Here's an idea.
Writing for comics is maybe remarkably like DM-ing
a "Dungeons and Dragons" game.
[THEME MUSIC]
When I was but knee-high to and Ant-- Man, I was a huge,
though small, fan of "X-Men Comics," and tabletop RPGs.
Or at the very least, their core rulebooks.
Not a whole lot of actual playing going on.
As a teenager, I got distracted by computers, music, theater,
and it wasn't until about a year ago
that I started reading comics again.
I've been tearing through the "X-Men" back catalog.
Right now I'm reading through Rick Remender's "Uncanny
X-Force," and it is so good.
I also started playing tabletop games again,
and recently a thing dawned on me.
Maybe it's the parity of my experiences with games
and comics, but I've started to notice
similarities between the two.
Specifically, I started thinking about how
established characters in ongoing comic series
have a relationship to their writers
which might resemble the relationship between tabletop
RPG players and their gamemasters.
And so I started to wonder if focusing on this perspective
could change my narrative experience of comics--
and of RPGs, for that matter.
In a tabletop RPG, as the GM, you
have a certain amount of control over your players,
in that you put them in situations
that take advantage of the skills they've
given their characters.
You could hope that they'll act a certain way,
but it's not your call.
Only when everyone is at the table will
you see how it works out.
You covered me in murder death.
Ugh!
You can't force players to progress how you want them to.
Or, well, you can, but that would make you a bad GM.
It's kind of like asking your significant other where they
want to go to dinner, and then shouting, "Live Mas!"
and then driving to Taco Bell, no matter what they say.
Furthermore, you want to let players
get into tense situations, and you want their actions
to have consequences.
But you can't off a player character lightly.
The elf mage Skippy McGillicuddy is someone's pride and joy.
If he's gotta die, the reason better be a good one.
And if it's not, there has to be some Hail Mary dice roll,
or sorcerer on the other side of yonder mountain, or some bit
of machina out of which might deus to put the skip back
in Skippy, because your real-life friend Sarah has
spent, like, seven months playing as him,
and she doesn't want to lose him.
Not like this.
Which is maybe the most important question here.
When you are telling stories with characters that are not
yours, what is your relationship to, or responsibility towards,
their aliveness?
Relatedly, big ongoing comic series
are generally written by people who did not create
the characters they're writing.
Wolverine, Carol Danvers, Batman, are not theirs.
At least, they didn't create them.
But they do have a fair amount of control,
by virtue of the fact that they control the universe.
But still, a new writer generally
doesn't make an old character completely different.
Writers put comicus personae in new and difficult situations,
but shouldn't make Psylocke behave un-Psyclocke-like.
Or you can, but that would make you a bad comics GM.
It's sort of like saying, I want to write for Psylocke,
but then you put her in a red suit, let her walk on ceilings,
and shoot spider webs.
That's someone else.
The Amazing Spider-Man.
And if she's killed off, oh, there
had better be a good reason.
And she had better come back.
I really like Psylocke, so don't mess.
You can kill Cyclops as many times as you want.
That's fine.
Fine with me.
But OK, my supersonic hearing is picking up on some grumbling.
"How is this different from literally any kind of character
writing,"+ you have typed out, half-yelling,
because you were so incensed you accidentally hit the caps-lock
key halfway through your interjection.
A hallmark of apt authors is characters
that think for themselves which are independent and are not
mirrors for their story skippers.
How is writing for James Bond, Olivia Pope, Tyrion Lannister,
or Alicia Florrick any different than writing
for someone who has mutant powers and a colorful bodysuit?
The difference, I might argue, is
in the structure and continuity of comics and RPGs
and the audience's relationship to those things.
And just for the sake of clarity,
we're defining continuity here as the unbroken, unchallenged
linearity of a story arc.
So unlike "The Good Wife" or "Scandal" or "Breaking Bad,"
comics writing takes place in a vast universe
where continuity is constantly being reestablished,
sometimes in parallel.
And yes, the "Doctor Who," "James Bond," and even
"Game of Thrones" universes are huge,
and there are constant status or context changes.
But even at their most wacky, continuity
remains consistently managed.
As many times as The Doctor has regenerated,
we all very well know that he's not going anywhere.
There has never been a significant amount of time
where we have all thought, "Well, that's it.
Allons-y you later, Doc."
And though people are constantly dying permanently
in "Game of Thrones," we expect it.
The joke is, don't have a favorite character,
because they will die.
Just don't do it.
For me, both comics and tabletop games
sit somewhere between "Doctor Who" and "Game of Thrones."
Each and every death is sold, sometimes literally,
as the big one, the final, the end-all, be-all, RIP Archie.
But maybe there's a clone.
Or a time machine.
Or-- spoiler alert-- Phoenix was never
actually the real Jean Grey.
You know, typical soap opera stuff.
Or, assuming that your GM is benevolent,
upon some terrible misfortune, they
can utter the most conciliatory phrase a GM can-- "Well,
instead, why don't we just say that--"
And then everybody nods in agreement and thinks,
yes, Skippy McGillicuddy did not deserve to five magical elf
farm after pushing the big stone button
with the skull-and-crossbones on it.
Come on!
Comics and RPGs both uniquely interact with continuity
because of how they're structured.
But in that interaction, I think both writers and GMs
have a unique responsibility to some combination of characters,
players, and audience.
Characters and players have a unique authority
over their universes and the stories told within them.
And more so than other mediums, the powers that be
have a responsibility to not impose their will.
And keeping this in mind, my narrative experience
of these things does change.
When I look at RPG players and their adventurers
as if they were longstanding comics characters like Ms.
Marvel or Hawkeye, I begin to appreciate the amazing stories
they can embody if they're treated similarly.
If I start to think of longstanding comics characters
as players, I begin to realize how writers
might struggle with, or be surprised or rewarded by,
the requirements or expectations of those characters.
Looking at it this way, for me, the narrative focus
shifts from the outcomes of arcs, books, and omnibuses--
or missions, campaigns, and games--
to the outcomes of tensions between the universe
and its subjects, not what happens because
of the person in control but in spite of them,
on a much grander scale.
For example, where is the authority
between Paul Pope and Batman?
Does Batman as a character change, even in other books,
with other writers?
Does Paul Pope change as an author working on not Batman?
How does your real-life friend Sarah gain and lose authority,
not just in one game but across all the games
she plays with several GMs, both as Skippy and not as Skippy?
Who totally had it coming, by the way.
Just saying.
What do you guys think?
Are there similarities between the way RPG and comics
stories are structured?
And what interesting things change
if you view one as the other?
Let us know in the comments.
And in my universe, everybody has the utmost authority
to do the thing.
(SINGING) He's in the best-selling show.
He's their life on Mars.
Let's see what you have to say about Mars One.
So I want to frame this week's comment responses
with an article that @tante tweeted
at me that is about a Mars One finalist who
talks about the fact that Mars One is a complete scam,
that there is nothing not scammy about it, including,
apparently, allegedly, everything.
So if you are curious about what it's
like to be involved in Mars One from the inside,
there is this article you should read.
To describe it as damning would be an understatement.
So let's just keep that in mind.
In last week's episode, I said that I
might argue the moon landing was not designed as a spectacle,
and this week, I intend to keep that promise.
Because a bunch of people disagreed.
What I would say is that when the moon landing was happening,
we were not able to create the level of spectacle
to the level of, like, image, image production and marketing
that we can do now.
So it is fair to say that that statement is a little bit
relativistic.
But if you do watch the broadcast
from the moon landing with, like, Walter Cronkite,
it has this tone.
It's so even.
It's very calm.
There is nothing really spectacular about it,
besides the fact that it is itself a spectacular event.
It was not made into this great image-producing machine.
I mean, I think that we report with more fervor
now about, like, celebrities being out in public
than Walter Cronkite did about the moon landing.
So that is what I say.
That's what I mean when I say that the moon landing was not
designed as a spectacle.
Which I really don't think it was.
I mean, yes, it was set inside of a massive patriotic, almost
propaganda machine, with the space race and the Cold
War happening, so yes.
Definitely takes on a whole new level
of meaning because of that.
But the thing itself?
I don't know.
Skeptical about the spectacularity of it.
Which is maybe an effect of the fact
that the 24-hour news cycle didn't exist yet,
and image creation and distribution means
were not what they are today, which is definitely something
that Mars One is keeping in mind and has to design for.
So I think that that is maybe the difference that
needs to be made, that even though maybe they
were both intended to be spectacles, possibly,
Mars One will be able to create an even bigger spectacle.
SciJoy talks about how though Mars One might not be the thing
to put people in space, their idea of using entertainment
to pay for space exploration might
be a useful plan for NASA, and wonders whether or not
people feel like NASA's mission could be helped by a greater
exploration into entertainment.
And I think this is a really great question.
I would love to know what you all think about this.
Chris talks about how the private enterprise
model for space exploration is something
that gives him the jibblies.
And just on a simple sort of cost basis,
seems like it's a thing that only governments should
be able to pay for.
And to this, my inner cynic says,
yes, but how long until Apple is making more money
than most nations in the world and can actually
pay for a space exploration program?
Probably not that long.
And finally, two bits of useful data.
Yesterday there was an episode of "Toy Pizza" that
came out that I guest-star on.
If you don't know "Toy Pizza," it's
a show about collectibles hosted by some of my friends
over at Frederator, Nicky, Jesse, and Cade.
We go through a box of old toys that my dad sent me.
There have actually been a couple things
that I've been on, if you missed them.
I was on the "Justice Points" podcast,
talking about the time I almost bought a Lamborghini on "Forza
5."
I have been on a couple episodes of the Mental Floss "List
Show, which if you haven't seen those,
those were so much fun to be involved in.
I was on "XOXO Cooks" a couple months ago.
So we'll put links to all of these things in doobla-duh.
And you can still send us records
to put on the newly much larger record wall.
Today we got some great records from Ellie, Adam, and RE.
All of the information for sending us stuff
is in the doobly-doo.
There are some restrictions that apply,
like we're going to keep the stuff that you send us
for forever.
But you can send us things for the next,
I think it's two weeks.
Some people have been telling me on Twitter what
they're going to be sending us.
I am very excited-- ho boy-- for so many reasons.
This week's episode was brought to you
by the very hard work of these slobbering shoggoths.
We have a Facebook, an IRC, and a subreddit,
links in the doobly-doo.
And because we didn't do a Tweet of the Week last week,
there will be two this week.
The first comes from Sarah Vale, who points us
towards a piece about men not believing women,
apropos of the comments left on our recent Taylor Swift video.
And the second comes from @sometimesreads,
who points us towards a Brain Pickings piece collecting
the attitudes of famous smart people
throughout history regarding boredom.
And special bonus Tweet of the Week, Evghenia on Mars
tweeted at me.
So I feel like the coolest kid at the dance.
[THEME MUSIC]
[MUSIC PLAYING]