The Host: "...the best monster movie in ages..."?

The quote is from io9. I have to ask: Huh? Now, I have enough issues with the authors at that blog, but in general I've heard that "The Host" - a Korean monster movie from a year or two ago - was the best thing since indoor plumbing. I finally got a chance to watch it tonight.

Wow, did it suck.

OK, the monster was pretty cool, but most of the rest of the movie was bad. Terrible acting, ridiculous dialogue, huge plot holes, and assorted nonsense. There were enough moments that I think it could have been a good movie, but they were overshadowed by the aforementioned negatives. And no, I didn't like the movie because it wasn't "Americanized" and I couldn't appreciate it for what it was. Sometimes someone thinks a movie is bad because it is.

SPOILERS FOLLOW.

Some things I did like: the actress playing the daughter did a good job (she was the only human we were rooting for to survive), it was nice they did actually kill her (in an American movie she'd have survived), the sister's bow/single arrow thing at the end worked (though up until then it was ridiculous), and the monster swinging around under the bridges was neat. And to be fair, I think the dialogue might have been better if we'd watched it with subtitles rather than dubbing. But the acting and movements of the actors was such that you could tell that the dubbing was only partially responsible (if at all) for how terribly the characters were portrayed (minor and major).

Anywho, that's my opinion. In any case, I'm glad I finally saw it to satisfy my curiosity.

4E: The magic item table formula - revealed!

The secret THEY didn't want you to know!

OK, I'm being a tad overdramatic. Anyway, there's a table in the PHB that lists magic item prices by item level (page 223). There's a definite pattern there, so I sat down and figured out what the formula was. Can it be useful? Eh...hard to say. It was a fun puzzle for me, so I thought I'd share it:

160*POWER(5,TRUNC((Level-1)/5))*(2.25+MOD(Level-1,5))

It's in an Excel format, but it should be easy enough to decipher. Obviously, "Level" is the item level. "TRUNC" means to truncate (drop the decimal) of "(Level-1)/5". POWER means take the first value ("5") to the power of the second value "(TRUNC((Level-1)/5)"). And "MOD" is the modulus formula; take the remainder of "Level-1" divided by 5 (so "3" would be "2", "12" would be "1", "21" would be "0", etc.).

Like I said, not necessarily very useful. But I figured I did the work so I'd share it.

4E: Roleplaying

One of the prevailing anti-4E arguments is that the 4E rules "don't support role-playing". It's amusing because the implication is that the rules in the previous editions did. Really? The central theme of D&D since the beginning has been "kill things, take their stuff" (from a core POV, which is all you can compare 4E with since that's all that's out for it at this point). Role-playing has always been something that the group brought to the table. This is an old, old argument. I remember that flame wars on Usenet in the early 90's about how AD&D (1 or 2) was all hack-n-slash and that only games like Vampire and that ilk allowed you to truly "role-play".

You don't need rules to tell you how to role-play. If you want to RP, you can and probably will. If not, then you won't (or you'll do the bare minimum). It's as simple as that.

Change a few names and you couldn't tell it was from 13 years ago

It troubles me to see what seems to be a major shift among the young gamers of today in how they use the FRPG format. We always had seen the rules and game constructs (e.g., the cleric character class) as mere conveniences; what we did with them was to enter the world of heroic fantasy. But gamers today who have been introduced to the world of fantasy through FRPGs see it differently; for them, the rules and game constructs are often the primary reality.

We enjoyed using the AD&D game to play at being vikings or Arthurian knights or the dwarves out of The Lord of the Rings. And if the rules didn’t describe those possibilities exactly, we adjusted. We made it up. But I see kids today who wonder what sort of AD&D game wizard Merlin is: not would be, but is. These kids read the rule books before they read the stories that inspired the games. That means their palates have been trained in some strange ways.

In a module outline I once submitted to TSR, Inc., I attempted to take the party into the Garden of Hesperides out of Greek mythology. To be successful, a player would have to sense that she had really stood in that wonderful place, and reached out his hand to grasp the Golden Apples of the West. Quite an undertaking—but how if it were to succeed? Would this not be a worthy adventure?

Since I had no AD&D game stats for the kind of beings the triple moon goddess’ avatars would be, I adapted. In one of her phases, she would appear more or less as a hag, I guessed. So I had a hag in the module, as a means of representing this legendary encounter in game terms. The editor’s cryptic comment in the margin was, “Did hags,” meaning that a recent module had featured this creature.

We are reduced to that. No longer do we find many gamers for whom the rules and game constructs provide a magical key to enter the worlds they have longed for all their lives. I meet far more who know only the games themselves. The result is that they either become bores, or they burn out on gaming quickly. They run through all the neat stuff published, and it’s just not enough. They eat and eat, but are still hungry. They cannot see the legendary
being the monster stats represent, but only more and more stats.

Dragon #216 (April 1995)

One of the best 4E reviews I've seen so far...

If your character's name is "my guy" as in "my guy hits the monster," or "my guy grabs the treasure," this might be for you.

If you prefer video games to other people, and think interactive storytelling is for wussies, buy it.

But if you're an actual role-player, and especially if you've loved the previous D&D games, buy Pathfinder instead. D&D 4e is the worst pile of drek I've ever wasted money on. I'm taking my copy back for a refund.

Very informative and not the least bit confrontational!

Seriously, what is it with nerds and 4E? There's plenty of rational discourse and commentary about it (such as here and here), but there's so much of this unsupported, vitriolic, emotionally-unhinged ranting. I understand this is par for the course when it comes to human nature and isn't limited to gamers (I live in Chicago and have seen how Cubs and White Sox fans act at times), but it still seems so ridiculous. It's one thing not to like something, but to go on at length about how it sucks without providing any substance to your reasoning...I don't get it.

What does the author think a "review" like this will accomplish, anyway? A rational person isn't going to consider it if they're trying to find out information on 4E; anyone who takes it to heart will simply be doing so to reinforce their own bias against the game. There's nothing wrong with disliking something, but why not say why you dislike it? I keep hearing the detractors saying "4E is just like a video game". OK...in what way? Try to support your argument with examples, otherwise you just sound like a raving loon.

Microreview: Indy IV (spoiler warning)

Maybe it's because my expectations were so low because of the fanboy complaints on the Interwebs, but I liked the movie. Not the best Indy movie (Raiders and Last Crusade were better, though not Temple of Doom), but still entertaining. Some various comments:

• "Mutt" wasn't as bad as I expected, though his hair obsession was silly.
• The thing with the nuke and the fridge - that was rather ridiculous.
• Likewise with the gunpowder in the warehouse.
• I don't get the complaints about the CGI - I didn't think it was bad at all (except for the rocks settling in the crater at the end). In particular, the ants were fine, if a little big.
• Though, the ants dragging the commie into the hole - kinda silly. Stripping the flesh from his bones would have made more sense.
• The nod to the Arc was neat.
  
• Cliff+tree+duck+falling into the river safely and whacking a bunch of commies off the cliff = hard to suspend disbelief on that one.
• I rather liked the "council" chamber with the 13 crystal skeletons, up to the point where they merged into a Grey and the alien ship took off. It fit the story but seemed out of place for an Indy film (moreso than what went on prior to that).
• The vine swinging was silly.
• So were the gophers. The monkeys, at least, contributed.
  

So, yeah, there were a lot of silly if not outright ridiculous moments in the movie, but overall it still felt like an Indiana Jones film. I can understand some of the fan criticisms, since many of the elements of the old films were altered or gone in this one:

• Psychics and aliens rather than mysticism and religion
• The age difference
• The whole 50's thing: greasers, Commies, etc. (though given the social issues and subject material of movies during the 1950's, these elements were quite appropriate)
• Indy's an archaeologist, not a spy (but he apparently was one in WW2; the OSS was the precursor to the CIA for those of you who forgot history class)
  

The "family reunion" angle could be argued to have detracted from the film, except for the fact they did the same thing in the last one (though I would agree that Sean Connery is preferable to Shia LaBouef).

But this complaint that "George Lucas raped my childhood" or whatever they're saying: Please. The fact of the matter is that Indy IV suffers from the same problem that Phantom Menance (admittedly the weakest of all six SW movies) did - people who saw the original trilogy as kids now expect the new movie to affect them the same way despite being in their 30s.

That said, from what I've heard about the rumored "Indiana Jones and the City of the Gods" script, that would have been a better movie.

4E Random Comments

I've had the books now for a week now and I've been reading them when I can. Some random thoughts in no particular order follow:

• Alignment: I'm cool with the alignment changes but the naming is wonky. It's obvious now that they kept the "corner" alignments and renamed "neutral" to "unaligned". Presumably CN has been rolled into "unaligned" and NG was merged with CG (though just called "good" now). Not sure about LN, but I'd guess most people ended up playing LN as LG or LE so they didn't see a need for it, and NE was probably absorbed by either LE (now "evil") or CE. I'm OK with the changes, but why call CG "good" rather than "chaotic good"? Or he opposite for the evil alignments? The implication is that alignment follows a linear model, like the first edition of WFRP, like "LG-G-U-E-CE", whereas it's really a square with U in the middle. Not sure, but not a big deal.
• Disease: Actually more complicated than 3.x, but a lot cooler. I also like the idea that if you roll poorly enough on your Heal check when performing the Cure Disease ritual you could actually kill the person you're trying to cure.
• Masterwork armor: Seems a little odd, but you can get by with the mundane for quite some time. The "second tier" armor is no more weird than mithril and adamantine (and you can't get it until level 16), and from what I can see you wouldn't be dealing with the "third tier" until the late 20's anyway, at which point you're wearing it to have dinner with the gods. In any case, they're all just sets of numbers so the names and fluff are easily changed.
• Skill system: In 3E, the idea was good but I always felt the implementation was flawed. I much prefer the consolidation and static increases of 4E.
• Opportunity Attacks: From what I can see, only three things provoke OAs: ranged attacks, area attacks, and movement. I may be wrong (I haven't fully read the combat chapter yet), but a definite improvement if not. AoOs were something that seemed like a good idea but their implementation took more away from gameplay than it added.

More comments as I finish the books. I've skimmed all three but I've only been thoroughly reading the PHB so far.

The past is the future

Complaining about the costs of our hobby is common among us gamers, and always has been, as the letter below illustrates. What's interesting is that prices haven't changed all that much in the past 12 years (using his figures). RPGs and minis tend to be higher (though not by a whole lot, and you can still get some RPGs for $30), but supplements in the $15-$30 range are still common.

I am concerned with the ever-rising prices in the gaming industry. I understand that prices rise due to inflation and such, but some of the prices I’ve seen recently have driven me to write this letter. A little over a year ago, a pack of lead miniatures with four figures cost $4.00. Now, a pack of two or three miniatures made from lead-free metal costs anywhere from $6.95-$8.95 or higher. There also is a need for more common monsters and such to be produced in a wider variety of poses. Games also have been affected. The average price of an RPG now is close to $30.00! And supplements for them average from $15.00 to $30.00 also. I know that the companies making these products are in business to make money, but how can you get people involved in a hobby that keeps getting more and more expensive every day?

- Dragon #213, Jan 1995 (Forum letter)

Your wish came true, Dale

From Dragon #210 (October 1994), in response to a letter:

The MAGIC game also has exposed many new people to the gaming industry and the industry only can benefit from such an influx of new gamers in the long run. I wish WotC luck, and I hope to see new WotC products for a long time (especially since WotC picked up one of my favorite FRPGs, the ARS MAGICA* game).

- Dale Donovan, Dragon editor