It's the end...

...of the year. 2012 has come and gone, and we're mostly none the worse for it.
 I mean, sure, there are a few places on our blue little planet, where people are a bit unpleasant with each other, but we didn't croak en masse back on the 21th.
There have been many "interesting" theories about what should have happened when the mayan calender expired, and I'm sure the inventors of said theories will soon trip over a new reason for the earth to be destroyed by their pet projects.
If you want a good laugh while you are waiting for the new year to come around, have a good look at this episode of Penn&Teller: Bullshit. It deals with just the sort of loony theories that should have taken place two weeks ago.
I have to warn you though, at least bad language is guaranteed, so watch with care.

Happy New Year Everyone!

'Tis the Season!

Seasons Greetings, Merry Christmas or Jolly Monday (in case you aren't in the mood to celebrate today) to you!

No time for any long posts today. Lot's to do and so forth. However, I had to put up a little happy holiday greeeting, should you decide to take time out to visit my page. Therefore I will leave you on this December 24th with a timeless classic, enjoy!

The Physics of Fear

Let me start off by explaining that I have been a horror fan my entire life. I didn't watch scary movies as a child, so it was only later that I got into serious horror. Even so, as a kid, I loved ghost stories, the spookier the better. I must have read every collection of ghost stories the local library had.

Later on, in my early teens, my friends and I would watch with great glee, what are now some of the most iconic horror movies in cinematic history. Movies like The Exorcist (1973), Nightmare on Elm Street (1984) and Hellraiser (1987) are now classics. But back in those days there was nothing cooler. We devoured every scream, every splash of blood, every demonic gurgle emanating from below the stairs. Over the years, we watched so many gruesome movies, I can't recall half of them.

However, I can honestly say I was never scared. It's only in recent years that I found myself being affected by horror movies. This has made me reflect more on the philosophy of horror, and that is what this is about.

My personal take on the physics of fear, not as a scientist or a doctor, as I am neither, but as both a fan and a creator of horror.

H. P. Lovecraft wrote: ”The oldest and strongest emotion of mankind is fear, and the oldest and strongest kind of fear is fear of the unknown”. He was so right. A monster is always scariest before we see it, when our imagination fills in the blanks. This is what makes horror so difficult to create. What one person finds terrifying is trivial, perhaps even laughable, to someone else. You can't please everyone all the time, but if you can scare the majority, you're on to something.

In the late 90's, I ran a horror game for a couple of friends, who were an item at the time. We played in her kitchen late into the night. When we were done, he walked me to the bus stop while we chatted. He told me he thought the game was cool, and he'd had a good time. It was only later she told me that she was so scared she refused to leave the kitchen until he came back. I was incredibly flattered. I had succeeded in genuinely scaring someone. I'm not telling this to brag, but to illustrate an example. My friend liked my game, but wasn't really scared, but his girlfriend found the same game terrifying.

Fear is an intensly personal thing, and in order to be really scary, you have to push buttons.

The perhaps most basic trick to accomplish this, is to make horror relatable. If the story is too alien it looses a great deal of power. The most popular, and therefore most effective horror stories are all relatable somehow. It's all about making people think What if? Could this happen to me? Even if you rationally know it can't happen, that it's just a book, a movie or a game, the killer could be in your bathroom, right now. That makes it scary. The rest comes down to trappings.

Let's take Freddy Krueger from Elm Street as an example. Sure he looks scary, but that's not what makes the movie so creepy. It's the fact that you have to sleep for real that makes him frightening. Not the burned face and knife-glove, but the idea that you'll see him in your dreams tonight.

In The Grudge, a victim hiding in her own bed is taken by the ghost. Michael Myers of Halloween fame stalks you in your own house. This makes these creatures so effective, the fact that you aren't safe in your own home, in your own bed. You, not just the characters, are not safe. Period.

The trappings, while not as vital as the relatability, are none the less very important. Like mentioned above, Freddy has his sweater, hat and glove. Myers has his blank mask, which incidentally hightens the unknown nature of the monster. The Grudge ghosts are horribly pale and move in unnatural jerking movements. Without these trappings, they wouldn't be interesting, they wouldn't be as frightening. The story can't stand on trappings alone, but they are essential. They are like spices. You can't cook dinner on just spices, but without them you have a very bland meal. It's getting the combination right that's so hard.

John Carpenter said that there are fundamentally only two kinds of horror stories; the external horror, i.e. the evil is out there, and the internal horror, i.e. the horror is inside us all.

The umbrella of horror covers a great many sub-genres, from pure gore fests to slow, subtle mood pieces. I love the fact, that when Bela Lugosi's Dracula appeared in cinemas in 1931, they had nurses in the theaters to take care of people who got so scared they fainted. I was about sixteen when I saw that version of Dracula for the first time, and I couldn't believe how cheesy it was. But it illustrates really well in my mind, how our reaction to horror can and will evolve over time.

Pick me up

So winter is officially upon us with the cold, the snow and the gloomy darkness. Since Christmas is approaching fast, I figured we could all use a good laugh to lighten the mood and alleviate the stress. If you have any. I'll leave that to your discretion.

We'll start with Key & Peele;

 

And we'll continue with some Mitchell and Webb;

 

Finally, we are going to end on an equally hilarious, but not sketch based humor, Would I lie to you;

Merits and Flaws, a few thoughts

The phenomenon of taking flaws and merits for your character, isn't exactly a new one. They come in many names, but gained popularity in the 90's, and are still used in many systems today. They have always split opinions amongst GM's and players alike, and I thought we could take a look at them.

The idea is that the merits and flaws allow you to customize your character to make her stand out and make her unique. In every system I have ever read that contains them, you take a certain amount of flaws worth a number of points, and then spend these points on either merits or on rounding out skills and attributes.

In general this is a great idea, but it can be abused by power hungry players, so you the GM really need to be on his toes.

So how does one abuse merits & flaws?

The first way is to take a flaw that would really derail the campaign if the GM ever decides to invoke it. The classic example is the powerful enemy flaw. In all likelyhood, this enemy is much more powerful than the character, potentially even more powerful than the entire party. An attack by such an enemy will probably mean a total party kill, which would be extremely unfair to the other players, thus prohibiting the GM from using him. Of course, the enemy can focus on just the relevant character, but why allow it, if it means certain, unavoidable death. Suddenly, Sauron steps around the corner, and murders your hobbit. Any questions?

The second method entails taking a flaw that is technically lethal, but won't affect the character until the campaign is over, or the character dies from some other cause. A typical example is to take a disease that kills slowly in a game famous for a high mortality rate, i.e. claiming the character has syphilis in a game set on the eastern front in WW II. Sure, he may have the disease, but it can take up to twenty years to kill, so it shouldn't be considered lethal for the campaign.

In third place, we have the ridicilously unlikely flaw, like having a major phobia of something the character will likely never encounter, like an alien in a historical campaign without supernatural elements, or something that's absolutely redundant, like being terrified of erupting volcanoes. Who isn't terrified of them?

The key to managing the flaws, is to first make sure they actually mean something to the characters, so that they aren't taken just for the points. And secondly to put players who try to abuse the system on the spot. Don't let them get away with this, it ruins the fun for everyone. Remember, flaws are always optional. If no flaw fits a character, he shouldn't have any.

Let's turn to the merits now. These are much less likely to be a problem, since the game designers have already been over them to make sure they aren't overpowered. But do keep in mind that the designers are but falliable humans and may have overlooked something. The only real concern here, is that a particular merit may be too powerful for a given campaign. Like some kind of photographic or eidetic memory in a mystery game. A character that is unable to forget anything ever, could well skew the mystery you have planned.

In closing, I'd like to point out that I have nothing against the merits and flaws. They really do fill a useful niche, but they can be problematic, and they aren't always neccessary. As with all things in the wide wonderful world of RPG's, it's up to you how you want it.

A slight difference

Every now and then, I get in the mood for some particular historical era. It can be the renaissance, the 1920's, you name it. Lately, I've been looking into World War I, The Great War, or the War to end all Wars (yeah, right). 28.06.1914 – 11.11.1918. Four years that killed more than nine million people. And that's just the death toll from the fighting. Then you have to factor in the deaths from disease, starvation and bombing. The first really big mechanized war in history. Heavy stuff.

But I'm not writing this to contemplate the horrors of war. Others have done that far more eloquently than I can. No, this is about entertainment, believe it or not.

You see, when I get into one of my moods, I like to read books, watch movies and play games set in that specific era. It doesn't have to be historically correct either, as long as the ambiance is there.

That's when I ran into something interesting. Bookwise, from fact to fiction, there's a wealth to choose from when it comes to WW I. But when I looked into movies and games, I was quite surprised. Lets look at movies first.

According to Wikipedia, there are ninety movies set in WW I. Granted, the list is incomplete, but it gives a good indication of the amount of movies depicting the great war. Now, let's compare it to the Wikipedia page for WW II. That's 229 movies and TV series since just 1990.

And the same trend continues with games. Wikipedia lists 31 games set in WW I, and looking at WW II, we get through A, B and four games into C before thirtyone games are listed.

My question is, why? Why is the second world war so much more popular? Is it because it came later? Maybe, but only by twenty years. And considering that the Vietnam War was even more recent but get about the same number of movies as WW I, that can't really be it. Could it be because of the higher death count? Possibly, but I doubt it. To be sure WW II was bigger than anyhing before or since, but there has to be more to it.

Perhaps it is that WW II had clearer lines than most wars. It's easy to point at the nazis and say; there are the bad guys, let's all go shoot them in the face.However, there are some kind of bad guys in every war.

Or could it be something else that fascinates us so much about this conflict that we to this day can't let go? I don't know, but it is a really interesting question, don't you think?

Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy

If you want to watch a great cold war spy drama, you can't do much better than Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy, based on the original novel by John Le Carré. However, make sure you watch the right one, or should I say, watch the right one first. The TV show was made in 1979, while the movie came out 2011. You should definately watch the TV show first, and there are several reasons why.

First off, as much as I love Gary Oldman, Alec Guiness fits the role of the main character, George Smiley an MI6 veteran, better. There's something subtle Guiness brings to the role, that I didn't find in Oldmans performance. This pretty much goes for the rest of the cast as well.

Second, because the story is set in '79, the film makers had to try to recreate the seventies, instead of just being there like the show was, and it's obvious. The film just can not feel as authentic, no matter how hard they tried. And they tried very hard. But at the end of the day, a copy can't beat an original.

The third and most important reason is, the show had seven 45 minute episodes to tell an intense and dramatic story set in the cold war, while the movie had just over two hours to try to do the same thing. It's no surprise the movie felt both confusing and rushed at the same time. If I hadn't seen the show first. I wouldn't have understood half of what was going on.

Do by all means watch the movie, it's good, but the original show is so much better.