offered.
The first round of this led me to play Runewars with the Banners of War expansion. Kevin, AJ and I were the players (this led Kevin to say "why do we do this again?" because that is our usual summer gaming group). I like Runewars a lot. I think it does the medieval fantasy wargame very well. It solves the multi-player problem by making player elimination an outlier as far as options go and one that will inevitably lead to an immediate victory if you're able to conquer one player, which is much more difficult than the other options available. It also does a nice job of folding in the idea of "heroes" and "questing," making it a key component (the easiest way to get new dragon runes) while not having it take over the game. I think it definitely belongs on my "hot list" and may make it to my top ten one day. The expansion adds some excellent options, especially for the weak elves and I love the new "title" card in the game that profound affects your ability to manage your resources. Great game. Kevin won, unfortunately.
A five player game of Battlestar Galactica, Scott's latest favorite game, was the next one out of the chute. Owen and I turned out to be father-son Cylons (kind of an oxymoron - don't they come from resurrection ships?). The game was fun with Scott recognizing my Cylon nature immediately (this isn't saying much, I don't think he's ever had a game where he didn't accuse me of being one). But due to a great run of luck and a great "megacrisis" or whatever those things are called, Owen and I were able to take the population meter to "0" and win the game. Of course, that makes it a Pyrrhic victory because we without any population, who were we going to crush under the heels of our shiny chrome boots?
Next up was Middle Earth Quest. Scott has now decreed that the game is "a quality game," which is pretty high praise from him. We played a three player game, and I, as Sauron, recorded the win. I've documented my love for this game a number of times. It is my truly guilty pleasure.
We ended up playing until about 2am and then turned in early (for Pseudocon!).
Saturday brought a few more plays for me, along with one of those games no one really likes to play.
After everyone arrived (around 10am), we again played the Game Selection Game. I tend to lurk around on the edges of this until the very last minute, jumping into whatever game needs a player that I have at least a passing interest in. Willing to play? Passing interest? Sounds like 1812: The Invasion of Canada. We played a five player of this, ending in, of all things, a tie! I have come to really enjoy playing this game, but, for whatever reason, it is one that I am happy to play, just not excited to play. A lot more games are falling into this category these days.
After this came what can become the most painful "game" of the con or any con which you host, The Lunch Game. This is one of those games that's not really a game, like the Game Selection Game. But, if not done properly, it can really go downhill quickly. I thought it would be great to order subs online, get payment, and go and pick up the subs between games. But a major storm had run through the area the night before and knocked out power to the area (except for Fortress White). This meant that the sub shop was packed with people without power AND that their online order taking system was down. Not the order-CREATING site, just the order-CONFIRMATION. So, after placing the order and arranging payment, the sub shop NEVER received the order. Brutal. Two hours down the drain. Thankfully, Joe jumped in and put together a pizza order (phase two of the Lunch Game). Next year, it's back to paper menus and every man for himself (or at least every "sub group" for themselves). It's the problem to be worked out for next year.
After the lunch craziness, we ended up playing Seven Wonders. We played with a number of new players. I like Seven Wonders as a 30 minute filler. It's fast paced and I love the "pass your hand" mechanic. I can't say I play the game well at all, but I still enjoy it. But over an hour of it? Ugh. And that's what I got on Saturday. The main problem was a large number of players (I think we had 7) playing a game that was new to them. Seven Wonders, though, is fast paced! ... Unless you have extensive kibitzing and strategy talk, and that's what we had. I'll still play the game, I just won't play it under the same circumstances.
Next up was a round of Battlestar with Scott being a Cylon and the incompetent humans never even reaching Cobol. It wasn't really our incompetence as much as it was some really bad luck from the Fate deck. Battlestar is another guilty pleasure. It's quick, too, which helps.
Next up Scott and I played a game of Hannibal. Hannibal (me) made it into Italy, but wasn't agressive enough. Then he was kicked out and pinned a consul up in Gallia. But that wasn't enough. As Scott pointed out, I needed to use Hannibal aggressively, rather than just using him as a threat with no follow-through. Scott slowly accumulated power and fended off my lesser generals and I forfeited right before the arrival of Scipio.
The last game of the con for me was a five player Age of Empires III. Another interesting game. I think, in a lot of ways, it is a better version of Dominant Species (it's tighter and shorter, which I like). And it's also one of those games that I don't own and, consequently, don't play very often. I thought I was making decisions but I didn't triangulate all of the variables very well. And I ended up coming in dead last. Oh well.
So, the con on the whole was a huge success. We had the largest turnout ever. The T-shirts were something of a success (we'll see how often they get worn), and, when I was lucky enough to be evil, I won a couple of games (one as Sauron, one as a part of a Cylon team). Next con, WBC! I've already started my scheduling of games. Contact me if you're interested in setting something up in open gaming.
Thursday, July 5, 2012
Jason White the --- Roleplayer?
All right. Confession time. I did some roleplaying recently. And I liked it.
Well, of course, the first question (after the obligatory "What the --?") becomes "How did this come about?" Even I didn't really see it coming. Most of my peer group are boardgamers at heart. I myself had given up on role-playing years ago (time slips away, but I think it was in the 90's that I gave up). Our group had hit a point where we didn't meet very often (we shot for once every three weeks and failed to meet even that requirement at times), and a point where we were so individualized in our role-playing that we spent a lot of time working out private details of the adventure with the GM in closed door meetings. And whoever was not in those meetings was out in the living room, waiting.
I came to realize that boardgaming scratched my particular gaming itch much more effectively than roleplaying. I felt that I was spending the first part of every roleplaying session catching up because we met so irregularly and the second half waiting while this person or that person went off by themselves. With a boardgame, you all sat at the table and played. No delay, minimal waiting (especially with the innovations going on in boardgaming at the time where players had very little "down time"), and no consistency problems. Every boardgaming session was unique and was (optimally) completed in one sitting. So I dropped roleplaying and honestly wondered if I would ever come back to it.
Fast forward to 2011. My friend TJ and I had been playing boardgames for a few years. He had come into our gaming circle through the podcast and his great personality and willingness to play anything meant that he had quickly become a regular gaming partner. As I said, TJ would play anything. He still has his CCG's. He has the most complete collection of Up Front cards that I have ever seen (do you have that desktop published set of cards that "corrects" the Italians? I didn't think so!). He plays Descent and Hive and EastFront and Hannibal. After we had played a number of board games together and had set a regular playing schedule for a few months, he broached the subject of roleplaying.
He had his own issues with roleplaying. I think they mostly stemmed from roleplaying's dependence on the people with whom you play. One of roleplaying's major weaknesses is that every group has its unique flavor. It is very easy to fall into a really bad roleplaying game. TJ had decided that if he were to try roleplaying again, Joe (formerly Friend of the Show Joe), Tom the Tinker (another player TJ was playing with regularly) and I would be the guys he thought would have the right attitude and demeanor for such an endeavor. I responded with as tepid a "maybe" as I could safely muster. I was careful not to say "yes" and honestly thought it sounded like one of the pipe dreams where, if you wait long enough, it would just go away.
But it didn't. TJ kept bringing it up. He brought it up with the others and they tentatively said "yes." We spoke about it at Prezcon and Joe and I rode home from the con together and discussed character ideas. This just might happen.
Of course, as you can see from the regularity of my schedule in posting, it was hard to arrange a time where we could all meet. We had a number of delays. Some were from dragging feet in character design. Others were from things like coaching soccer getting in the way of scheduling. Finally, after a number of emails and a couple of false starts, we locked our schedules in for mid-May to mid-June. Three sessions in two week intervals. And after much prompting from Joe, I half-heartedly designed my character, a part-thief, part shepherd named Oswald. He would be the party's scout and "thief" (don't worry, I won't tell you a "character story," but there was this one time...)
We played that first night. And...
I had a good time.
I exited the first session with much more excitement than I had entered it. I actually looked forward for the two weeks to pass and for us to rejoin our attempt to rescue our old "hedge-wizard" friend. The second session involved quite a climactic combat with a nasty that was more powerful than any one of us, but not more powerful than all of us (Joe actually said at one point that he was worried he had made the creature too powerful, but we defeated it -- sounds like a sweet spot for monster design). The third session picked up at the cliff-hanger on which the second session had ended, a "hair-trigger" situation where negotiations with the local goblins had started to go bad.
Another risky combat ensued and we emerged victorious. We returned home in relative triumph. And I realized that, among all the other gaming I was to do, I needed to fit in some roleplaying. Not a lot, not regularly, nothing that would interfere with a somewhat busy boardgaming schedule, but a few sessions every year or so.
This also made me reflect on what it is that I want out of a roleplaying game. We hear some gamer stereotypes thrown around: min/maxer, munchkin, goth vampires, one of those larpers who gets lost in a steam tunnel. I'm none of these. I think what I need out of a roleplaying game is that unpredictable tactical situation that a boardgame can only give you for a short amount of time.
I love boardgaming. It is by far my favorite hobby. But when playing a game, the time I love is that time where you've gone through the rules and everyone knows how to play and you're exploring the game's tactical nuances and possibilities. Some games have a consistent vision combined with a certain strange combination of knowing what is coming while still maintaining a level of surprise and excitement that extend this golden period for a good long time. Napoleonic Wars, here is your obligatory mention. Other games are fun at first, then quickly devolve, either because the randomness overwhelms the tactical possibilities (as in a game like Munchkin or, to a lesser extent, A Most Dangerous Time), or because the game becomes so scripted as to become about proper opening moves and correct reactions to predictable problems (which is one of my frustrations with simpler Euros).
Roleplaying games, when run well, always leave us in that process of becoming. That is, a roleplaying game should always be somewhat unpredictable with the character's knowledge of the rules and a bit of creativity being their main tools in responding to the tactical situations put forth by the GM.
Joe is particularly good about this. This time, the unique challenges were a creature with poison and a prehensile tale and goblins who had prepared an ambush as we exited a cave. Each situation presented its own challenges and we had to be somewhat creative in solving them. And not everything was combat related. In the combat with the goblins, at a certain point, we had to turn a small advantage into a larger one through intimidating dialogue. Boardgames rarely offer this kind of opportunity, usually giving a particular way out of a bad situation. If it's a wargame, fight your way out. If it's a diplomacy game, negotiate. If it's a trading game...well...trade!
So at this point, I don't know how often we'll meet and play a roleplaying game. There was discussion of meeting a few times a year, and I could see myself doing that. Joe's game scratched an itch that I had forgotten I had and it played to some my favorite aspects of gaming, the tactical situation and the creative solution to a problem. So, while I'm still a boardgamer, and of that particular species of boardgamer called the wargamer, there's a small part of me that is a roleplayer. Don't look for me in a steam tunnel and don't look to this blog to discuss my acquisition of a +5 Holy Avenger, but, periodically, especially if I get a chance to talk abstractly about what a roleplaying game brings to the table, you might see this blog discuss roleplaying.
Well, of course, the first question (after the obligatory "What the --?") becomes "How did this come about?" Even I didn't really see it coming. Most of my peer group are boardgamers at heart. I myself had given up on role-playing years ago (time slips away, but I think it was in the 90's that I gave up). Our group had hit a point where we didn't meet very often (we shot for once every three weeks and failed to meet even that requirement at times), and a point where we were so individualized in our role-playing that we spent a lot of time working out private details of the adventure with the GM in closed door meetings. And whoever was not in those meetings was out in the living room, waiting.
I came to realize that boardgaming scratched my particular gaming itch much more effectively than roleplaying. I felt that I was spending the first part of every roleplaying session catching up because we met so irregularly and the second half waiting while this person or that person went off by themselves. With a boardgame, you all sat at the table and played. No delay, minimal waiting (especially with the innovations going on in boardgaming at the time where players had very little "down time"), and no consistency problems. Every boardgaming session was unique and was (optimally) completed in one sitting. So I dropped roleplaying and honestly wondered if I would ever come back to it.
Fast forward to 2011. My friend TJ and I had been playing boardgames for a few years. He had come into our gaming circle through the podcast and his great personality and willingness to play anything meant that he had quickly become a regular gaming partner. As I said, TJ would play anything. He still has his CCG's. He has the most complete collection of Up Front cards that I have ever seen (do you have that desktop published set of cards that "corrects" the Italians? I didn't think so!). He plays Descent and Hive and EastFront and Hannibal. After we had played a number of board games together and had set a regular playing schedule for a few months, he broached the subject of roleplaying.
He had his own issues with roleplaying. I think they mostly stemmed from roleplaying's dependence on the people with whom you play. One of roleplaying's major weaknesses is that every group has its unique flavor. It is very easy to fall into a really bad roleplaying game. TJ had decided that if he were to try roleplaying again, Joe (formerly Friend of the Show Joe), Tom the Tinker (another player TJ was playing with regularly) and I would be the guys he thought would have the right attitude and demeanor for such an endeavor. I responded with as tepid a "maybe" as I could safely muster. I was careful not to say "yes" and honestly thought it sounded like one of the pipe dreams where, if you wait long enough, it would just go away.
But it didn't. TJ kept bringing it up. He brought it up with the others and they tentatively said "yes." We spoke about it at Prezcon and Joe and I rode home from the con together and discussed character ideas. This just might happen.
Of course, as you can see from the regularity of my schedule in posting, it was hard to arrange a time where we could all meet. We had a number of delays. Some were from dragging feet in character design. Others were from things like coaching soccer getting in the way of scheduling. Finally, after a number of emails and a couple of false starts, we locked our schedules in for mid-May to mid-June. Three sessions in two week intervals. And after much prompting from Joe, I half-heartedly designed my character, a part-thief, part shepherd named Oswald. He would be the party's scout and "thief" (don't worry, I won't tell you a "character story," but there was this one time...)
We played that first night. And...
I had a good time.
I exited the first session with much more excitement than I had entered it. I actually looked forward for the two weeks to pass and for us to rejoin our attempt to rescue our old "hedge-wizard" friend. The second session involved quite a climactic combat with a nasty that was more powerful than any one of us, but not more powerful than all of us (Joe actually said at one point that he was worried he had made the creature too powerful, but we defeated it -- sounds like a sweet spot for monster design). The third session picked up at the cliff-hanger on which the second session had ended, a "hair-trigger" situation where negotiations with the local goblins had started to go bad.
Another risky combat ensued and we emerged victorious. We returned home in relative triumph. And I realized that, among all the other gaming I was to do, I needed to fit in some roleplaying. Not a lot, not regularly, nothing that would interfere with a somewhat busy boardgaming schedule, but a few sessions every year or so.
This also made me reflect on what it is that I want out of a roleplaying game. We hear some gamer stereotypes thrown around: min/maxer, munchkin, goth vampires, one of those larpers who gets lost in a steam tunnel. I'm none of these. I think what I need out of a roleplaying game is that unpredictable tactical situation that a boardgame can only give you for a short amount of time.
I love boardgaming. It is by far my favorite hobby. But when playing a game, the time I love is that time where you've gone through the rules and everyone knows how to play and you're exploring the game's tactical nuances and possibilities. Some games have a consistent vision combined with a certain strange combination of knowing what is coming while still maintaining a level of surprise and excitement that extend this golden period for a good long time. Napoleonic Wars, here is your obligatory mention. Other games are fun at first, then quickly devolve, either because the randomness overwhelms the tactical possibilities (as in a game like Munchkin or, to a lesser extent, A Most Dangerous Time), or because the game becomes so scripted as to become about proper opening moves and correct reactions to predictable problems (which is one of my frustrations with simpler Euros).
Roleplaying games, when run well, always leave us in that process of becoming. That is, a roleplaying game should always be somewhat unpredictable with the character's knowledge of the rules and a bit of creativity being their main tools in responding to the tactical situations put forth by the GM.
Joe is particularly good about this. This time, the unique challenges were a creature with poison and a prehensile tale and goblins who had prepared an ambush as we exited a cave. Each situation presented its own challenges and we had to be somewhat creative in solving them. And not everything was combat related. In the combat with the goblins, at a certain point, we had to turn a small advantage into a larger one through intimidating dialogue. Boardgames rarely offer this kind of opportunity, usually giving a particular way out of a bad situation. If it's a wargame, fight your way out. If it's a diplomacy game, negotiate. If it's a trading game...well...trade!
So at this point, I don't know how often we'll meet and play a roleplaying game. There was discussion of meeting a few times a year, and I could see myself doing that. Joe's game scratched an itch that I had forgotten I had and it played to some my favorite aspects of gaming, the tactical situation and the creative solution to a problem. So, while I'm still a boardgamer, and of that particular species of boardgamer called the wargamer, there's a small part of me that is a roleplayer. Don't look for me in a steam tunnel and don't look to this blog to discuss my acquisition of a +5 Holy Avenger, but, periodically, especially if I get a chance to talk abstractly about what a roleplaying game brings to the table, you might see this blog discuss roleplaying.
Monday, May 21, 2012
Reading: The Story of Edgar Sawtelle
Okay...haven't posted in a while.
I still owe a boardgaming post.
I still owe part 2 of my zombie series of posts.
I also need to make something of a gaming announcement (not a biggie, just a surprising turn in my gaming of late).
But I'm making a literature post.
I really enjoyed reading The Story of Edgar Sawtelle by David Wroblewski. I admittedly was worried when my mother announced that she hated the ending, hated the book, hated the author and would never read another book by him. But I knew it was on the "Advanced Placement English Literature and Composition" reading list. I had also just survived listening to Little Women by Louisa May Alcott. It was an okay book but felt like Pride and Prejudice without the wit. I needed something (a) more masculine and (b) more in my "idiom."
So I looked at Edgar Sawtelle. I saw it was based on Hamlet - a point in its favor. I saw it had a boy who couldn't speak - weirdness is always a point for me. I saw it had a ghost - another point! This thing was scoring hits left and right! If it only had dogs...
Dogs and part of the story told from these super-dogs' point of view. Game. Set. Match.
It turned out to be an excellent book, one of the best I've read in a while. It was dark yet touching. And the weird touches, such as an extended discussion of the possibilities of breeding your own breed of dog, were compelling. But what intrigued me most was its connection to Hamlet.
Edgar the younger is Hamlet. Edgar the elder is Hamlet the dead king. Trudi is Gertrude. And Claude is, well, Claudius. But Edgar Sawtelle gives me a handle on a number of characters with whom I have problems. I never fully understand why Gertrude marries Claudius. In the novel, though, it is a long courtship where Claude is not even allowed on the property for a long time (but, as Claude says, one must be willing to wait in order to get what one wants). I see it.
In the play, I always have trouble with Ophelia. She is shockingly weak. She comes onstage and her father and brother bully and berate her about how she's not worthy of Hamlet. She returns so that Hamlet can bully her and tell her to get to a "nunnery." And then her brother leaves, and her father is killed by her love interest and she goes stark, raving (yet there seems to be a method in it) mad and kills herself. Where did this loyalty come from? Why is she so dependent upon these men? She is sadly and unsatisfyingly (for me) weak.
How did Wroblewski handle this in the book? He made her a dog. Got it. I understand completely.
So, for me, most of the loopholes were filled. Wroblewski adds his own, of course, leaving a white patch of ground and a dead puppy unexplained (and how old IS Forte?). But these are minor and, in the world of symbols, acceptable. I can make some sense of them.
But there was one problem for me. In Hamlet, the massive death scene at the end occurs, but each character seems to deserve death, at least arguably. Gertrude pays a price for betraying her husband's memory and marrying his murderer within two months of the funeral. Claudius pays a price for his treacherous nature. Laertes pays a price for his seemingly uncharacteristic treachery, a "woodcock to [his] own springe."
And I also think Hamlet deserves (again, arguably) to die. He dies for his unwillingness to act, for his overthinking things, for commiting to killing Claudius then saying, again and again, "not yet." He also pays for playing a game that he has no business playing. One of the classic sequences in the play is when Claudius realizes what game Hamlet is playing. He looks down at Polonius's dead body and exclaims "It had been so with us, had we been there." Immediately, he shows Hamlet how it's done. Time to act? Okay, Claudius is in. He immediately arranges for Hamlet to be executed by the King of England. When that fails due to strange, pirate-laden circumstances, he arranges the strange duel between Laertes and Hamlet with two failsafes. Hamlet doesn't stand a chance. And he dies because of their respective talents. Hamlet is a thinker, a scholar, not a killer. Claudius on the other hand...
But I'm not sure Edgar and Trudi deserve to die. Trudi is stand-offish with Claude and my impression is that it has been a good deal longer than two months before Claude is allowed on the Sawtelle property. While Gertrude is constantly telling Hamlet to get over it, Trudi is understanding of Edgar's feelings. I sympathize with Trudi. I like Trudi.
I also like Edgar. He is only investigating his father's death. Not to commit himself to commit murder or avenge him as far as we know. We're not sure what he's going to do. He mostly wants to know the truth and to confront Claude about it. Hamlet is exiled. Edgar exiles himself. And Hamlet is a man of thirty. Edgar is still a kid.
I'm unsatisfied with the ending because I can't see it coming. I only see Edgar dying because I know the end of the play. I am something like Rosencrantz (or is it Guildenstern?) in the play Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are dead, flipping the coin and knowing it must come up heads again and again. Not because of physics or magic but because that's the way the play (or, in this case, the novel) is written. Edgar Sawtelle pays for Hamlet's shortcomings. I'm not sure that's fair.
And Glenn Papideau (this version's Laertes) pays a severe price for being a buffoon
I love the very end, the end with the dogs (and with the Fortinbras equivalent), but the orgy of death and impairment that comes before is somewhat undeserved. If Edgar pays a price, it is because of his neglect of Almondine, or maybe because he flees at a time when he should have confronted his uncle. But even that case is hard to make. Edgar is a child. He is a character with whom I have spent hundreds of pages. And I'm just not sure he deserved the death he receives.
I still owe a boardgaming post.
I still owe part 2 of my zombie series of posts.
I also need to make something of a gaming announcement (not a biggie, just a surprising turn in my gaming of late).
But I'm making a literature post.
I really enjoyed reading The Story of Edgar Sawtelle by David Wroblewski. I admittedly was worried when my mother announced that she hated the ending, hated the book, hated the author and would never read another book by him. But I knew it was on the "Advanced Placement English Literature and Composition" reading list. I had also just survived listening to Little Women by Louisa May Alcott. It was an okay book but felt like Pride and Prejudice without the wit. I needed something (a) more masculine and (b) more in my "idiom."
So I looked at Edgar Sawtelle. I saw it was based on Hamlet - a point in its favor. I saw it had a boy who couldn't speak - weirdness is always a point for me. I saw it had a ghost - another point! This thing was scoring hits left and right! If it only had dogs...
Dogs and part of the story told from these super-dogs' point of view. Game. Set. Match.
It turned out to be an excellent book, one of the best I've read in a while. It was dark yet touching. And the weird touches, such as an extended discussion of the possibilities of breeding your own breed of dog, were compelling. But what intrigued me most was its connection to Hamlet.
Edgar the younger is Hamlet. Edgar the elder is Hamlet the dead king. Trudi is Gertrude. And Claude is, well, Claudius. But Edgar Sawtelle gives me a handle on a number of characters with whom I have problems. I never fully understand why Gertrude marries Claudius. In the novel, though, it is a long courtship where Claude is not even allowed on the property for a long time (but, as Claude says, one must be willing to wait in order to get what one wants). I see it.
In the play, I always have trouble with Ophelia. She is shockingly weak. She comes onstage and her father and brother bully and berate her about how she's not worthy of Hamlet. She returns so that Hamlet can bully her and tell her to get to a "nunnery." And then her brother leaves, and her father is killed by her love interest and she goes stark, raving (yet there seems to be a method in it) mad and kills herself. Where did this loyalty come from? Why is she so dependent upon these men? She is sadly and unsatisfyingly (for me) weak.
How did Wroblewski handle this in the book? He made her a dog. Got it. I understand completely.
So, for me, most of the loopholes were filled. Wroblewski adds his own, of course, leaving a white patch of ground and a dead puppy unexplained (and how old IS Forte?). But these are minor and, in the world of symbols, acceptable. I can make some sense of them.
But there was one problem for me. In Hamlet, the massive death scene at the end occurs, but each character seems to deserve death, at least arguably. Gertrude pays a price for betraying her husband's memory and marrying his murderer within two months of the funeral. Claudius pays a price for his treacherous nature. Laertes pays a price for his seemingly uncharacteristic treachery, a "woodcock to [his] own springe."
And I also think Hamlet deserves (again, arguably) to die. He dies for his unwillingness to act, for his overthinking things, for commiting to killing Claudius then saying, again and again, "not yet." He also pays for playing a game that he has no business playing. One of the classic sequences in the play is when Claudius realizes what game Hamlet is playing. He looks down at Polonius's dead body and exclaims "It had been so with us, had we been there." Immediately, he shows Hamlet how it's done. Time to act? Okay, Claudius is in. He immediately arranges for Hamlet to be executed by the King of England. When that fails due to strange, pirate-laden circumstances, he arranges the strange duel between Laertes and Hamlet with two failsafes. Hamlet doesn't stand a chance. And he dies because of their respective talents. Hamlet is a thinker, a scholar, not a killer. Claudius on the other hand...
But I'm not sure Edgar and Trudi deserve to die. Trudi is stand-offish with Claude and my impression is that it has been a good deal longer than two months before Claude is allowed on the Sawtelle property. While Gertrude is constantly telling Hamlet to get over it, Trudi is understanding of Edgar's feelings. I sympathize with Trudi. I like Trudi.
I also like Edgar. He is only investigating his father's death. Not to commit himself to commit murder or avenge him as far as we know. We're not sure what he's going to do. He mostly wants to know the truth and to confront Claude about it. Hamlet is exiled. Edgar exiles himself. And Hamlet is a man of thirty. Edgar is still a kid.
I'm unsatisfied with the ending because I can't see it coming. I only see Edgar dying because I know the end of the play. I am something like Rosencrantz (or is it Guildenstern?) in the play Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are dead, flipping the coin and knowing it must come up heads again and again. Not because of physics or magic but because that's the way the play (or, in this case, the novel) is written. Edgar Sawtelle pays for Hamlet's shortcomings. I'm not sure that's fair.
And Glenn Papideau (this version's Laertes) pays a severe price for being a buffoon
I love the very end, the end with the dogs (and with the Fortinbras equivalent), but the orgy of death and impairment that comes before is somewhat undeserved. If Edgar pays a price, it is because of his neglect of Almondine, or maybe because he flees at a time when he should have confronted his uncle. But even that case is hard to make. Edgar is a child. He is a character with whom I have spent hundreds of pages. And I'm just not sure he deserved the death he receives.
Tuesday, April 10, 2012
Zombies! Part One: The Walking Dead
In a series of three posts, I want to kind of "clean house" as far as my thoughts on various aspects of the current zombie craze. Then, hopefully, I can bury the zombies once and for all.
Hold it. Before I start I should alert you that I am not going to post "spoiler alert" every time I write something. So read on at your own risk. I will spoil as needed about Mad Men, The Walking Dead TV series and the Walking Dead comic book series. Sorry if you learn something you didn't want to know..
I put out a post a few weeks ago entitled "Am I Done with AMC's The Walking Dead?" In short, the current answer to that question is "Well, not yet." After what I saw as a low point in season 2, the show put out some serviceable episodes at the end of the season. Also, the principals have finally left that farm. Looming next season are the shadowy figure of Micchonne, the specter of the prison and the rumored casting of the Governor. There is a LOT to work with there and we'll see whether or not the show can pull it off.
My hopes are not high, though. The second season was slow paced and the poor writing showed an unwillingness to really make the audience feel anything outside of what we were told to feel. A case in point on this was the death of Sophia. After the midseason finale bloodbath, our first episode back (which had HUGE ratings) spent time with characters saying things like "I miss her" and "but this was Sophia." It's a good thing that last line was there because, honestly, she was forgettable. She disappeared before we had any idea who she really was. I would have loved to have seen her fight to survive, being courageous and ultimately failing, but instead she disappeared so early that, without the swelling music and the reactions of the other characters, I'm not sure I would have recognized the zombie teen who came out of that barn as Sophia. It was a precursor of disappointments to come. Characters did stupid things like let Carl wander off or drive off by themselves in the middle of the night unaccompanied. The confrontation between Rick and Shane was on again, then off again, then on again, until its fatal conclusion right before the season finale. The show seemed to wander like we imagine Sophia wandering, unable to find its way, stumbling toward its inevitable death. The last two episodes of the season give me hope, but the show better take lessons from its intellectual lineage: AMC and the comic series by Robert Kirkman.
Let's start with AMC. I've been watching Mad Men on Netflix over the past couple of months. I just watched the season 3 finale, which saw a complete shift in the premises of the show. Don will no longer be married and he will be a partner. Pete, too, will be a partner. It looks like Sal's not coming back. It was earth-shattering and world changing. And it was done with subtlety throughout, a buildup three seasons in the making where, when Betty finally confronts Don, you don't see it coming yet you recognize it as both shocking and inevitable.
Walking Dead TV Lesson One: Show, don't tell! As an English teacher, I know you've all been told this before, but comparing Walking Dead and Mad Men makes this clear. Mad Men shows all the time. You'd better be paying attention when you're watching because that little tug by Betty on Don's secret drawer in his study is building to her stumbling upon the key to that drawer. And that money that Don tried to give his brother is now in that drawer looking suspicious. And those pictures. And that divorce. And the deed to that house. It had all been building for three years and 36 or so episodes. Incredible.
Compare that to The Walking Dead's handling of Shane and Rick. Shane slept with Rick's wife when they both think that Rick is dead. Rick returns. Lori thinks that she can just move on and ignore what happened (like Don Draper!). Shane wants to cling on to whatever they had. He thinks he loves Lori. But instead of letting this slowly build (like it does in Mad Men), The Walking Dead's writers see it as adding excitement to reveal these secrets. Lori tells Rick. Rick admits he suspected it all along, but that baby is his. Okay, time for confrontation. There's nothing left to be said because you writers have let it all out. You've TOLD us what people are feeling and have let the secrets out. But no confrontation and no stewing. Shane tells Lori that the baby is his and that Rick can't take care of her. Another secret. Another chance to let things stew. Instead, at episode's end, Lori tells Rick what Shane had said and makes him out to be a threat, and Rick, who has shown a capacity for killing those who threaten the farm, stares menacingly into the distance. Time for confrontation. So they confront and beat each other up and Rick says "let's move on and put this behind us." WHAT? Whatever happens, there is nothing more here. One of the two will have to kill the other, but now there is no tension to build. The tension was released in the confrontation. Either have a new tension drive them apart or have them follow Rick's advice. But no. That's not what happens at all. Instead, Shane tries to engineer an assassination attempt. The confrontation finally happens, and it's pretty good (especially Shane's zombified return), but it could have been so much better than a series of false starts and stops.
I can't decide if Mad Men has a natural advantage because there are so many characters and a city of millions of potential characters surrounding them. Maybe that means everything is subtle because you are so concerned with your image. Maybe it's the telephone that allows semi-secret (and semi-public) conversations (like Roger's phone conversation with Joan while his drunken twentysomething wife lays on the bed beside him), and the Walking Dead characters are forced together in close quarters, which means their conversation is always, ironically, more public. But I think that's something of a cop-out. Don Draper really has no one. Neither does Rick. Don's perceived (by us, the audience) moral ambiguity is fed by his unwillingness to share things. He doesn't need the phone. He just needs to be silent and to never let others see him sweat. Rick should be the same way. Instead he constantly opens up thematic conversations that just don't work, like the awkward conversation with his son about how everyone dies or the many conversations where he tries to work things out with Shane. Moral ambiguity is at the center of both stories. We are meant to sympathize with characters who are doing things that we may not agree with (Rick kills people; Don sleeps with them). And the more that AMC's The Walking Dead can play with that ambiguity, the more it can make Rick's actions something we both agree and disagree with, the better the show will become.
And that brings us to The Walking Dead, the comic book. One of the striking things about the comic book series is that its characters are so morally ambiguous. A number of characters walk through the story, most die, some few remain. We are drawn to sympathize with Rick and to root for him to survive, but many of his actions are ones that we either cannot agree with or are ones that we can only agree with in the darkest recesses of our vengeful souls. The Rick of the comics is too bossy and too violent. And we are constantly forced to ask ourselves whether or not his actions are justified by the unique circumstances brought about by the zombie apocalypse.
AMC's The Walking Dead struggles with this concept. It tries to present moral ambiguity but instead presents moral inconsistency. It might not even be moral inconsistency that is the problem. It may be a confusion of moral ambiguity with an ambiguous state of sanity.
Rick ends season two by saying to the rest of the group, "you made me kill my best friend." Comics Rick would never have said that. He would have said "I killed Shane. I had to do it and I'm not sorry for it. Deal with it." Instead, television Rick comes off a little whiny and a little crazy (wait -- maybe he's taking on the characteristics of Dale!). We end up questioning whether Rick is sane, not whether what he did is right.
Rick's moral ambiguity is only interesting if characters are there to confront him and disagree with him. Without these viable consciences, the question does not become "was Rick right in killing the men in the bar?" or "was Rick right in killing Shane?" It instead becomes "is Rick going crazy?" It is not and should not be that simple a question.
In the comic book series, Rick has a number of personified consciences confront him. One is the character Tyreese who questions Rick's edict that "You kill; you die." He also confronts and fights with Rick over his decision to kill a decidedly dangerous prison inmate. Who is Rick's Tyreese in the television series? At first, I thought it was T-Dog because of their similar names and ethnic backgrounds. But Tyreese was an ex-NFL star, a man whose physical presence made him tower over Rick and whose physical abilities in a fight made him a powerful ally (at one point, in order to work out the grief over his daughter's death, Tyreese kills a gym full of zombies by himself using a hammer). This also gave him a presence that Rick had to listen to. But T-dog has almost nothing to say. He's not large. He's not that much of an asset in combat (as shown by his inept maiming of himself when confronting the herd at the beginning of season 2). And the writers have given him fewer and fewer lines, to the point where his silence is deafening.
Another conscience for Rick is Dale. In the comics, Dale is gruff and blunt, and Rick values that. There is no nonsense, only a "listen, son --" presence to which Rick responds. The Dale of the comic series ends up in a romantic and sexual relationship with Andrea. And it's believable! Dale is stable; Dale is strong; and Dale is there. But the Dale of the television series came across as whiny and a little crazed. When presenting his case for their need to maintain some moral conscience in the new society they were being forced to form, the television Dale launches a harangue that basically says over and over again "I can't believe no one is on my side." Then Dale dies.
TV Rick's one successful conscience was Shane, who unfortunately was a murderous psychopath. This not only allowed us to dismiss his thinking at some level, it also allowed us to see Rick's seeming crossing over into violence as mode of protection as a crossing over into madness. Rick of the television show is too hopeful, then makes a switch to violence that seems uncharacteristic and seems to mirror the decidedly murderous Shane. Rick of the comics combines the characteristics of both the Rick and Shane characters of the TV show. At times, comics Rick is murderous in his defense of his son and of the group. He is a bit paranoid. But he is also the only consistent vision of hope the series has to offer. He is the strength that allows the group to survive. But he is also the other dangerous, violent side of that strength. It was somewhat interesting to have Shane and Rick debate between hope and pragmatism. As I said to a friend after the mid-season finale, "Shane was right, but if I got separated from the group, I'd want Rick on my side." The Rick of the comic books is more interesting, though. He would fight hard to protect me, but would kill me himself if I endangered the group. And that's interesting. And what else is interesting is that I sympathize with him. I want him and his son to survive. And I want him to find some kind of peace.
My hope, in the end, is that the newly violent TV Rick will succeed in raising the interesting questions that the comic series has raised. Have Rick perform his actions and leave me to debate them. But the writers' constant need to have characters hash out these underlying arguments in an overt and overly simplistic way leaves me little hope. But, you know what, I'll consider that faint hope my own Sophia. And I probably won't abandon the show until it finally comes shuffling out of that barn and leaves me in despair.
Hold it. Before I start I should alert you that I am not going to post "spoiler alert" every time I write something. So read on at your own risk. I will spoil as needed about Mad Men, The Walking Dead TV series and the Walking Dead comic book series. Sorry if you learn something you didn't want to know..
I put out a post a few weeks ago entitled "Am I Done with AMC's The Walking Dead?" In short, the current answer to that question is "Well, not yet." After what I saw as a low point in season 2, the show put out some serviceable episodes at the end of the season. Also, the principals have finally left that farm. Looming next season are the shadowy figure of Micchonne, the specter of the prison and the rumored casting of the Governor. There is a LOT to work with there and we'll see whether or not the show can pull it off.
My hopes are not high, though. The second season was slow paced and the poor writing showed an unwillingness to really make the audience feel anything outside of what we were told to feel. A case in point on this was the death of Sophia. After the midseason finale bloodbath, our first episode back (which had HUGE ratings) spent time with characters saying things like "I miss her" and "but this was Sophia." It's a good thing that last line was there because, honestly, she was forgettable. She disappeared before we had any idea who she really was. I would have loved to have seen her fight to survive, being courageous and ultimately failing, but instead she disappeared so early that, without the swelling music and the reactions of the other characters, I'm not sure I would have recognized the zombie teen who came out of that barn as Sophia. It was a precursor of disappointments to come. Characters did stupid things like let Carl wander off or drive off by themselves in the middle of the night unaccompanied. The confrontation between Rick and Shane was on again, then off again, then on again, until its fatal conclusion right before the season finale. The show seemed to wander like we imagine Sophia wandering, unable to find its way, stumbling toward its inevitable death. The last two episodes of the season give me hope, but the show better take lessons from its intellectual lineage: AMC and the comic series by Robert Kirkman.
Let's start with AMC. I've been watching Mad Men on Netflix over the past couple of months. I just watched the season 3 finale, which saw a complete shift in the premises of the show. Don will no longer be married and he will be a partner. Pete, too, will be a partner. It looks like Sal's not coming back. It was earth-shattering and world changing. And it was done with subtlety throughout, a buildup three seasons in the making where, when Betty finally confronts Don, you don't see it coming yet you recognize it as both shocking and inevitable.
Walking Dead TV Lesson One: Show, don't tell! As an English teacher, I know you've all been told this before, but comparing Walking Dead and Mad Men makes this clear. Mad Men shows all the time. You'd better be paying attention when you're watching because that little tug by Betty on Don's secret drawer in his study is building to her stumbling upon the key to that drawer. And that money that Don tried to give his brother is now in that drawer looking suspicious. And those pictures. And that divorce. And the deed to that house. It had all been building for three years and 36 or so episodes. Incredible.
Compare that to The Walking Dead's handling of Shane and Rick. Shane slept with Rick's wife when they both think that Rick is dead. Rick returns. Lori thinks that she can just move on and ignore what happened (like Don Draper!). Shane wants to cling on to whatever they had. He thinks he loves Lori. But instead of letting this slowly build (like it does in Mad Men), The Walking Dead's writers see it as adding excitement to reveal these secrets. Lori tells Rick. Rick admits he suspected it all along, but that baby is his. Okay, time for confrontation. There's nothing left to be said because you writers have let it all out. You've TOLD us what people are feeling and have let the secrets out. But no confrontation and no stewing. Shane tells Lori that the baby is his and that Rick can't take care of her. Another secret. Another chance to let things stew. Instead, at episode's end, Lori tells Rick what Shane had said and makes him out to be a threat, and Rick, who has shown a capacity for killing those who threaten the farm, stares menacingly into the distance. Time for confrontation. So they confront and beat each other up and Rick says "let's move on and put this behind us." WHAT? Whatever happens, there is nothing more here. One of the two will have to kill the other, but now there is no tension to build. The tension was released in the confrontation. Either have a new tension drive them apart or have them follow Rick's advice. But no. That's not what happens at all. Instead, Shane tries to engineer an assassination attempt. The confrontation finally happens, and it's pretty good (especially Shane's zombified return), but it could have been so much better than a series of false starts and stops.
I can't decide if Mad Men has a natural advantage because there are so many characters and a city of millions of potential characters surrounding them. Maybe that means everything is subtle because you are so concerned with your image. Maybe it's the telephone that allows semi-secret (and semi-public) conversations (like Roger's phone conversation with Joan while his drunken twentysomething wife lays on the bed beside him), and the Walking Dead characters are forced together in close quarters, which means their conversation is always, ironically, more public. But I think that's something of a cop-out. Don Draper really has no one. Neither does Rick. Don's perceived (by us, the audience) moral ambiguity is fed by his unwillingness to share things. He doesn't need the phone. He just needs to be silent and to never let others see him sweat. Rick should be the same way. Instead he constantly opens up thematic conversations that just don't work, like the awkward conversation with his son about how everyone dies or the many conversations where he tries to work things out with Shane. Moral ambiguity is at the center of both stories. We are meant to sympathize with characters who are doing things that we may not agree with (Rick kills people; Don sleeps with them). And the more that AMC's The Walking Dead can play with that ambiguity, the more it can make Rick's actions something we both agree and disagree with, the better the show will become.
And that brings us to The Walking Dead, the comic book. One of the striking things about the comic book series is that its characters are so morally ambiguous. A number of characters walk through the story, most die, some few remain. We are drawn to sympathize with Rick and to root for him to survive, but many of his actions are ones that we either cannot agree with or are ones that we can only agree with in the darkest recesses of our vengeful souls. The Rick of the comics is too bossy and too violent. And we are constantly forced to ask ourselves whether or not his actions are justified by the unique circumstances brought about by the zombie apocalypse.
AMC's The Walking Dead struggles with this concept. It tries to present moral ambiguity but instead presents moral inconsistency. It might not even be moral inconsistency that is the problem. It may be a confusion of moral ambiguity with an ambiguous state of sanity.
Rick ends season two by saying to the rest of the group, "you made me kill my best friend." Comics Rick would never have said that. He would have said "I killed Shane. I had to do it and I'm not sorry for it. Deal with it." Instead, television Rick comes off a little whiny and a little crazy (wait -- maybe he's taking on the characteristics of Dale!). We end up questioning whether Rick is sane, not whether what he did is right.
Rick's moral ambiguity is only interesting if characters are there to confront him and disagree with him. Without these viable consciences, the question does not become "was Rick right in killing the men in the bar?" or "was Rick right in killing Shane?" It instead becomes "is Rick going crazy?" It is not and should not be that simple a question.
In the comic book series, Rick has a number of personified consciences confront him. One is the character Tyreese who questions Rick's edict that "You kill; you die." He also confronts and fights with Rick over his decision to kill a decidedly dangerous prison inmate. Who is Rick's Tyreese in the television series? At first, I thought it was T-Dog because of their similar names and ethnic backgrounds. But Tyreese was an ex-NFL star, a man whose physical presence made him tower over Rick and whose physical abilities in a fight made him a powerful ally (at one point, in order to work out the grief over his daughter's death, Tyreese kills a gym full of zombies by himself using a hammer). This also gave him a presence that Rick had to listen to. But T-dog has almost nothing to say. He's not large. He's not that much of an asset in combat (as shown by his inept maiming of himself when confronting the herd at the beginning of season 2). And the writers have given him fewer and fewer lines, to the point where his silence is deafening.
Another conscience for Rick is Dale. In the comics, Dale is gruff and blunt, and Rick values that. There is no nonsense, only a "listen, son --" presence to which Rick responds. The Dale of the comic series ends up in a romantic and sexual relationship with Andrea. And it's believable! Dale is stable; Dale is strong; and Dale is there. But the Dale of the television series came across as whiny and a little crazed. When presenting his case for their need to maintain some moral conscience in the new society they were being forced to form, the television Dale launches a harangue that basically says over and over again "I can't believe no one is on my side." Then Dale dies.
TV Rick's one successful conscience was Shane, who unfortunately was a murderous psychopath. This not only allowed us to dismiss his thinking at some level, it also allowed us to see Rick's seeming crossing over into violence as mode of protection as a crossing over into madness. Rick of the television show is too hopeful, then makes a switch to violence that seems uncharacteristic and seems to mirror the decidedly murderous Shane. Rick of the comics combines the characteristics of both the Rick and Shane characters of the TV show. At times, comics Rick is murderous in his defense of his son and of the group. He is a bit paranoid. But he is also the only consistent vision of hope the series has to offer. He is the strength that allows the group to survive. But he is also the other dangerous, violent side of that strength. It was somewhat interesting to have Shane and Rick debate between hope and pragmatism. As I said to a friend after the mid-season finale, "Shane was right, but if I got separated from the group, I'd want Rick on my side." The Rick of the comic books is more interesting, though. He would fight hard to protect me, but would kill me himself if I endangered the group. And that's interesting. And what else is interesting is that I sympathize with him. I want him and his son to survive. And I want him to find some kind of peace.
My hope, in the end, is that the newly violent TV Rick will succeed in raising the interesting questions that the comic series has raised. Have Rick perform his actions and leave me to debate them. But the writers' constant need to have characters hash out these underlying arguments in an overt and overly simplistic way leaves me little hope. But, you know what, I'll consider that faint hope my own Sophia. And I probably won't abandon the show until it finally comes shuffling out of that barn and leaves me in despair.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)