Movie Review: Aragami (荒神) (2003)

With All Hallows' Eve soon upon us, this week, I wanted to give a shout out to a rare gem, a spooky samurai film, Aragami:

Directed by Kitamura Ryuhei, "Aragami" is a low fantasy, horror action film featuring badass samurai and philosophical musings.  The movie begins with a pair of seriously wounded samurai who seek shelter from a storm and their enemies in a remote and forbidding temple in the mountains.

Next, one of the previously wounded samurai wakes up to find himself mysteriously healed and that his friend is suspiciously missing.  He then finds that the sole inhabitants of the temple are a sinister warrior and a strangely silent woman.

"Aragami" is not a conventional horror film (there are no jump scares), but it does brilliantly succeed in being mysterious and creepy.  From the beginning, there's a growing unease as it becomes increasingly clear that something is not right about this lonely temple.

As events unfold and the truth is revealed, things are not what they seem, as the samurai is in for a really bad night.

This movie is part of the Duel Project, a challenge issued by producer Shinya Kawai to Kitamura and fellow director Yukihiko Tsutsumi.  The goal was to film a feature-length movie with only two actors, battling in one setting, and to be completed in only one week.

However, despite (or perhaps because of) these limitations, Kitamura manages to put together a film that is both slick and stylish, as well as clever and thoughtful. There's a close feeling, sometimes  intimate, sometimes claustrophobic, sometimes terrifying.

Unsurprisingly, "Aragami" seems a lot like a play, having only a single location and only a handful of characters.  It's quite atmospheric, with thoughtful ruminations on the nature of war and conflict and the boredom of immortality.

There are also lots of nice touches, such as the weird purple glow in the background for most of the movie and the subtle black humor.

The acting and score are excellent.  The fight choreography is also good, if fantastical.

So, if you are a fan of low fantasy, samurai films and/or interesting and clever stories, you owe it to yourself to watch this film!  However, don't just take my word for it.  Here's a link to the film from the director himself!

RPG Design: Player-Facing Mechanics

This week, I wanted to discuss a New School fad that has popped up in a number of tabletop RPGs: Player-Facing Mechanics.

No dice for you!

By "Player-Facing Mechanics," I mean that the mechanical parts of the rules set (e.g., rolling dice) are handled by the players, often to the exclusion of the Game Master.  For example, in RPGs such as Numenera (2013), the players are the only ones to roll dice.

Fate Points, and other types of Player Narrative Fiat, are another type of Player-Facing Mechanic.

Myself, I see mostly Player-Facing Mechanics as a marketing gimmick.  Some people claim that they speed up the game, but unless the number of actual dice rolls are reduced, I am skeptical of such claims.  For example, there's no mechanical streamlining by replacing an enemy's attack roll with a player's defense roll, simply re-fluffing.

Another argument made by fans of Player-Facing Mechanics is that they promote Player-Empowerment.

Here, I would agree that they do make the game more player centric.  This change fits some genres and play styles, but not others.  For example, Old School D&D is, to many, a gritty game with death around every corner and about trying to strike it rich.

Some games with Player-Facing Mechanics, such as Dungeon World (2012), go so far as to deliberately undermine Rule Zero, presumably since that rules set does not trust the GM to be fair.  However, if players don't trust the GM, why are they playing with him/her in the first place?

Player-Facing Mechanics also make it more difficult to for the GM to fudge rolls.  This can help prevent GM tyranny but, again, if players don't trust the GM, why are they playing with him/her in the first place?

For my own group, Player-Facing Mechanics would probably produce worse outcomes for my players since I do occasionally fudge rolls, but I only do so in the players' favor when Random Number Generation produces a result that I think is too harsh.

In any event, I don't have any problems with Player-Facing Mechanics, per se.  However, that's just not the type of game that I usually prefer to play.

Also, I like rolling dice when I GM.

Literature Review: "The Tombs of Atuan" (1971)

Last year, I discussed a work that is both one of greatest fantasy novels AND one of greatest young adult novels, Ursula K. LeGuin's "A Wizard of Earthsea."  This week, I wanted to take a look at the sequel, "The Tombs of Atuan."

In a somewhat surprising move, the second entry in the Earthsea Cycle has a new main character!  Rather than Ged from "A Wizard of Earthsea," we follow the action through the eyes of Tenar, a young Kargish girl who is the high priestess to the "Nameless Ones" at the titular Tombs of Atuan.

The Tombs are the center of religious activity for the Kargish Empire (one of the antagonists in "A Wizard of Earthsea") and feature several different faiths that seem to get along quite well.  Oldest and most sacred (but also neglected) is worship of the "Nameless Ones" and their high priestess is the "undying" Arha- undying in the sense that every time the incumbent high priestess dies, the other priestesses find a girl child born at the same time, while apparently becomes the new vessel for the "undying" Arha.

As so it was with Tenar, taken as a child and raised in this strange place by strange women for this strange purpose.  She loses her name (becoming the new Arha) and grows up a lonely servant of a mostly neglected religion.

Ged does show up, but only half way into the book.  He has recovered half of the broken ring of the archmage Erreth-Akbe is looking for the other half, hidden in the Tombs of Atuan.  Once rejoined,  the ring will reveal the powerful magic rune of Peace.  Arha/Tenar manages to trap him in the underground labyrinth but will he escape?  No spoilers but this *IS* the second book in a trilogy...

After "A Wizard of Earthsea," I found "The Tombs of Atuan" to be rather disappointing.

Like its predecessor, this is another coming of age story.  However, unlike Ged, Tenar is a victim of kidnapping and brainwashing and has no special powers.  Unsurprisingly, she has very little agency and spends the most of the book simply reacting to other characters.  In fact, when she asks to become an apprentice sorcerer, Ged shoots down this idea and she simply accepts his judgment!

So, why exactly would young girls want to be her?

The tone and feel of  "The Tombs of Atuan" are also vastly different.  For example, there's no exploration, and very little sense of the magical world of Earthsea.   In addition, the pacing is quite slow for most of the book.

Another area where the story is weak is that, rather than presenting a more balanced view of the Kargish, they are still portrayed unambigiously as the bad guys.  They worship the clearly evil "Nameless Ones",  They are okay with child slavery.  They even banned literacy!

Doing so, LeGuin turns them into orcs.

Of course, "The Tombs of Atuan" does have good points.  It's well written and imaginative and it does shed light on some of the events in the first book.

However, if you are expecting another fantasy adventure tale, you will be quite disappointed, as "The Tombs of Atuan" is more a psychological character study of a pretty weak character.  There are also some horror aspects, but frankly, this is not a frightening tale as I never felt that Tenar or Ged were in serious danger.

Let her be Eaten?  Whatever. 

RPG Game Play: Rule Zero

This week, I wanted to talk about an issue that's potentially confusing but hugely important to traditional tabletop role-playing games: Rule Zero of RPGs.

The Game Master is Always Right

By the above, I mean that Rule Zero states that the GM always has the final say, even over the rules as written.  For games where meta decision making is distributed along traditional lines, Rule Zero serves as a manual override to the rules set: in other words, it exists in case someone needs to override the rules when they result a nonsensical result.  Furthermore, it serves the underlying philosophy that the rules should take a back seat if they interfere with having fun.

Rule Zero came about because in role-playing games, player creativity can produce almost unlimited options.  For example, in the board game "Clue" players only have a limited number of things that they can do in their turn.  However, if "Clue" was a role-playing game, Colonel Mustard would be able to set the kitchen on fire.  Also, some rule sets simply have gaps.  Consequently, sometimes someone needs to make a ruling about the "legality" of an action.

Rule Zero also serves as a check upon Rules Lawyers, Munchkins and/or if the players are just being rowdy in general.

Unsurprisingly, Rule Zero is the foundation of GM authority in tabletop role-playing games.  Giving the final decision making to the GM is what allows the GM to override even the rules as written.  It also gave rise to the proliferation of house rules and other aspects of the DIY nature of Old School games.

Of course, Rule Zero assumes that GMs will be reasonable.  However, if abused, Rule Zero  can lead to railroading, turning the players into an unwilling audience for the GMs fan fiction, or even the GM becoming a petty tyrant!

By contrast, some New School games, operate differently since more or all (for those games without GMs) decision making is distributed to the players.  Other New School games, such as the *World games, try to constrain the GM within the rules set (though actual effectiveness of such constrains is questionable).

Rule Zero is, for the most part, an unspoken rule or referred to only obliquely.  However, not only does it remain important to this day (especially in Old School games), but it also is part of the history of  tabletop role-playing games and the reason why old terms for GM included "judge" and "referee".

TV Review: "Rome" (2005-07)

This week, I wanted to give a shout out to a show that is one of the greatest historical drama TV series of all time, HBO/BBC's "Rome":

First off, I want to say that this series (or at least Season One) is friggin' Awesome!

"Rome" is an epic show with a sprawling cast of interesting characters that covers the death throes of the Roman Republic and the rise of the Roman Empire.  Filled with personal and political machinations, the show chronicles how various individuals and factions ruthlessly vie for power, with Julius Caesar and later his nephew Augustus carving their way to the top over an enormous pile of bodies, shaking Rome and her people to the core.

Our viewpoint characters are Lucius Vorenus and Titus Pullo, who are based on a pair of Roman soldiers mentioned in Caesar's Commentarii de Bello Gallico, though there are some obvious changes from the source material.  In addition to showing the plebeian side of things, this odd couple provides humor and much of the action of the show.

In fact, Vorenus and Pullo are basically PCs in an RPG, to whom all kinds of ridiculous and implausible things happen (including escaping being marooned on a island with a raft made of driftwood and corpses!) as they repeatedly play a role at key historic events.  Indeed, a one point, Caesar muses whether to get rid of them but decides against raising a hand against ones so obviously favored by the gods!

Setting itself apart from lesser historical dramas, producer Bruno Heller's "Rome" is big, sweeping, brutal and unapologetic.  Of course, there's the graphic sex and violence ("Rome" was what "Game of Thrones" is now known for), but more importantly, this ambitious show recreates and brings ancient Rome to life with lavish sets and costumes and superb writing, direction, and acting.

While not historically accurate beyond broad sweeps (a number of the details are incorrect or fictionalized for dramatic purposes), what "Rome" definitely gets right is the feel of the time and place.  A big part of this is that these Romans, while the height of civilization for the time, clearly do not have our sense of morality.

Also, Vorenus and Pullo are ridiculous killing machines and anyone getting on their bad side might die at the drop of a hat!

"Rome" does have some flaws, chief of which is the lack of major battles scenes.  Super disappointing!

There are also big jumps in time that are scarcely covered with a line of dialogue, particularly in Season Two.  This can be quite confusing at times and is particularly bad in Season Two (when Messr Heller learned that the series wouldn't not be extended so he crammed in multiple seasons worth of material).

Season Two also suffering in comparison to Season One in terms of a lead actor: James Purefoy (playing Mark Anthony) simply lacks the gravitas of Ciarán Hinds (playing Julius Casear) and failed to carry the production in the same way.

Still, the overall quality of the show is excellent.  So, if you are a history buff, political scheming or a fan of Sword & Sandal, this show is right up your alley!