Not Taking Chances

It’s appropriate that the lead character in Marvel Studios’ newest release is something of a scoundrel and con man. Chris Pratt plays (self-proclaimed) notorious outlaw Star Lord, a.k.a. Peter Jason Quill. The first time we’re introduced to his character as a grown-up, he’s nabbing the heist while leaving his partner high and dry.

For the rest of the film, he vacillates between good ideals and pragmatic self-interest. The moral grey area calls to mind Serenity captain Mal Reynolds, who often wants to do the right thing, but has to balance that with keeping a ship flying. Sometimes Quill makes sacrifices to do the right thing, but sometimes the right thing gets sacrificed.

Throughout the plot, Quill keeps a step ahead of the vast array of competing interests standing in the way of his big score. Pratt plays Quill with that casual everyman charm, someone who knows he’s got a snowball’s chance in the Sun but conveys confidence like the promised big money is already in his pocket.

Quill is a space hustler. When you think you got him on the ropes, it’s because he wants you to believe it.

And I couldn’t help thinking of the parallel to Marvel Studios as I later discussed the movie with friends.

Almost everything I read leading up to this said, “Marvel sure is taking a gamble with this. Talking raccoon? Tree person? Aliens and not-even-B-list comic heroes? We’ll see how this goes…”

Most reviews were willing to extend benefit of the doubt based on past success. This is Marvel we’re talking about. They knocked Iron Man out of the park. They made Norse gods work in Thor. They even tied their movies together into a cohesive universe leading up to The Avengers which absolutely crushed it.

Marvel figured it out and got that successful formula on lock. (Even some “bad” Marvel movies like Iron Man 2 were still fantastic as super-hero movies go.)

So I wonder if we all didn’t just get played. “This is taking a big chance.” Maybe from the outside looking in, but I’m betting Marvel execs didn’t think so. “What a risk!” No, risk implies likelihood of failure, and I don’t think that was the plan going in. “The raccoon’s a main character? Ugh. What if it’s another Howard the Duck?” Not a chance.

Seriously, looking at how they executed this, I’m willing to believe there was not even a chance in their minds that Guardians would be received as anything less than exemplary.

A gamble? No, just made to look that way.

That leads me to this image, sticking it to DC for their risk-averse comments and back-and-forth commitment to a Wonder Woman film.

20140804-120201-43321770.jpg

No doubt Marvel is killing it, and sticking a sharp box-office poker in DC’s eye with every release. Nolan’s Batman trilogy was well-received, especially Dark Knight. But both recent attempts at Superman came under heavy flak from the fans. And the new movie’s casting of Affleck and Eisenberg draws even more skepticism.

The fact is, DC doesn’t have the reputation for box office smash hits to rely on for a gamble. Maybe Wonder Woman shouldn’t be a risky proposition, but DC’s clearly not interested in taking more chances than they must.

And to be fair, this is a bit apples-to-oranges.

Rocket’s not the lead. Sure, he’s a draw, but it’s not like the film is The Adventures of Rocket Raccoon.

More importantly, what movies has Marvel released with a female lead? I completely forgot about Elektra, which is for the best. But sadly, it’s hard to think of Marvel movies prior to Iron Man as even belonging to their current portfolio.

Marvel has some great female characters (Black Widow, Maria Hill) on the silver screen and on TVs at home, but none of them are headlining anything. The new show with Sharon Carter may change this, but still, it’s not a film. It’s a show – easily canceled if it doesn’t meet expectations.

That said, I really wanted to type that the Sharon Carter project could be a big gamble. But we’ve seen how those work out where Marvel is concerned.

Adventuring and Spellcasting in 5E

Continuing my read-through and thoughts on the D&D Starter Set, this post covers Chapters 3 and 4 (and the appendix) of the Starter Set Rulebook.

Chapter 3: Adventuring feels to me like the Miscellaneous segment of the book. It covers important rules, of course, but they’re just a mash-up of everything not Spells, Introduction, or Combat. You get a description of special movement situations (long jump, high jump, climbing rules, that kind of thing), a break-out of short vs. long rest and how the characters benefit, a brief discussion of rewards, and then a few pages of specifics on gear the characters might need to purchase with the wealth they gather over the course of the game.

Can I just say electrum pieces and their value at 5 silver pieces annoys the crap out of me? If everything else is going to be based around a 1:10 ratio, why make an unnecessary complication? But whatever, I digress (since magically I can decide that my game world has no such thing as an electrum piece).

All the basic weapons, armor types, and adventuring gear gets listed along with some common expenses like food, drink, and lodging. Weapons give a pleasant variety of options; the keyword versatile remains, allowing a one-hand weapon to be used with two hands, improving damage slightly. Finesse is the term for a weapon a character can used based on Strength or Dexterity, so if you want that Zorro-style masked fighter hero wielding a rapier, it’s a viable option.

The entry for “Oil (flask)” kindly lays out the rules for using a flask of oil as a thrown weapon or dousing a nearby foe, since it seemed every group I’ve run with had a player who had to try that at least once.

And there is even an entry for playing cards. Yes, it assures the reader “if you are proficient with playing cards, you can add your proficiency bonus to ability checks you make to play a game with them.” Or you can just go play cards with someone else because this is Dungeons & Dragons, which is designed to be played as a group where everyone has fun, not “Chaotic Neutral Rogue With a Gambling Habit”

…because it’s always the chaotic neutral rogue…

And for the DM who loves to force players to keep track of things, there are two entries for rope: Rope, hempen (50 feet), and Rope, silk (50 feet).

“Sorry, but don’t you only have 37 feet of rope left since you tied up the goblins during the last session? You can’t climb down the 50 foot chasm. Go back to town.”

Ugh.

Chapter 4: Spellcasting got me excited again. Chapter 3 was the pile of plain steamed vegetables on the plate; necessary and good for you, but bleh! The chapter on spells is the delicious cake Mom brings out as a reward for finishing dinner.

(Disclaimer: I’m 37, and I’m married with four kids of my own. I’m so not living in my parents’ basement playing D&D with my unemployed friends. Death to stereotypes!)

The chapter starts out with a primer on everything your magic user needs to know about casting a spell. I particularly like the breakout on components needed. A spell may have a verbal component (words the character must say), a somatic component (gestures the character must make), or a material component (reagents needed for success). More likely, it’s a combination of two or all three.

So if a character’s arms are bound, somatic spellcasting is out of the question. If the wizard’s component pouch is taken, material-based spells are going to be problematic. Yes, this sort of thing is in 4th Edition, particularly for rituals. But I don’t remember it being so clearly laid out as it is here. (Maybe that’s why 4E gets ridiculed as being too much like World of Warcraft, where all my mage needs me to do to cast spells is to roll my face on the keyboard.)

Clerics have 28 spell options in this starter. Wizards have 30. There’s plenty of room for creating the desired style of magic-user instead of a cookie-cutter wizard. The level 1 wizard knows 6 spells in his/her spellbook, and can prepare 4 of them, but only has 2 “spell slots” to utilize. Clerics are similarly structured in how they can use magic.

While 5E does put restrictions on the number of spells available to the character between long rests, it also rectifies the old problem of the wizard with no spells left, trying to hit creatures with a 1d4-2 dmg dagger stab. Each class has at least one offensive cantrip, an “at-will” spell to use the 4E terminology, that the character can cast repeatedly to deal some damage.

Spells once again have spell levels which are completely separate from the level of the caster. It takes a level 5 wizard to cast level 3 spells, and he/she only gets 2 of those level 3 spell slots between long rests. There’s some strategy to spell slots, too; a level 1 spell cast from a level 3 slot gains significant power and damage, so it might be a better bet than a giant fireball.

20140801-162914-59354655.jpg
”I cast Magic Missile at the darkness… from a level 3 slot! Boom! What!”

The almost 60 spells give a wide variety of effects, and plenty have no combat application. “Charm Person” in particular is one I can’t wait to see crafty players employ, even though I know it will shatter any devious DM chicanery I have planned. I picture “Command” being used to great monster detriment as well.

And if your cleric leans a little Evil, there’s the 1st level necromantic spell “Inflict Wounds” to capture the idea of a touch of death. (I simply must have a dark cleric-style villainness with a kiss of death… what DM doesn’t want to slam 3d10 necrotic damage into a player’s face?)

Finally, the Appendix lists a number of mostly impairment conditions frequently encountered in D&D, like blinded, deafened, petrified, prone, stunned, and so on. It’s on the back cover of the book, so while it’s no DM screen, it’s a handy reference tool for DM and players alike to know what effects mean.

All in all, the Starter Set Rulebook does its job and gets a DM (and hopefully the players) ready for the more important part: the adventure itself!

The included adventure, Lost Mine of Phandelver, will be the focus of my next post.

The Pre-Made Starter Party

I have a post scheduled with more thoughts on the D&D 5th Edition (nowhere in the materials is it called that) Starter Set Rulebook. But yesterday as I glanced over the pre-made party character sheets, I wanted to add a post about them.

Again, keeping in mind that this is an “everything you need to start playing” set, I love what they’ve done here.

All the stats and numbers are already assigned and printed out, so there’s no hour(s) of filling in the details prior to playing. That’s to be expected from a pre-made party.

The provided characters cover the traditional races and classes well: dwarf cleric, halfling rogue, elf wizard, and two versions of the human fighter, one as a commoner setting out to become a hero, the other as a noble setting out to be a good leader of the local people.

20140802-113506-41706575.jpg

What catches my eye is the effort Wizards has put into giving new players a concept to role-play. Again, I’d expect they probably have done similar things for previous starters and pre-mades… but here are a few examples of what I found awesome.

Each character sheet has a few boxes on the right side for personality traits, ideals, bonds, and flaws.

The elf wizard personality trait box states: “I use polysyllabic words that convey the impression of erudition.” Compare that with the folk hero human fighter, whose traits box states: “Also, I use long words in an attempt to sound smarter.” Even the trait descriptions convey a sense of the character.

The human noble, who I shall call Rarity for no reason in particular, has this personality: “My flattery makes those I talk to feel wonderful and important. Also, I don’t like to get dirty, and I won’t be caught dead in unsuitable accommodations.” Again, you can almost see the self-important deceived state of this character right off that first line. It definitely gives a player an idea on how to act out that character.

The “bonds” box gives the player and DM a sense of what is precious to the character. This gives the DM a button to push in the story, and gives the player an idea how to respond if that precious thing is threatened. For the elf wizard, the tome that character carries contains the sum of his or her collected knowledge, and “no vault is secure enough to keep it safe.” The rogue, on the other hand, has an aunt with a farm, to whom he or she has always provided support.

Flaws give an added dimension to each of these “generic” heroes. The noble has “a hard time resisting the allure of wealth, especially gold. Wealth can help me restore my legacy.” The rogue’s “aunt must never know the deeds I did…” And the cleric secretly wonders “whether the gods care about mortal affairs at all.”

The box below these is for “Features and Traits” and fills in some important tidbits that look much like Feats might have been in 4E. One fighter has a more defensive style. The other is actually stronger as an archer. This is also the box where racial traits like Darkvision is listed for the elf and dwarf.
Each character also gets a bit of flavor in this box. Based on their background, they enjoy some perk, whether it be a connection to an organization, a rank or status enjoyed among a certain sphere of influence, or the trust of certain groups of people as shown by support that doesn’t endanger their lives (i.e. hiding you and your friends for a time, giving information or healing).

As a starter party, this group works well. For a set of players first trying out D&D, the materials work great. I think the biggest issue might be figuring out who gets to play which character in the party.

Back to the regularly scheduled posts tomorrow morning.

How to Play and Combat

I started digging into my delicious Starter Set this morning.

This has been sitting in my flight bag for a day or two. Time to get started (har har) with 5th ed!
This has been sitting in my flight bag for a day or two. Time to get started (har har) with 5th ed!

I’m reading through and noting what sticks out to me based on my 4th edition experiences. When I notice what seems like a change, someone may say, “Well in 4th edition DMG page 125 the same sort of rule is clearly written there.” If that’s the case, great, chalk it up to inattention to detail. But this is just my first-read experience and captures what catches my eye.

Chapter 1: How to Play gives you the standard explanation of “What is D&D?” It covers the basics about checks, and how abilities, skills, proficiencies, and saving throws all come into play when rolling dice to determine an outcome.

The skills seemed like a decent set. Nothing seemed missing. Some (Bluff, Diplomacy) are refined and given names and examples with wider applications (Deception, Persuasion). I like Investigation as a concept – putting together the pieces and clues, gathering intel of a sort. It seemed like that always fell under Perception in 4th ed, which is kind of dumb. Perception sees things that might be otherwise easy to miss. Investigation sees things and figures out the details that others might miss. To use examples from the book, Perception sees the orcs hiding in ambush along the road. Investigation sees the wounds dealt to the ambush victims and figures out it was probably a band of orcs.

Animal Handling always makes me chuckle. It has uses, I’m sure, but I can’t stop picturing a pink-haired Druid character named Fluttershy.

One interesting change for 5th edition is the Advantage / Disadvantage system. In either case, you roll two d20s when you make a check. If you have an advantage, you take the higher of the two. If you have a disadvantage, you take the lower. I’m curious how this will play out in a group. Maybe it does away with some of the “+5 for this, -3 for that, but I have combat advantage so +2, and this is my quarry so I have that one feat that gives me another +2…”

I have advantage. I roll two dice and take the better number. Simple. Done.

I can see some potential flaws, though. For example if you’re fighting some monsters in darkness, does it turn into a bunch of flailing around? I imagine everyone would get a lot of low rolls. Then again, if everyone shares the same disadvantage, maybe it’s prudent to eliminate that from the equation and only take other disadvantages into account. I didn’t see that stated explicitly, so I imagine that might be my first house rule to reduce rolling and wasted time.

Filed this under “We’ll see…”

Moving on.

Chapter 2: Combat contains one noteworthy difference from 4E: language involving maps and squares doesn’t appear in the rulebook. Maybe that’s an “advanced” option they’ll incorporate later (because I’m sure Wizards of the Coast wants to sell us some map packs and such), or maybe they know that describing everything in # feet gives the DM and players enough to effectively utilize maps.

But this does inherently free up groups to use things like simple description or generic drawings on whiteboards or paper to run combat without counting out squares or laying down rulers for line of sight determinations.

Could you do that in 4E? Sure, but it seemed pretty obvious that wasn’t what they were pushing for. Now tiles, maps, and minis are an available option instead of the default.

First off, the Combat chapter lists available actions you can take on your turn. Everyone can take a move and an action. I’m liking some of the updated choices: You can take a Disengage action to avoid provoking opportunity attacks when you move; you can take a Dodge action to give attackers a disadvantage against you (as well as permit Dex saving throws with advantage); you can Help another creature in completing a task, meaning you give them an advantage to do the stated thing so long as they attempt it before the start of your next turn.

Opportunity attacks count as a “reaction” – and you only get one reaction per turn. So there’s no more taking five opportunity attacks in a turn as I’ve seen sometimes argued in 4th edition.

Also, everybody gets critical hits on a roll of 20, and everyone misses on a 1. Sauce for the goose (player characters) is sauce for the gander (monsters). And crits look decidedly deadly… deadlier I suppose is the correct term.

Instead of max damage for the base attack, you roll any damage die twice and add it all together. So a rogue with Sneak Attack rolls those dice twice too.

A glance at the character sheet for the pre-made rogue tells me at level 5, they roll 3d6 for Sneak Attack. Let’s assume 1d4 for a dagger, 3d6 for a sneak attack. A successful crit sneak attack nets you 2d4 plus a whopping 6d6 damage just from dice rolls with no other modifiers? Egad.

Rogue carves the Kobold for infinity damage, exploding it like a blood sausage.

At least a fighter gets a crit on 19 or 20. But yeah… Sneak Attack crits look sick and dare I say it, broken. Another thing I look forward to seeing fleshed out when I get to play this with a group…

Next post – Chapter 3: Adventuring and Chapter 4: Spellcasting

Look What Came in the Mail

Ok, to be fair, I got this a couple days ago. I figured it might be nice reading material on my current business trip.

20140801-055139-21099503.jpg

I started working my way through the 120 page PDF that Wizards released a month or two ago… and free is always a nice price to pay for a new edition. But Amazon had the starter set at a ridiculously low price, so I figured $12 isn’t too rich an investment to check out 5th Ed.

This really does strike me as a “starter” – something I’d use to introduce new players to D&D or to share with some of my RPG-phobic Christian friends to show them “This isn’t really a pact with Satan, I promise.”

The premade character sheets give the player an idea of what this character is about, with a personal goal that fits with the adventure and a description of how the individual’s alignment looks in action. Since it’s a starter set, the character progression is mapped out on the back of the sheet with what perks and abilities each gains at each level. No 4th Ed scrounging through all the Player’s Handbooks for the just-right complement of powers and abilities.

The party presented is made up of some traditional fantasy faire along with the four core D&D classes: the elf wizard, the halfling rogue, two human fighters (one a noble, one a commoner), and a dwarf cleric.

Needless to say, I have some fun reading on my hands. Might be just what the DM ordered for my wife and kidlets when I get back home…

Now You Know

“Life… we were given life 8 billion years ago… what have we done with it?”

This is – more or less – the opening line of Lucy, the new action thriller directed by Luc Besson. Scarlett Johansen stars as the average girl who unlocks higher brain functions including comic book style superpowers and virtual omniscience through accidental exposure to a powerful new drug.

I’ve read that the best teachers are not those who give the right answers but rather ask the right questions. Similarly, some of the most moving stories leave us wondering and in a way unsatisfied at the end of the book. The questions take residence in our minds, and we mull over what the dramatic events all meant, why the hero or villain made such choices, and what would have happened if…

I love stories that create strong questions. I like pondering the characters and their motives long after the last page. A good story can be made more powerful if it communicates a message or moral.

But there’s a pitfall to avoid when crafting such a tale: Write stories, not sermons.

Lucy fails in this regard.

The film often juxtaposed interesting imagery to tell the story – for example, flashing between cheetahs stalking prey on the savannah and the drug cartel toughs watching vulnerable Lucy when she enters their turf. That’s one way to show, one way to give the audience something very relatable.

But the dialogue and the narration… the actors might as well turn to face the camera and address the audience directly for some of these lines, since it’s little more than preaching at some key points. Morgan Freeman and Scarlett Johansen deliver their lines with the seriousness and intensity of professionals, but it was hard not to roll my eyes and groan.

“I’m going to find a way to share everything I’ve learned,” Lucy says, as she approaches a seemingly-infinite knowledge state.

“But will mankind even deserve such a powerful gift?” Morgan’s character asks.

(These quotes are paraphrased, sorry.)

And nowhere is this attempt at message-fiction more obvious than the ending. I’ll try not to spoil too much… but as the camera pans over a scene of violence and the brutal aftermath of the killing of one of the bad guys, Lucy repeats the phrase from the beginning: “Life… we were given life 8 billion years ago…”

This time she adds, “Now you know what to do with it.”

Really? I guess I’m meant to gun down drug lords? Because that’s what you’re showing me when you give that answer.

Or maybe I’m meant to unlock my mind (with drugs?) and become a calculating and emotionless death machine that can bend time and telekinetically move objects and people at will?

(I have to admit, time travel, omniscience and telekinesis would be a pretty sweet package. Sign me up.)

Sorry, Lucy, I applaud the attempt to make something meaningful and moving. I’m glad someone wanted their story to rise above the banal status of “action flick.”

But that film was made for munching popcorn and watching Scarlett dominate her foes with awesome powers, not a moral diatribe about the state of the human race.

Don’t overthink it… ah, too late.

Banzai Chipotle

The first time I heard of “chipotle flavor,” I thought the restaurant chain was branching out into the grocery store.

Living overseas in the military, I got used to certain things being pretty much unavailable. There’s often no local branch of the popular stores Americans find at their shopping center. We get the Commissary for groceries (albeit at a very nice price for most items) and the Base Exchange for everything else… a sort of department store with a little of everything but probably not the specific thing you want.

Eating at Chipotle is one of these experiences you can’t easily get overseas. It seemed high on the list of things people were looking forward to on returning to the States. Online shopping has changed a lot of the frustration of unavailability… but you can’t well order a stuffed burrito in the mail and hope it arrives fresh.

So it’s a pleasant surprise to find a wannabe Chipotle’s on a base in Japan. I received news of a short-notice temporary trip away from Okinawa to avoid some high winds that might make flying impossible. Upon arriving, I discovered an ad for Banzai Burritos in my room.

Someone had the bright idea of opening up a might-as-well-be-called-Chipotle’s on base, and it’s right across the street from the lodging building I’m staying in.

Well how am I supposed to say no to that?

20140731-154217-56537976.jpg

Cilantro rice… yes please. Delicious mixes of onions and peppers over grilled steak… of course. Fire-roasted hot pepper salsa? Sure, I’ll try a touch of that.

My first experience with Chipotle’s in the States was a military appreciation day. The local branch offered a free burrito to any active duty servicemembers (and I believe any veterans). Free is my favorite price to pay for something, so I made my way to the restaurant to find a line wrapped double around the entire dining room.

The burrito was worth every minute of wait.

Here at Banzai Burritos, every day is essentially military appreciation day. If I have to fly a long mission, I might as well pack a stuffed burrito in my bag. And if I have to spend an afternoon at this home away from home, enormous tacos will certainly ease the pain.

This trip definitely has a silver lining… wrapped around a grilled steak burrito.

Who Is My Neighbor?

There’s a new Golden Rule in some parts of America, and it goes something like this:

“Do unto others according to the amount of taxes they pay to your government.”

I saw a link on my Facebook feed where a Tea Party group is enraged because illegal immigrants were given government EBT cards to purchase food. Various groups scream on social media with headlines designed to inflame instead of inform.

“Those are taxpayer dollars!”

“We have vets who go homeless while illegal immigrants are housed. It’s not fair!”

All this (predominantly Right-Wing) fury makes me wonder.

I think of someone the Right often claims as one of their own: Jesus. Specifically, I think of when the lawyers and religious leaders came to Him asking “What is the most important commandment?” The story is captured in Luke’s Gospel (chapter 10, starting in verse 25ish)

He boiled it down to “Love God with everything, and love your neighbor as yourself.”

One of the lawyers looked for the loophole in this broad and sweeping command. Luke writes, “He, wishing to justify himself, asked ‘Who is my neighbor?'”

Great question. Jesus answers with the story of the Good Samaritan who encounters a victim in need. The Samaritan goes out of his way to take care of someone his culture said was his enemy. Jesus asks, “So who was the victim’s neighbor?” The answer the lawyer gives is: “the one who shows mercy.”

I for one would like my government, my society, and my country to be known for mercy.

The argument I hear is, “Well, why not let citizens be charitable instead of giving away tax dollars and American money to all these people?” It’s the same argument for doing away with or cutting back welfare and other forms of aid to the poor. Why can’t we let individuals and faith-based organizations give and serve, so that our government can use the money to take care of America’s other pressing needs?

Sure! That would be great… if enough people were doing it that government didn’t have to step in. But that’s not happening. Not enough individuals or charitable organizations are stepping up to the plate. So it’s either let people suffer because they’re not Americans, or because of their supposed and presumed bad life choices, or because hey life sucks and not everybody wins.

Or we can show mercy.

Mercy is costly. Mercy takes away from our resources to meet the needs of another. Mercy doesn’t focus on who “deserves” it.

Yeah, it’s your tax dollar. Sure, there’s a lot our government could do better. Of course I want immigrants to follow legal methods. No, when you boil it down to an overly simplistic question, I don’t think it’s fair that a veteran might go homeless while someone who’s not even a citizen gets cared for. Sure, I do wonder whether we’re feeding people we’ve detained while sorting out what to do with them, or handing over a bunch of electronic money without any concern for who we’re giving it to.

But Jesus didn’t say, “Suffer the law-abiding citizens to come unto Me.” He didn’t tell a tale of the Good Taxpayer who ensured his denarius was spent only on his nation’s citizens. I have a hard time picturing Christ flipping tables where detained illegal immigrants are being served food, or chasing the immigrants out of Wal-Mart.

And I remember the symbol of hope Ameica is to many on distant shores (and across distant borders). The plaque on the Statue of Liberty doesn’t say, “Give me your wealthy, give me just your best and brightest, give me those who have no needs and no worries.”

It doesn’t say, “Give me your tired, your poor, your outcasts… so I can send them back, rejected.”

There are better ways, perhaps. Reforms are needed, and a balance has to be found between a secure border and an open welcoming society.

But I feel like this pic from the Left calls the Right out on a political and philosophical disconnect.

20140723-051002-18602863.jpg

Let us not be those who, wishing to justify indignity and indifference, ask “And who is my neighbor?”

Cause of Death

Superman dies.

That was a headline in the entertainment section of the newspaper back when I was about 13 years old. “The Death of Superman” received all kinds of attention from the mainstream media. I recall hearing stories on the evening news announcing the upcoming event.

Of course he was back in about a year, to no one’s surprise. I, like many comic collectors, sighed and muttered, “I knew it!” The obvious marketing ploy and the inevitable resurrection cheapened the story.

Those memories came to me as I read about the upcoming Death of Archie in the ages-old comic series set in Riverdale.

When they were younger, my two teenagers sometimes picked up Archie comics. There was a level of “traditional” morality to the comics, and by that I mean something far different from current political debates about “traditional marriage” and such. This was more of a Leave It to Beaver 60’s vibe of wholesome humor and lighthearted drama where the biggest dilemma was how Archie dealt with being caught between Betty’s and Veronica’s affections.

Archie dying certainly shakes that up.

Instead of planning a resurrection, the writers avoid the end of the various Archie comics series by placing this death story in Life With Archie, an alternate timeline series that flashes forward to glimpse the near future of life after high school. They’ve shown how Archie might live as an adult, and now they can show how he someday meets his untimely demise. That way they can continue telling Archie stories and selling comics.

What got me, though, is the effort to jam a political agenda into the book. It’s blatant message-fiction.

How does Archie die? Channeling some Jack Bauer heroism, Archie dies protecting “the first openly gay Riverdale character” who is running for office on a platform focused on increased gun control.

“Look how progressive we are! Look how progressive Archie is!”

Sacrificing himself for another person is heroic, and I have no issues with that. Heroism is laudable and comic books are a way that we as a society reaffirm those values to our children.

The openly gay individual as the target is sadly all too reflective of true stories where people have been bullied, tormented, or even killed. I’m not looking at the writers’ choice to use the gay character as part of “the homosexual agenda” or whatever. Even though it feels like how so many episodes of Glee featured Kurt in the spotlight facing some dilemma, I’m not upset about the candidate being targeted or about Archie moving to protect someone who might be marginalized in many areas of the country.

Again, I think there’s a worthy lesson here. “Treat others the way you want to be treated.” Perhaps it’s “Everyone has value.”

What actually got me irritated is the gun control angle. Having the gun control advocate suffer an attempted assassination, and the title character dying by gunshot as a result, seems a ridiculously obvious effort to make an appeal to stricter laws. “Oh the horror of gun violence! If only we could pass more laws to protect ourselves! Don’t let Archie’s death be for nothing!”

In Chicago, Illinois, my hometown, over the weekend of the 4th of July, there were 82 injuries and 14 deaths by shooting. Chicago also happens to be known for its (excessively?) strict laws about gun ownership. It’s not some cowboy state like Texas with a bunch of so-called “rednecks and crazies” strapping holsters to their belts and carrying rifles into stores. And yet, in the very city with some of the tightest gun control legislation in America, gun deaths and gun violence are constantly in the news.

Do we really think someone willing to murder another human being is going to suddenly take a step back and reconsider based on a new restriction on gun ownership? People who conduct drive-by shootings, when a new law gets passed are they going to open their eyes and declare, “Oh geez, I probably shouldn’t have sub-machine guns” or something? I’m sure that gang members routinely read over the latest legislation to ensure proper compliance. “Hey mang, it looks like we gotta store the bullets separate from the gun, and the guns gotta have a lock on the trigger so some kid doesn’t accidentally shoot himself. Good thing I checked the laws; I’d hate to be an irresponsible gun owner.”

Even the plot of the Archie comic reveals how utterly thoughtless is this line of logic.

Are we supposed to believe that an individual willing to assassinate a political candidate in person, up close, in public is going to be afraid to break a law concerning possessing a firearm?

Stories can certainly convey meaningful messages about beliefs and ideas, be they religious, political, social, or cultural. But good story comes first, not a ham-fisted message with a veneer of a plot draped over it. Preaching in a story is creative writing kryptonite. That’s why this smacks of a publicity stunt, and as a result, the “Archie’s death” comic is completely cheapened.

Fool me once, Superman, shame on me. Fool me twice, Archie? Not happening.

What's Next

Next. 5e. 5th Edition. The newest edition of D&D is (slowly) crawling forth from the gates of Wizards of the Coast’s dark fortress.

Credit goes to NerdAtlas for calling my attention to this new release of basic rules for D&D. You can get a free download here and check it out for yourself.

I’ve been skimming my way through here and there. The basic “How does a game like this work?” stuff all seems pretty straightforward. The PDF has info for 4 core classes and races: Fighter, Rogue, Cleric and Wizard, then Dwarf, Elf, Halfling and Human. I have not yet dug into the mechanics so much, because the first several portions establish the basics for potential newbies.

One paragraph hidden within all that description caught my eye. It addresses the concept of advantage versus disadvantage. Without clarifying how difficult it is to gain advantage or suffer disadvantage, the text explains that these terms mean rolling two d20 instead of one for a given action. Advantage means taking the higher roll of the two. Disadvantage means taking the lower. That seems to create a huge impact on success or failure, but I’ll have to see how it plays out in practice.

Maybe it will do away with some of the more extensive math. I recall some 4e rounds that sounded like this: “Ok, I rolled a 12, but I get a +2 for proficiency, and a +1 feat bonus for using a fire spell. Hey, do I get that +1 because this character is marked? Yes, but your view is partially obscured by the smoke from the burning flesh of the orc at the target’s feet, so you take a -5 for that. Right, but I can use my Wand of Accuracy to add my Dex bonus to my attack for this round, so that’s a +4. No wait, +5 because we just leveled up earlier, right?”

I can see some benefit to getting away from that sort of thing… but maybe that all still factors in. I’ll have to read more to see.

I also appreciated the new level tiers. The writers made it clear that the four tiers between levels 1 and 20 don’t affect any rules or anything like that. They merely serve to give players an idea of where their characters stand in the big wide world. Levels 1-4 are apprentice adventurers, the novices learning the ropes. 5-10 are getting the hang of things. 11-16 are pretty big names, and 17-20 are legends on a worldwide scale. Far better description than the three-tier, 10 level per tier system of 4e… This new setup creates a shorter time as “newbs” and a smaller range at the pinnacle.

One thing I did like about the “flavor” stuff provided is how they describe the various races. I know, these four races are pretty much the bread and butter of most fantasy settings, so it shouldn’t take a lot of explanation to describe a dwarf. But I saw what felt like more effort put into helping a player figure out how to role-play their character’s race, as well as a good take on how each race generally views the other three.

Anyway, the point of this post is to call attention to the new rules being available, and to give credit to NerdAtlas, without whom I’d probably have missed this release.

More books are due throughout the rest of this year… but at $50 a pop for the core books, you can bet I’ll be paging through the free basic rules a bit more before committing to a new edition.

If you’ve checked the rules out or followed the development of this edition, what stands out to you?