Why Did "Solo" and "Rogue One" Feel Like RPG Sessions?

If you saw the two most recent "Star Wars Story" movies--Solo or Rogue One--a common refrain is that they feel like how Star Wars role-playing game sessions play out. The reason has a lot to do with a shift in franchise-building philosophy and what kinds of stories role-playing games are good at telling.

If you saw the two most recent "Star Wars Story" movies--Solo or Rogue One--a common refrain is that they feel like how Star Wars role-playing game sessions play out. The reason has a lot to do with a shift in franchise-building philosophy and what kinds of stories role-playing games are good at telling.

[h=3]The War That Never Ends[/h]Before selling Lucasfilm to Disney in 2012, George Lucas was working with Lawrence Kasdan on a standalone Solo film, with two others announced later (Rogue One and a third about Boba Fett). These films were first known as "anthology films" and later, "Star Wars Stories," are distinctive in that they lack an opening crawl like the trilogies. The exploration of these side stories is a tradition that Star Wars helped create:

As with most aspects of the modern blockbuster, franchise expansion got its big-screen start with “Star Wars,” which used novels, comic books and TV movies to create a so-called ‘Extended Universe,’ before gaining speed in the 2000s, thanks principally to superhero pictures, or borderline superhero pictures, like “Catwoman,” “Elektra,” and “The Scorpion King” (though “Supergirl” and “U.S. Marshals” are two unsuccessful examples of early universe-expansion before that).

But why now? Disney's success with interweaving Marvel stories -- something long-established in comics -- is certainly part of it:

Studio executives see their jobs as minimizing risk, and movies based on established, proven properties are seen as less risky than original material, and thus less likely to get them fired if they don’t work. The extended universe is seen to be a way of not just building on a franchise through sequels, but by linking seemingly stand-alone pictures and allowing them to crossover. Why take a gamble on an original script when you can squeeze in a spin-off or prequel instead? If you have a proven franchise asset, as most of these studios do, it’s seen as responsible business to maximize it by getting as much product out of it as you can. Whereas the old studio system would put their biggest stars in as many films as possible, now the properties themselves are the stars.

Two factors are coming together to make this kind of storytelling popular. Millennials are interested in storytelling and the Internet's fondness for mashups:

The of idea continuing a successful movie goes beyond just striking gold with the same idea. Studio executives see their jobs as minimizing risk, and movies based on established, proven properties are seen as less risky than original material, and thus less likely to get them fired if they don’t work. The extended universe is seen to be a way of not just building on a franchise through sequels, but by linking seemingly stand-alone pictures and allowing them to crossover. Why take a gamble on an original script when you can squeeze in a spin-off or prequel instead? If you have a proven franchise asset, as most of these studios do, it’s seen as responsible business to maximize it by getting as much product out of it as you can. Whereas the old studio system would put their biggest stars in as many films as possible, now the properties themselves are the stars.

It's probably no coincidence that Dungeons & Dragons is experiencing a rise in popularity too. And that's at least in part due to the fact that role-playing games do storytelling and mashups very well.
[h=3]RPG's Strength Stat[/h]Traditional RPGs in the vein of D&D can still tell exciting stories, but they don't lend themselves to the epic, sweeping narratives that are narrowly focused on one character's destiny--a staple of Star Wars.

There are reasons for this: randomization; an attempt to balance play for all players so they have fun; leveling and improvement systems so that all characters have an incentive for self-improvement; and multiple independently-minded player characters who may not follow the plot as dictated by the game master. Steven Ray Orr explains:

As a writer, I knew that storytelling was an isolated affair that involved ruthlessly stealing ideas from friends, family, and anyone else that happened upon my path, but Dungeons & Dragons is the antithesis of such selfishness and best understood as method of crafting a communal narrative. Just as the limitations of genre, form, and style bind written stories, so too are there rules in D&D that confine what is possible, but role-playing removes the absolute authorial control that comes with solitary storytelling.

D&D itself is a mashup of a wide variety of influences:

The different classes of character you can play as—barbarian, druid, wizard, etc.—are pulled from mythological and literary sources, from pre-Christian Celtic traditions to the character of Aragorn in the LOTR universe. Geographical planes where one can play, magical spells and weapons one can use, and monsters one might fight stem from sources as disparate as Pliny’s Natural History, Paradise Lost, and Arabian Nights. This kitschy mix of every fantastic invention or story we know of makes the texture of D&D campaigns collage-like and chaotic. Since so many ideas are being reused at once, one inevitably creates a new Frankenstein’s monster of a campaign every time.

D&D and RPGs in general have always told great stories, and the geeky nature of fandom encourages detail-oriented worldbuilding. The Star Wars Story films are an attempt to fill in those gaps. In a way, the sensibilities of the expanded universe ofthe Star Wars franchise has come full circle, reaching the big screen that spawned it. It's a new form of storytelling that has been prevalent on TV, and not everyone is happy about it.
[h=3]A New Form of Storytelling[/h]The expansion of Hollywood universes into a web of movies that contribute to a larger narrative has shifted the focus of a film's success away from its stars and good storytelling to worldbuilding, which can only be fully appreciated by consuming all of the media:

When movies were mostly one-offs—and not spinoffs, sequels, reboots, or remakes—they had to be good...No matter how well executed, commercial success for such a film was never guaranteed. Laying out an enormous sum of money on a product whose creation depends upon a harmony of massive egos, and whose final appeal is the result of intangibles, is a terrible basis for a commercial enterprise...Today, the major franchises are commercially invulnerable because they offer up proprietary universes that their legions of fans are desperate to reënter on almost any terms. These reliable sources of profit are now Hollywood’s financial bedrock.

The latest Avengers: Infinity War movie leaned heavily on the audience's knowledge of the other movies and was therefore its success was nearly inseparable from the entire Marvel oeuvre. Joshua Rothman of the New Yorker explains how this transition affects Star Wars:

It used to be a “saga”—a story told in the epic mode, in which the fate of the world is inextricably tied to the souls of cosmically important and irreplaceable individuals. It’s becoming a “universe,” in which atomized and interchangeable people embark on adventures that are individually exciting but ultimately inconsequential.

Add all this together and it's no wonder that movies are now starting to tell the same stories that RPGs have always been telling:

When the universalization of “Star Wars” is complete, it will no longer be a story but an aesthetic. We’ll be able to debate which actor played Han Solo best, just as we weigh the pros and cons of different James Bonds. We’ll keep up with the new movies not because we want to find out what happens—the plot, if one exists, will be an impenetrable trellis of intersecting arclets—but because we like their vibe, their look, and their general moral attitude.

If the box office receipts of Star Wars and the Marvel movies are any indication, fans are finally coming around to the kinds of stories we've telling with our RPGs for decades.

Mike "Talien" Tresca is a freelance game columnist, author, communicator, and a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to http://amazon.com. You can follow him at Patreon.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Michael Tresca

Michael Tresca

Ovinomancer

No flips for you!
I think everyone has agreed to move back to the topic of the OP.
Sure, no prob, was happy to leave the last word to others until the blatant misrepresentation. Say bad things about me, fine, just don't revise history when you do.

Please, carry on.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

mcosgrave

Explorer
I guess it’s like the character with the 40 page backstory v the characters with a few quirks: Solo had a huge history, and is central to the story: hard to do much with him without breaking things. That limits the Solo movie a lot.

Finn, and Rose, didn’t have big backstories, and aren’t, even now, vital to the story arc. Likewise Rogue One: linked into the story arc, but none of the core team were vital. They’re new characters, basic stats and a few traits, and they could rise or fall, or even die, without breaking the story. As it turns out, they worked out ok in the movies (YMMV here) but they’re not impossible to replace for the last film.

To me, it felt like the main cast in the first three (SW, ESB, ROTJ) were all vital to the rebellion, but many of the characters in the current trilogy just don’t seem as big: does that, perhaps, reflect a change in how we tell stories now?
 

To me, it felt like the main cast in the first three (SW, ESB, ROTJ) were all vital to the rebellion, but many of the characters in the current trilogy just don’t seem as big: does that, perhaps, reflect a change in how we tell stories now?

I feel like it more reflects a need to partially balance the new cast against the old one - make the young heroes feel more like the "newbies" by contrasting them with the older leaders. But you could have a point - there's a lot of YA-type fiction guiding movies lately, and therefore more conflict of Hero vs. Authority. Idea worth exploring, I'd say.
 

Gradine

The Elephant in the Room (she/her)
people might catch on that we're binning people into groups to dehumanize them so they can be dealt with appropriately.

I know the thread moved on from this, but there were a couple of important points that didn't really get addressed:
1) "Incel" is not a label people created for a group of people they don't like just because they hate specific Star Wars or Marvel movies or what have you. It's a distinct community that chose the label for themselves and that has an ideology that is explicitly misogynistic, to the extent that they idolize a mass shooter who specifically targeted women. This is not a group that anybody needs to champion, not even for S&G "devil's advocate" play.
2) The only group of people I see [MENTION=6943731]dragoner[/MENTION] as having specifically referred to as "incels" were the folks who bullied and harassed Kelly Marie Tran off of Instagram. Given that the Incel community took credit for and congratulated themselves for this feat (having already chased Daisy Ridley off of social media earlier), I don't really think that it was any sort of out-of-left-field reference.

I feel like it more reflects a need to partially balance the new cast against the old one - make the young heroes feel more like the "newbies" by contrasting them with the older leaders. But you could have a point - there's a lot of YA-type fiction guiding movies lately, and therefore more conflict of Hero vs. Authority. Idea worth exploring, I'd say.

I think you're definitely right about the YA-fiction tropes; as someone who's read a few YA fantasy books (and whose partner devours them constantly) there's a ton of those tropes at play in the new trilogy (especially all the Rey/Rylo stuff in TLJ). Then again, as someone else pointed out, a lot of those tropes have their genesis in Campbell and "Thousand Faces", so it's not like those are necessarily out of place. But just as I recognize that Young Adult Me was not the target audience for Eps I-III; I also recognize that Mid-30's Neckbeard Me is not necessarily the target audience for Eps VII-IX.
 

D

dco

Guest
I find some similarities to RPGs:
- A lot of movies full of filler with disconnected stuff, like RPG companions.
- Stories that could be written in one afternoon by any DM, but a player has more options to enjoy a bad story because he interacts with it.
 

Celebrim

Legend
I haven't seen Solo. I have a certain degree of admiration for Rogue One despite a couple of glaring but minor flaws in the script.

I think TFA and TLJ are some of the worst written scripts I've seen in a movie and that they have together thoroughly trashed the main story line in every way you could trash it, and I'd love to be able to say that without it becoming a political discussion.

I don't think all the furor really matters, because while I think that Marvel's cinematic universe has transcended the frequently dumb illogical source material its drawn from, they've managed to draw together the best ideas of that source material and elevate it into something better than the comics themselves. Where as, what they've done with TFA and TLJ is actually of less quality and less value than the frequently dumb amateur subpar cash cow of the extended universe. As such, what really matters is that the next generation isn't going to have many Star Wars fans in it, just as this generation does not have many Star Trek fans in it and ultimately Star Wars is going to be scarcely more relevant in a couple decades than Swiss Family Robinson or 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea is today. What we who were fans think about it doesn't really matter compared to the fact that its not really becoming a part of the childhood of people today the way it was a part of ours.

As for the RPG aspect of it, I'm not sure. Rogue One clearly had some nods to the old WEG extended universe in it and felt like it could have been a WEG module. But one of the great things about the WEG game itself is it felt always like it could have been a Star Wars story.
 

Hiya!
Ditto. I actually quite enjoyed Rogue One. It was a different Star Wars movie, but it at least felt plausible and had a "Star Wars Feel" to it. With TFA...I got good and bad vibes from it. As a story, it wasn't bad. I loved the initial "trailer" premiss...a chick who is an orphan survives by scavenging from crashed empire and rebelion ships. Then again, I am one of those DM's who REALLY gets into the whole "what about the aftermath?" and "what about the non-heroes, like the cab driver who's cab is ruined, or the janitor who sees his workplace get utterly anihilated...how does this 'Rebellion' impact them?". So I was hopeful that Rey would be just a more or less normal orphan trying to survive and she gets caught up in something far bigger than she ever thought possible.

Alas, we in stead got a more or less completely special uber-talented beyond reality orphan trying to survive on her own, who goes from scavenging ship parts to being able to naturally use the Force and defeats an experienced dark-side jedi knight simply by picking up a lightsaber and swinging it.


Well, Star Wars has a random farmboy go from picking up power converters at Tosche Station to flying a military starfighter in combat, blowing up the Death Star, and being able to use the force with no training other than a 5 minute conversation on the commute to Alderaan. And a random slave kid, who is such a super duper special snowflake he was CONCEIVED BY THE FORCE also using the force with no training to win the equivalent of the Indy 500, and blow up a smaller Death Star by spinning (a good trick). For good or ill, Star Wars is built on exceptionalism. TFA/TLJ worked to expand that exceptionalism beyond the Skywalker bloodline, as Jedi bloodlines don't make a ton of sense given that Jedi are discouraged from having children.

Kylo wasn't a jedi knight though... he's someone with like 25 in his force using stats but still relatively low level. Huge raw potential and innate talent, little discipline or skill. People also tend to overlook Kylo's complete lack of focus in the fight, as killing his father didn't provide the relief he wanted from the pull of the light side. The look of regret and on his face afterwards... that isn't how you channel the dark side. Wang Chi from Big Trouble in Little China explains it well: "That's why the bottle didn't slice. My mind and my spirit are going north and south." It's also why he was trying to draw on the pain by beating the boltcaster wound, a weapon that had been built up over the entire movie as particularly devastating. All that, coupled with wounds from Finn... and she managed to fight him to a standstill by letting the force flow through her. Let this be a lesson kids... don't violate your paladin oath!
 

Celebrim

Legend
I guess it’s like the character with the 40 page backstory v the characters with a few quirks: Solo had a huge history, and is central to the story: hard to do much with him without breaking things. That limits the Solo movie a lot.

Only if you consider the point of making a Solo movie telling people basically all the stuff that was already fleshed out about Solo's backstory. I haven't seen it, but my impression of it is that they made the mistake of making Solo the way they'd make an intro story to new superhero, and it was all pretty much exposition about facts about Solo's life that had been already established by prior films. That is to say, if you are going to start a Captain America franchise, you need to start by introducing the audience to Captain America and explaining the character. But you don't need to do that in a prequel. We've pretty much already been given enough to go on. So the only reason to do a prequel is if you want to tell a story that really hasn't been much hinted at in the core material, like for example, 'Han Solo at Star's End' or something like that.

That is, if you are making a movie for the purpose of story telling. There are reasons for making a movie that have nothing to do with telling a good story, and Disney is quite obviously more concerned about other reasons (like for example, financial ones) than it is getting a script and saying, "Wow this is a great story. This script just demands that we make a movie whether we want to or not, because this story needs to be told."
 

ART!

Deluxe Unhuman
Haven't read the whole thread, so this has probably been said, but my take is that Solo and R1 expanded the setting, and in particular expanded it using characters who don't have a magical destiny or wield Jedi-fu and psychic powers.

R1 does have Chirrut Imwe, but his magic power is "just flavor", in the sense that he's a character with mad martial arts skills who can do stuff everyone else can do [whispers] *except he's blind*, whereas otherwise in SW the magical characters can do things "normal" people can't do. Chirrut expresses the magic of the setting without giving him any game-changing powers. I guess he arguably has very mild psychic powers, too, but again that's really just "he has a great Perception roll *even though he's blind*", so not really a power, mechanically.

I thought Solo in particular seemed chock full of setting-expanding bits, including simple throw-aways like the Imperial recruitment holovids (playing the Imperial March!) at the station on Corellia.
 

Ovinomancer

No flips for you!
I haven't seen Solo. I have a certain degree of admiration for Rogue One despite a couple of glaring but minor flaws in the script.

I think TFA and TLJ are some of the worst written scripts I've seen in a movie and that they have together thoroughly trashed the main story line in every way you could trash it, and I'd love to be able to say that without it becoming a political discussion.

I don't think all the furor really matters, because while I think that Marvel's cinematic universe has transcended the frequently dumb illogical source material its drawn from, they've managed to draw together the best ideas of that source material and elevate it into something better than the comics themselves. Where as, what they've done with TFA and TLJ is actually of less quality and less value than the frequently dumb amateur subpar cash cow of the extended universe. As such, what really matters is that the next generation isn't going to have many Star Wars fans in it, just as this generation does not have many Star Trek fans in it and ultimately Star Wars is going to be scarcely more relevant in a couple decades than Swiss Family Robinson or 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea is today. What we who were fans think about it doesn't really matter compared to the fact that its not really becoming a part of the childhood of people today the way it was a part of ours.

As for the RPG aspect of it, I'm not sure. Rogue One clearly had some nods to the old WEG extended universe in it and felt like it could have been a WEG module. But one of the great things about the WEG game itself is it felt always like it could have been a Star Wars story.

I can't agree with this. My daughter and son are both currently ardent Star Wars fans and their Star Wars is TFA, TLJ, Rogue 1, and Solo (although they haven't seen this one yet). Your issues with the new movies are not universally held, apparently, as all but Solo have rocked the box office and done very well in post-theatre DVD/digital sales. I think your predictions of Star Wars losing fans in the new generation to be very myopic. Heck, Disney's about to open Star Wars Land in the Hollywood Studios themepark and that alone is going to create fans (it looks stellar, btw). Disney is also opening a themed resort that is self-contained and runs ongoing stories throughout the resort. You check in, pick a faction, and for the duration of your stay you're involved in ongoing Star Wars stories taking place throughout the resort.

Star Wars is most certainly not on it's way out.

If you want to stick to discussion of specific faults in the movies, I'm game (though probably not in this thread), but the doom and gloom of Star Wars is dead is a bit much.
 

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top