I was thinking about what I wrote in my Why I DM post, and had some further thoughts to add.
I talked about the players giving me a constantly changing challenge that the AI of strategy computer games can't. Following that line of logic, why don't I just play multiplayer mode for those games? I would be challenging myself against a human opponent who I would have more difficulty predicting and manipulating. The answer lies in how the strategy game changes in multiplayer mode.
For me, these strategy games are a mental exercise and challenge. As soon as I enter multiplayer mode, it becomes a competition. First of all I don't like the hassle of setting up a multiplayer game in the first place, and second I don't like to lose (who does), which I often do because of how I play. I don't play strategy games to win; my goal isn't to 'beat' the AI. I will often draw the game out so it will last longer when I could have 'beat' the game fairly quickly. I don't care about competing, so when I do play against another human, my opponent often defeats me fairly easily because I'm not playing to win. So I usually stick to single player and spend the time to enjoy the game. My goal when I play a strategy game is to develop a strategy and see if I can execute it. It's an exercise of my mental faculties. I get enjoyment just from the play itself and the complex challenges that arise out of play.
I DM RPGs in the same way, I get enjoyment from the challenge of the play itself. In my last post about this, Scott Anderson said he doesn't see the DM as being oppositional or antagonistic. Well, I don't either, as I tried to explain in my reply. The reason RPGs are superior to computer strategy games is the human factor involved, as I explained in my previous post. And as I said above I don't play to compete. I don't take on a competitive stance when I DM. D&D is a cooperative game, and not just for the players. The DM has cooperate with the players just as the players have to cooperate with each other. I prefer to run D&D than to play strategy games because there is the human factor, but also because it is a cooperative game. I'm not out to kill the PCs, or stop their plans, my job is to cooperate with the players by presenting the setting as it is and narrating the consequences of player actions and how those actions affect the setting. My role is purely dependent on the players, so I have to cooperate with them to play the game in the first place. If I take an antagonistic role, the game will be over shortly and no one will have enjoyed themselves.
10 October 2019
04 October 2019
Star Trek
So lately I've been watching a lot of Star Trek. I keep telling myself I should work on D&D stuff, and then I decide to do it later instead watch a few episodes of Star Trek. Over the last year or two I watched Enterprise and the TOS and TAS with my dad sporadically until we had seen every episode of each series; it was interesting because my dad had never seen all of Enterprise, and I knew I had seen the animated series, but I couldn't remember most of the episodes. I started watching TNG about six months ago. About 2 months ago I found this website with a chronology of all the episodes and movies and began watching in chronological order from where I was in TNG, and I have been watching pretty intensively since then. I finished TNG a few weeks ago and am now watching both DS9 and Voyager in chronological order. It has been an interesting experience seeing how events connect between DS9 and TNG and voyager.
I've never considered myself a 'trekkie'; I'm not fanatical about star trek(or star wars either), I enjoy the shows, but I prefer other sci-fi shows/movies a lot more(like stargate). Both DS9 and Voyager have a very 90s feel, I think more than TNG is reminiscent of the 80s. Voyager really pushes the 'noble savage' message, and it can get really annoying.
I do think each series has something unique to offer. I still think TOS is the best series; the episodes are self contained and an example of what good science fiction can be. Science Fiction is a method of reflecting on the human condition, exploring what-if scenarios; the messages of many of the episodes may be a little trite, but I still think overall TOS is a very good model for what sci-fi shows should try to do.
Captain Picard is the best captain in my book. In TNG they kinda split Kirk's character between Riker and Picard, which proved to be beneficial for Picard and a detriment to Riker(though I never did like Jonathan Frakes). Picard is a model for what a federation captain should be: he is dedicated to his principles, passionate,yet disciplined, he keeps a distance from the crew, yet inspires unswerving loyalty in them.
Deep Space Nine is different from the other shows because it's on a space station, yet I think that is what allowed it's greatest quality to shine: the Cardassians. I think the Cardassians are the best villains in all of Star Trek. I think the stationary existence of DS9 allowed the show to have not just a recurring villain, but a constant one. What makes them great, is that they aren't always the villain, they aren't 2-dimensional paper cut-outs like so many of the other aliens on star trek. The Cardassians are the true villains of DS9, not the Dominion. The Dominion is more of some looming background threat for most of the show and not really villains; I guess in that way they are similar to the Borg in TNG. I know sometimes DS9 gets criticized for its religious overtones, but that doesn't really bother me; that's definitely a part of the show where 90s culture shines through.
Voyager is my least favorite Star Trek series; I don't like half the crew, the kazon, most of the episodes have lackluster plots, and the 'romance' is pretty atrocious. Oh, and we cant forget the 'noble savage' push with Chakotay and his 'vision quests'. However, the main redeeming quality of the show, for me, is Tuvok. Tuvok is the best Vulcan portrayed on any of the shows, much as Picard is the best captain. Tuvok is a better vulcan than Spock ever was, yes I said it. Tim Russ is a fantastic actor, and his role as Tuvok is what makes Voyager enjoyable for me.
I know a lot of fans don't like Enterprise, but it is one of my favorite Star Trek shows. The 3rd and 4th seasons are widely considered to be better than the 1st and 2nd seasons because the show switched to a long form story arc that spanned the entire season. I, however, prefer the 1st and 2nd seasons. I think Star Trek excels at the episodic format. This goes back to the standard of TOS, every episode has a self contained story that explores a different scenario/concept. The best quality of Enterprise is the camaraderie among the crew. There is an Esprit De Corps that is unique to this show. You get to really feel the bond present between the crew of the ship, and I don't just mean the bridge crew; other members of the crew are regularly featured. It actually feels like there is crew on the ship besides the main actors. So often in the other shows it seems like the 'crew' are just the bridge officers. It's hard to describe, and maybe it's just me, but it feels like the crew of the Enterprise really has a camaraderie that is special.
And what about the new Star Trek movies and Discovery? I don't consider them to be star trek, and I just don't mean they don't fit the canon; they don't feel like Star Trek. Several years ago I binge watched all the Star Trek films in order(just the movies, not the series), and ended with the JJ films. Many fans hate Nemesis, and don't include it in the canon, but when I watched it, the story may not have been great, but it still felt like star trek. There was continuity between Nemesis and all that had come before, and it was still Star Trek's specific take on science fiction. I had seen the JJ films once and didn't like them, but at this point I decided to give them a second chance and was thinking that they couldn't be that bad. So I watched the JJ films immediately after seeing Nemesis, and I could barely push myself to finish them. They just didn't feel like Star Trek; there was nothing about them that I would call science fiction. They are just big action movies that happen to take place in space. That's called space opera or space fantasy, not science fiction.
As for Discovery, I saw the first season when it came out and started the second season, but stopped midway through. I just lost interest. From the 1st episode though, something felt off. I liked the show, so it wasn't until the end of the first season that I had to admit to myself that Discovery wasn't Star Trek either. The continuity and technological errors could be explained away, but it just doesn't have the feel of Star Trek, or the classic science fiction that Star Trek has always been part of. Maybe the aesthetic of Discovery would have worked if they set in the future, sometime after voyager ended. Recently while watching DS9, there was an episode (I can't remember which one) where future versions of Dax and Bashir go back in time and have to use an old ship; one of them makes a comment about having become used to 3D consoles/interfaces. This got me thinking of how Discovery might be slightly changed to fit into the future: with experimentation into a new method of travel, the futuristic look of the show, the different uniforms, and the change in klingon appearances. It wouldn't take much to bring the story of the 1st season of Discovery into the 24th/25th centuries. As for the second season of Discovery, I just don't care about it anymore; I don't need new adventures with Spock, I've already got plenty of opportunity to watch Spock in action. There's no need to retread old territory. I'm hoping the new Picard show will be better and more faithful than Discovery has been.
I've never considered myself a 'trekkie'; I'm not fanatical about star trek(or star wars either), I enjoy the shows, but I prefer other sci-fi shows/movies a lot more(like stargate). Both DS9 and Voyager have a very 90s feel, I think more than TNG is reminiscent of the 80s. Voyager really pushes the 'noble savage' message, and it can get really annoying.
I do think each series has something unique to offer. I still think TOS is the best series; the episodes are self contained and an example of what good science fiction can be. Science Fiction is a method of reflecting on the human condition, exploring what-if scenarios; the messages of many of the episodes may be a little trite, but I still think overall TOS is a very good model for what sci-fi shows should try to do.
Captain Picard is the best captain in my book. In TNG they kinda split Kirk's character between Riker and Picard, which proved to be beneficial for Picard and a detriment to Riker(though I never did like Jonathan Frakes). Picard is a model for what a federation captain should be: he is dedicated to his principles, passionate,yet disciplined, he keeps a distance from the crew, yet inspires unswerving loyalty in them.
Deep Space Nine is different from the other shows because it's on a space station, yet I think that is what allowed it's greatest quality to shine: the Cardassians. I think the Cardassians are the best villains in all of Star Trek. I think the stationary existence of DS9 allowed the show to have not just a recurring villain, but a constant one. What makes them great, is that they aren't always the villain, they aren't 2-dimensional paper cut-outs like so many of the other aliens on star trek. The Cardassians are the true villains of DS9, not the Dominion. The Dominion is more of some looming background threat for most of the show and not really villains; I guess in that way they are similar to the Borg in TNG. I know sometimes DS9 gets criticized for its religious overtones, but that doesn't really bother me; that's definitely a part of the show where 90s culture shines through.
Voyager is my least favorite Star Trek series; I don't like half the crew, the kazon, most of the episodes have lackluster plots, and the 'romance' is pretty atrocious. Oh, and we cant forget the 'noble savage' push with Chakotay and his 'vision quests'. However, the main redeeming quality of the show, for me, is Tuvok. Tuvok is the best Vulcan portrayed on any of the shows, much as Picard is the best captain. Tuvok is a better vulcan than Spock ever was, yes I said it. Tim Russ is a fantastic actor, and his role as Tuvok is what makes Voyager enjoyable for me.
I know a lot of fans don't like Enterprise, but it is one of my favorite Star Trek shows. The 3rd and 4th seasons are widely considered to be better than the 1st and 2nd seasons because the show switched to a long form story arc that spanned the entire season. I, however, prefer the 1st and 2nd seasons. I think Star Trek excels at the episodic format. This goes back to the standard of TOS, every episode has a self contained story that explores a different scenario/concept. The best quality of Enterprise is the camaraderie among the crew. There is an Esprit De Corps that is unique to this show. You get to really feel the bond present between the crew of the ship, and I don't just mean the bridge crew; other members of the crew are regularly featured. It actually feels like there is crew on the ship besides the main actors. So often in the other shows it seems like the 'crew' are just the bridge officers. It's hard to describe, and maybe it's just me, but it feels like the crew of the Enterprise really has a camaraderie that is special.
And what about the new Star Trek movies and Discovery? I don't consider them to be star trek, and I just don't mean they don't fit the canon; they don't feel like Star Trek. Several years ago I binge watched all the Star Trek films in order(just the movies, not the series), and ended with the JJ films. Many fans hate Nemesis, and don't include it in the canon, but when I watched it, the story may not have been great, but it still felt like star trek. There was continuity between Nemesis and all that had come before, and it was still Star Trek's specific take on science fiction. I had seen the JJ films once and didn't like them, but at this point I decided to give them a second chance and was thinking that they couldn't be that bad. So I watched the JJ films immediately after seeing Nemesis, and I could barely push myself to finish them. They just didn't feel like Star Trek; there was nothing about them that I would call science fiction. They are just big action movies that happen to take place in space. That's called space opera or space fantasy, not science fiction.
As for Discovery, I saw the first season when it came out and started the second season, but stopped midway through. I just lost interest. From the 1st episode though, something felt off. I liked the show, so it wasn't until the end of the first season that I had to admit to myself that Discovery wasn't Star Trek either. The continuity and technological errors could be explained away, but it just doesn't have the feel of Star Trek, or the classic science fiction that Star Trek has always been part of. Maybe the aesthetic of Discovery would have worked if they set in the future, sometime after voyager ended. Recently while watching DS9, there was an episode (I can't remember which one) where future versions of Dax and Bashir go back in time and have to use an old ship; one of them makes a comment about having become used to 3D consoles/interfaces. This got me thinking of how Discovery might be slightly changed to fit into the future: with experimentation into a new method of travel, the futuristic look of the show, the different uniforms, and the change in klingon appearances. It wouldn't take much to bring the story of the 1st season of Discovery into the 24th/25th centuries. As for the second season of Discovery, I just don't care about it anymore; I don't need new adventures with Spock, I've already got plenty of opportunity to watch Spock in action. There's no need to retread old territory. I'm hoping the new Picard show will be better and more faithful than Discovery has been.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)