30 Days of GameMastering--Day 30!

And this is it!  Our final entry in Lindevi's "30 Days of GameMastering" challenge!  One last charge unto the breach, my friends!

How do we grow the hobby?

Seriously?!  How is there not an RPG of this yet?!

We live in a golden age of geekery.  The Marvel cinematic universe has brought together some of the classic comic-book icons together in a cohesive internal mythology.  Comic book movies are now among the most anticipated films each year.  The Walking Dead has become an international sensation, breaking records with each new season.  A local Halloween attraction just south of Dayton now features a "Zombie Sniper Patrol" where you can live out your wildest zombie apocalypse fantasies, to say nothing of 10K runs that have turned into zombie-survival runs.  San Diego ComicCon has become the new Mecca for all things pop-culture.

It's easier nowadays to be published than anytime in history.  Anyone with an internet connection can start a blog or put together an e-book for publication online.  Digital correspondence allows artists, designers, writers, and publishers to collaborate and create product from anywhere in the globe.  For Cold Steel Wardens?  My mapmaker is from Germany.  My publisher is British.  My artists and editors come from all over the United States.

The frustrating thing on my end right now?  For as easy as it is to be published, for as high as the general public is on nerd-culture, the role-playing games market just doesn't seem to capitalize on what's popular.  While there is a new edition of Mutants and Masterminds corresponding directly to DC universe comics characters, there was no crossover with the recent Batman or Superman movies.  There's still no true Walking Dead RPG (which I'd love to write, if I got that license).  There are so many opportunities to capitalize on already-existing properties to usher in new players that it consistently astounds me that there aren't more RPG players and that those opportunities lie fallow.

For now?  The best thing we can do is keep pushing.  Keep spreading tendrils out there amongst the 'norms' and keep one mantra in mind:  "Oh, you like comics?  How would you like to play as a superhero?  Like zombies?  How about we run a zombie-apocalypse scenario?  I've got some dice you can borrow..."

In Which The Warlock Objects to a Lack of Marriage...

It figures.

No sooner do I offer some praise to DC comics (in my immediately previous post, a look back at the timeless Justice League/Justice League Unlimited), they go ahead and do something profoundly stupid.

Despite my love of superhero comics and superhero gaming, I've been fairly critical of DC Comics' design choices since their inception of the "New 52" initiative, which rebooted their entire universe and discarded decades of classic comics storylines.  However, the minds behind the New 52 made a poor choice worse through sexist depictions of female characters, its ill treatment of legendary comics writers, and its retraction of numerous important comics events, not the least of which were the events of Alan Moore's The Killing Joke, in which Barbara Gordon was paralyzed by the Joker, leading her to later re-invent herself as Oracle.

I've expounded on my feelings on the New 52 before.  My opinions since that post really haven't changed; even the PlatinumChick--a DC girl through-and-through--has all but given up hope that DC might turn things around.  Our pull file just keeps growing smaller and smaller.

But, this time around?  There are bigger issues to deal with, this time with Batwoman.

No, not Batgirl (Barbara Gordon).  Batwoman--Kate Kane.

Batwoman was given the spotlight by stored scribe Greg Rucka during the fantastic 52 event, where she was introduced as a potential love interest for Renee Montoya, a former Gotham city police detective who took up the mantle of The Question following the death of Vic Sage.  Yes, Batwoman is a lesbian.  She's also a kick-ass crimefighter with tons of great symbolic ties throughout Gotham City.  After the New 52 reboot, Montoya was nowhere to be seen, though Batwoman remained.

Rucka parted ways with DC over creative differences (notice a pattern here?), after which the book was assigned to the writer/artist combo of JH Williams and W. Haden Blackman.  Williams and Blackman's work on Batwoman was stellar, winning several Harvey awards and even the GLAAD award for Outstanding Comic Book.  Batwoman represented a jump forward for LGBT representation in comics...and has now been cut off at the knees.

From Batwoman #17:
Kathy Kane's proposal to Maggie Sawyer.

Long story short?  Williams and Blackman's plot involved Kane proposing to current girlfriend Maggie Sawyer with the intent of having the pair marry.  DC editorial outright forbade this, despite allowing Williams and Blackman to build to this point over the past year's worth of issues.  Williams and Blackman were "crushed", ultimately deciding to leave DC Comics due to the editorial interference.

DC Comics claims that homophobia has no place in this decision, stating that "the editorial differences with the writers of Batwoman had nothing to do with the sexual orientation of the character."  Rather, Dan Didio explained that the anti-marriage edict extended to all their characters--not just the solitary lesbian hero with her own book--and that marriage simply has no place in the lives of a masked vigilante:

"They shouldn't have happy personal lives…They put on a cape and a cowl for a reason, They’re committed to being that person, they’re committed to defending others—at the sacrifice of all their own personal instincts….That’s something we reinforce. If you look at every one of the characters in the Batman family, their personal lives kind of suck." --Dan Didio

As you well know if you've read this blog at all, I love dark, tortured anti-heroes.  All the best heroes require motivation and pathos, to say nothing of a great villain to fight against.  But here?  There's a problem.

First, there's the issue of perception.  While you may state that forbidding the only lesbian heroine's marriage isn't homophobic, it still looks homophobic.  And, as a member of the LGBT community myself?  It sure feels homophobic!  When you an issue a statement like this, you forfeit the ability to tell the reader/listener how they feel about it.  That's our decision, individually, as readers.  You might not have intended to be a bigot, but you sure did it anyway, Mr. Didio.

There aren't exactly a lot of LGBT heroes in comics today.  Batwoman was certainly the most celebrated, most visible of those heroes.  Preventing her from engaging in a healthy, monogamous relationship makes for a slap in the face of the LGBT community who fight every day for the right to marry, even if it's not what you intended.  When you're on the stage, you don't just get to step back because you think "its not right for any character".

Secondly, there's the issue of the creators.  Williams and Blackman are among the most celebrated writers in comics today.  Batwoman, under these two, has been among the most celebrated books on an underwhelming DC slate.  Mr. Didio, can you really afford to anger these two?  Bruce Timm and Paul Dini are now at Marvel Animation, alongside Jeph Loeb.  Mark Waid is writing on Daredevil and Greg Rucka just wrapped up a run on Punisher.  Can you really afford to keep handing storied writers and artists to your competition?  They're leaving in droves, because of your continual interference.

Finally, let's talk a little about tragedy.  Let's take you at your word and assume that there's no anti-LGBT bias in this decision; that, instead, you really believe that marriage has no place in comics.  I decry that point utterly.  The best sorts of characterization come from interpersonal drama, not the least of which comes directly from marriage, which we've seen in comics over and over again for the past 50 years.  To say that "marriage has no place in comics" ignores countless decades of committed relationships throughout comics!

Reed Richards and Sue Storm:
married for all these years, and there's
still tension!  That's good storytelling.

Reed Richards and Sue Storm represent the pinnacle of this point, weathering not just cosmic invaders but also the stresses of family life.  Namor, for instance, becomes much less interesting as a Fantastic Four foe without the sexual tension between himself and Sue.  Peter Parker's entire characterization centers around his ability to juggle the responsibilities of being Spider-Man with the obligations of his family and social life, not the least of which is his faltering relationships with Mary Jane Watson, Felicia Hardy, Gwen Stacy, and others.

Brooding, dark, tormented heroes are all well and good, but they only get that way if they have something to torment them!  While I'm not advocating the "fridging" of characters simply for the sake of drama, a compelling superhero--especially of the low-powered, vigilante style--struggles with the issues of maintaining a double life.  Part of that double life has to be a realistic, nuanced view of romantic relationships.  Marriage raises the stakes in those relationships, representing a monogamous commitment that carries difficulty, ardor, and struggles all its own.

Are you really so naive, Mr. Didio, as to assume that when a hero gets married that their problems end?  That their life is forever happy and carefree?  Marriage takes work, compromise, and continual communication.  In all actuality, a married hero likely faces more trial and tribulation than their single counterparts!  That hero could face the struggles of maintaining their "secret life" behind the mask, while their partner grows closer to the truth.  Or, a hero might share their secret with their partner, leading to even more tension.  To discard all of this literally throws away entire story arcs worth of possibilities!

You know what speaks most highly to this phenomenon?  The below image:


That's Northstar--a C-list X-Men character, getting married to his boyfriend.  Ever since Chris Claremont, the X-Men series has thrived on character drama, not the least of which has come from romantic relationships:  the Cyclops-Jean Grey-Wolverine love triangle alone filled tons of books!  And now, Marvel took pride in letting two LGBT characters marry, on a front cover even.

And DC?  They'd sooner let two fantastic authors walk than let those authors write a lesbian heroine in a realistic manner.

The Warlock's Review: The Dark Knight Rises

When our weekly game group went to see Avengers in May, I could hardly believe my eyes.  Walking from the theater, all I could think of was the magnitude of what I had just seen.  As a film experience, Avengers was simply mind-blowing:  a four-panel blowout translated seamlessly onto the screen.

The question looming, however, was "How could The Dark Knight Rises possibly measure up?"  With huge shoes to fill in terms of its predecessor, TDKR now would suffer comparison to its massively successful Marvel competitor as well.  So, how did it do?

It pains me to say this.  The Dark Knight Rises just isn't as good as The Dark Knight.  It's not even as good as Batman Begins.  While it's far from being a bad movie--it's still head and shoulders over dreck like Daredevil or Green Lantern--it's just not a good movie either.  This was supposed to be Christopher Nolan's "piece de resistance," but The Dark Knight Rises collapses under its own bulk, entangled in a bloated, unwieldy plot.

The Dark Knight Rises
An unsatisfying ending to
Christopher Nolan's genre-defining run.

TDKR begins eight years following the events of The Dark Knight.  After the death of Harvey Dent, Bruce Wayne (Christian Bale) has vanished from the public eye and has retired the Batman mantle.  When rumors of a mercenary named Bane (Tom Hardy) begin emerging, coupled with links to the League of Shadows, Wayne takes up his cape and cowl once more to investigate the motives behind Bane's activities.  However, as he does so, Wayne's company teeters on the edge of default as a new technologies firm run by Miranda Tate (Marion Cotillard) appears on the verge of takeover.  Cotillard's performance may be the weakest out of the cast, as she vacillates between being a canny entrepreneur and a piece of arm candy for Bruce Wayne, only truly showing her true colors (in an incredibly unsatisfying manner) in the last ten minutes of the film

Bane's appearance is concurrent with that of Selina Kyle (Anne Hathaway), an intensely skilled burglar--never once called Catwoman--who steals Bruce Wayne's fingerprints in exchange for a chance at wiping her criminal record clean.  Hathaway's Kyle is truly the brightest spot in this movie, using her femininity for manipulation and lethality while simultaneously providing a vulnerable, sympathetic viewpoint.  It'd be a revelatory performance...if Scarlett Johansson didn't already play these same cards as Black Widow in The Avengers. 

Also joining the story is John Blake (Joseph Gordon Levitt), a beat cop-turned-detective who has somehow deduced Batman's identity--it's never stated or shown how--and who pushes Wayne into action.  While Blake's character is meant to be an uncompromising idealist and a point of entry for the viewer, he seems to just stumble across major clues haphazardly which, when exposed, advance the plot. 

If The Dark Knight was based in part on Jeph Loeb and Tim Sale's The Long Halloween, TDKR pulls primarily from the Knightfall and No Man's Land arcs.  Without spoiling too much, if you've read Knightfall and know the basic premise of Bane's character, you can anticipate exactly what happens to our cowled hero.  But, the scene in question occurs less than halfway through the film, just after Wayne "learns how to be Batman again"....resulting in an entire second hour of Batman doing the same thing he just did, just in a different setting! 

With Batman out of the way after said incident, Bane and his allies are free to establish martial law in Gotham City, stealing the fuel core from a Wayne Enterprises nuclear fusion reactor and using it as extortion fuel against the surrounding government.  "What about the police?", you might ask.  Well, Bane has them trapped in a warren of tunnels beneath the city, yet for some reason keeps them alive with regular shipments of food and water.  The city descends into chaos absent their protectors, holding kangaroo courts to exterminate the city's entitled elite.

Unfortunately, this is where the plot bogs down.  Why does Bane keep the police alive?  So that we can have a climactic police-vs.-anarchist beatdown scene in the third act, of course!  Bane and his lackeys know that their fuel core-turned-bomb can be shut down by reattaching it to the reactor, but the reactor has a flood control to prevent meltdowns.  Why not just trigger the flood control and prevent the possibility in the first place?  For that matter, why extort the populace in the first place?  The plot simply breaks down upon cursory examination, with both villains and heroes taking actions directly contradictory to their own motives and even logic itself! 

The Dark Knight Rises further suffers from a core storytelling flaw of "telling" rather than "showing".  Rather than acting through or physically demonstrating his frustration with Bruce Wayne, Alfred (Michael Caine) goes on a literal three minute diatribe directly into the camera, telling Bruce why his retreat from the world was so wrong.  Rather than show romantic interest in Bruce Wayne, we merely hear from other characters that Miranda Tate is interested in Bruce Wayne romantically, which makes a love scene between the two halfway through the film seem totally unrealistic.  Rather than demonstrating the decadence and corruption of Gotham's elite, we merely hear speeches from Bane, culminating in a stolen speech from Commissioner Gordon (Gary Oldman) that went undelivered in the first act.  Bane's attack on a Wall Street-esque investment area made good progress in this regard, but the focus shifts almost immediately from Bane's mysterious motives to the police's erroneous pursuit of Batman.

As I mentioned in my previous entry, the element that separated The Dark Knight from the majority of genre-movies out there was its willingness to address greater ethical and philosophical questions.  We didn't simply deal with Batman and The Joker--we examined the fundamental flaws with moral absolutism and addressed the depths to which men and women would sink in order to preserve their status quo.  These sociological and philosophical questions arise in The Dark Knight Rises, but as quick as the questions arise, they are simultaneously backhanded back down. 

Bane...you won! 
You got exactlywhat you wanted!
What more are you trying to accomplish?

Case in point, Bane's fundamental plan for Gotham.  Bane encourages the populace to rise up against their upper-class oppressors, distributing arms to any willing takers.  CEOs and socialites are put on trial and exterminated while Bane himself simply stands by and lets the people do their thing.  However, even as thousands flock to Bane's cause, he still plans to detonate the fuel core, destroying Gotham City entirely!  Why?  Well, it's never really explained.  His goal worked.  He was successful!  Why destroy the fruits of your labors?  It simply doesn't make sense. 

I almost want to give The Dark Knight Rises a pass, simply because of the massive steps it had to follow in. The basic flaws in storytelling, editing, and scene structure found here really are uncharacteristic of Nolan's work and of the series in general.  But, at the end of the day, I'm left with one defining decision that sums it all up for me:

When I left the theater after The Avengers, I immediately thought to myself, "This is awesome!  I need to see this again!  I need to get this on Blu-Ray/DVD!"  I'm even contemplating shelling out for the massive 10 disc ultimate edition.

When I left the theater after The Dark Knight Rises, I felt let down.  I might ask for it as a Christmas present on DVD, but I don't want to shell out to buy this myself.  And, certainly, I don't care to see it again in a theater.  It's a servicable, if unsatisfying ending, but it's not the magnum opus we were all hoping for.