So this thing happened to me over the weekend. Here are some of the highlights.
Yes, that’s me with Yahtzee of Zero Punctuation and Paul & Graham of Unskippable over at The Escapist. If you think that Yahtzee is unapproachable or caustic because of his yellow-background minimalist Internet persona, you’re a moron. Paul & Graham are very cool guys who appreciated clever wordplay. I didn’t spend nearly enough time with them for my taste, but I also was trying not to be a pest.
I also got the chance to meet the wonderful Susan Arendt and RussPitts who run a good deal of the show over at the Escapist. Susan, like the wonderful Amanda D’adesky, herds cats like a badass and deserves a very long break after this hectic weekend. On advice from Russ, I will try to be about 25% less clever than I usually am. It’s never good to be more clever than your editor. Also, they love kittens.
I ran demos of D&D 4th edition for Machine Age Productions and they went well. As the weekend wore on I stripped out more and more of the ancillary stuff I had added. The Saw-inspired Flash intro was cool and all, but it was a convention full of very loud noises and even louder off-key rhythm-deficient screeching Rock Band singers, so the effect was sort of lost. Still, folks seemed to have fun. That or they were just amused by my spastic flailing about as I described the damage they did to the zombies they fought.
Speaking of Machine Age, Machine Zeit is a fantastically atmospheric and very free-form game that you will enjoy if you like science fiction, horror, mystery or just plain having a good time.
Finally met Chuck Wendig in person, speaking of cleverness.
Met all sorts of people and I’d love to name them all but I’m running out of time before returning to the rather mundane day job I’m currently holding.
Things will continue to change around here. See that new logo? I did that. I started this weekend with 23 home-made business cards bearing that logo and info to bring people here. I ended with 2.
I mentioned in my last LiveJournal entry that with everything going on, despite working weekends to try and make ends meet, I don’t feel stagnant and things are moving forward. GameX begins tomorrow and I’m very much looking forward to it.
I’m still not settled on the format for the video supplements for my Netflix entries. I originally was thinking of going with an entirely animated format, and then I stumbled upon the delightful Nixie Pixel who shows that the use of a webcam doesn’t have to look pixelated, static or amateur. I think there might be some experimentation in my future, and guest spots from the cats.
I’ve dubbed my RPG project “the Jovian Frontier” and I had great advice laid on me by David Hill: have the system support the feel of the game. The new World of Darkness has a straight-forward system that speeds people through the encounters, as the focus is more on the story than the combat. Rifts on the other hand has a combat system that is cumbersome in its note-keeping and damage tracking as it is tedious. The Jovianstories were meant to be somewhat realistic, exciting and free of techno-babble and the soft science of Star Trek Voyager. This to me means the game should also be realistic, exciting and free of long searches through rulebooks. I’m still narrowing down the overall concept, and in another bit of advice from David, I need to compose a single sentence that describes what the game is, who the characters are and why the game is awesome and folks will want to play it.
On top of that, I’m writing when I can, enjoying the storytelling in Fallout 3, playing D&D and waiting for the next book signing for Adventure on a Dare or the appearance of Blood from the Underground 2 on Lulu.
I will try to sort out a Netflix entry tonight and make reports from GameX, provided they have wi-fi.
So I was planning on getting more work done on the video adaptation of my review of Changeling, and was in the process of getting my web development tasks out of the way when my muse snuck up behind me, sat on my lap and lathered me with inspiration. It wasn’t really appropriate for the work place, but the inspiration lingers.
It’s for a pen-and-paper RPG, using thesestories as background material. I’m going to ‘jot’ down some notes here, just to get them out of my head and continue working on what I’m actually getting paid for.
System
With appropriate credit to Bethesda, I think I’d like to use a version the SPECIAL system for character stats. The skill set will probably be slightly different from Fallout, as I’ll need to include things like Piloting, Astrogation and so on. Perks will also be different, and based on character origin & profession. As far as ship-to-ship combat is concerned, I’m thinking of developing a separate system called MARS that first considers the Munitions being used, factors in the Armor of the target, then the Range and finally takes into account anything Special about the weapon – if it’s made to pierce armor, if it’s radioactive, etc. – before making the rolls.
Characters
Characters will have 2 factions to choose from, Terran and Jovian. Terrans tend to be more intellectual and procedural while Jovians are more inclined towards altercations. The faction choice affects the final outcome of the character’s SPECIAL stats. Further customization comes from planet/moon of origin, with 4 for each faction. Terrans can come from Terra, Luna, Mars or Ceres, while Jovians hail from Callisto, Io, Ganymede or Europa. Planetary origin affects starting skill bonuses and makes some Perks available before a Profession is selected – some people are just naturally inclined towards certain things. I’m going to discuss Professions in the next section to try and keep my thoughts organized – things keep coming to me as I type this.
Professions
So there are four basic class types: Brawler, Shooter, Thinker & Speaker. Brawlers want to get into fights up close; Shooters want to stand back and… well, shoot; Thinkers use their brains both in combat and out; and Speakers talk a lot. But the Profession selection doesn’t stop there. There are also four types of employers: Government, Military, Corporate & Freelance. The type of class and employer the player chooses will determine their Profession, and thus their skill set & perk trees. For example, a Speaker working for the Government will be a Politician, while one employed by the Military is an Officer. Talking for a Corp makes you a Salesman, while working Freelance makes you a Con Artist. All Speakers have some basic traits they share, but the Officer is going to have some training with shooting things while the Salesman has better negotiating power.
Engagements
Both Combat and Non-Combat Engagements will be handled with Skill checks, determined by the roll of percentile dice and affected by Luck & Perks. Space combat will start with a character’s Skill check which factors into the MARS system. Both person-to-person and ship-to-ship combat will have location hit percentages not unlike the V.A.T.S. in Fallout 3. Critical hits will likely have spectacular results, using the tables from Dark Heresy as inspiration.
Imitation, after all, is the most sincere form of flattery.
Ship-to-ship combat will also be interesting to develop. Smaller craft, such as fighters and small transports, will engage each other in “knife-fight” ranges, while capital ships hurl projectiles at each other at much longer ranges provided they don’t rely upon interceptors for protection.
Mood & Theme
The mood of the game will be somewhere between Firefly and the re-imagined Battlestar Galactica. There’s some space to explore within the solar system and beyond, but most of the drama happens in a relatively small arena, i.e. the space between Terra and Jupiter. There’s politics to hash out, credits to be made, battles to fight and technology to develop. Everybody has an angle and nothing is what it seems. The lack of stable FTL propulsion and any sort of alien species limits the scope of the action but allows for more personal storytelling potential, as well as keeping the mood more in the scope of a personal drama than a space opera.
That’s all I can think of at this point, and there’s going to be more to come as I let this stew.
It wasn’t too long ago when the words ‘A Clint Eastwood Film’ described an action flick featuring a character that was either Dirty Harry Callahan, The Man With No Name or somebody who existed between the two. Clint Eastwood is someone along the lines of Robert DeNiro or Al Pacino: a star with a long history of delivering both furious action fueled by pure manliness, and dramatic turns that set him on a different level from other so-called ‘actors’ that don’t deserve mention at the moment. And Clint has further distinguished himself in that nowadays, ‘A Clint Eastwood Film’ means one he’s directed. I plan on going over all of his directoral offerings, and Changeling is a great place to begin. The film stars Angelina Jolie, Jeffrey Donovan, Colm Feore and John Malkovich.
Why, Changeling? you might ask. Why not Unforgiven, his directoral breakout? Both it and Million Dollar Baby won him Oscars, why am I not starting there? What about Flags of Our Fathers, or Letters from Iwo Jima, his powerful war films? Why not Gran Turino, which includes perhaps the most manly and grit-filled rendition of “GET OFF MY LAWN” ever captured by a camera? These are valid questions, and I actually plan on taking time to review all of these – and no, it’s not just because I want to watch Gran Turino again.
Changeling is a good place to begin on Clint’s directoral work because it captures many of the aspects that make him such a visionary film-maker. With this riveting true story, we see the way Clint brings us into a bygone time, the handling of his actors and the framing of his shots. You might get some of these elements from Unforgiven, Flags of Our Fathers or even Mystic River, but Changeling does it with such natural grace that it feels less like 142 minutes of movie and more like an encapsulated lesson on how to effectively direct. Clint has brought us both the appeal and darkness of an oft-romanticised time in American history, along with a great performance from Angelina Jolie and one of the best turns by John Malkovich I’ve ever seen. Oh yeah, and he also gave us Jeffrey Donovan in a period suit with matching fedora.
An entire thesis could be written on the plot I haven’t mentioned yet, but here’s the short form and, as usual, it’s free of spoilers. Angelina Jolie is a hard-working supervisor at a telephone exchange in Los Angeles during the roaring ’20s. Her son is an intelligent, precocious youth who pulls off a pretty impressive feat by endearing himself towards us with only a few minutes of screentime. Mom comes home from work one day to find the house empty and the kid’s lunch uneaten in the icebox. A little police runaround brings her to the office of Jeffrey Donovan’s insufferable prick of a police captain who assures her that her son will be found. Sure enough, in a few months, she shows up at a train station when word comes her son’s been found, but after taking one look at the shorter, pudgier and more annoying child, she knows it’s not her child. The police disagree, citing her womanhood as the main cause for her baseless idea that the boy isn’t who they say he is. The mother insists, and soon it’s clear that the only person who’s fully in her corner and willing to match her zeal and devotion is the radio-broadcasting Presbyterian minister who believes the City of Angels has become a cesspool of corruption run by self-indulgent swine. It’s a little odd to see this compassionate yet occasionally brimstone-fueled spiritual leader being brought to us by way of Cyrus the Virus and Humma Kavula. I’m just glad he did something like this to wash the taste of that dreadful turn he did in Eragon out of our minds. I’ll keep praying he stays far away from anything related to Twilight.
Anyway, this is a fantastic film, and it features one of the cinematographic keys to Eastwood’s success. All of his films – that I’ve seen so far anyway, I still need to sit down and watch Unforgiven end to end – have what I like to call “a haunting etherealness.” Classic films can become dated in their look and material, and it can be difficult to hearken back to a bygone age without extensive set dressing or CGI which is often hit and miss in a drama. Clint Eastwood sends us back in time before we even realize we’ve been temporally displaced and has us invested in the characters just as quickly. Actors are, by and large, attractive folk (Angelina Jolie and Jeffrey Donovan in particular in this case) but Clint doesn’t let them get away with just being pretty faces. They believe in their material and we, in turn, believe in them. There’s no trick photography to distract us from the pace of the writing and the musical score does exactly what it says on the tin, underscoring the drama and action rather than overwhelming us with bombastic horns or one woman wails. Clint Eastwood’s careful and measured genius comes through in the final film as all of these elements, exemplary on their own, seamlessly fuse into a storytelling experience rarely seen in an age of mean-spirited gross-out money machines that laughably call themselves comedies, and video game adaptations that wouldn’t know a good story if it showed up at their door dressed in a corset and stockings.
I’m getting a little long-winded on this one, but I wanted to establish what I respect and love about the films of Clint Eastwood. As I said, I plan on reviewing them individually, but a common thread that defines them all is this singular excellence and haunting, timeless etherealness that puts him on the level of such seminal directors as Martin Scorsese and Francis Ford Coppola. If nothing else, he shows us that sometimes the best things we do in our lives might not happen until well into our adult years, which means we should never give up on our dreams and no matter how daunting the obstacles might be to reaching our goals, the only way we truly fail is if we quit. But I’m wandering off the point again. The point is: Changeling is an excellent, singular and unforgettable film, and you should put it on your Netflix queue without delay.
Josh Loomis can’t always make it to the local megaplex, and thus must turn to alternative forms of cinematic entertainment. There might not be overpriced soda pop & over-buttered popcorn, and it’s unclear if this week’s film came in the mail or was delivered via the dark & mysterious tubes of the Internet. Only one thing is certain… IT CAME FROM NETFLIX.
Eating vegetables is supposed to build one’s character, as is mowing the lawn. When we get older, we understand that when parents discuss building character, it’s short hand for long explanations of why it’s a good idea for us to eat something that’s nutritious but not as appealing as an ice cream sundae. Trying to establish a work ethic by doing chores before playing is a concept that might be lost on a child, hence the use of the phrase “it builds character.”
But when it comes to writing, how does one build a character that’s not going to fail?
I don’t mean failing in terms of succeeding in goal achievement within the story. Authors often set up their characters to fail in the course of the story, in order to generate drama or keep the plot interesting. What I mean, here, is making the character a success in terms of audience appeal and the ability of the reader to relate to the character.
I think in the past I have adequately coveredwhat not to do when it comes to putting a character together. But just in case you’re unsure, here’s a couple resources that might help.
If after giving your character a name, appearance, occupation and motivation, you begin fleshing them out but start to wonder if you’re hitting too close to home or might be to derivative or overpowered, run them through thesetests.
On a less flippant note, Orson Scott Card has a few things to say about characters that aren’t exclusive to science fiction. D.A. Houdek has written an essay on Heinlein’s Women and Jacqueline Carey talks a little about the characters in her Kushiel series in this interview. In fact, a few minutes’ searching on your favorite author in Google will probably find an article or interview discussing their characters and what makes them either believable or laughable.
What works best for me is starting with a character’s role. Are they a protagonist, the protagonist’s love interest, an antagonizing force or someone minor provided for background purposes? From there I think on motivations. What do they want to achieve and why? What do they care about? What makes them angry and what can’t they live without?
Having these things well established and working from there as a foundation is, I believe, far more important than how pretty a character is, the abilities they have or the trials they’re going to face. Anybody can put someone pretty in a story, give them cool powers or run them through a series of explosions. Making an audience care about them is something else again, and therein lies the true challenge for a storyteller.
