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

Gradine

The Elephant in the Room (she/her)
Yet another thread I wasn't expecting to go full Godwin. This one didn't even take that long!

Question, though, what do we do with the non-toxic incels, or are they a myth?

While I can't answer any of your other questions, all obviously asked in jest, it's worth pointing out that the actual answer to this one is yes, they are a myth. The phrase "Toxic Incel" is basically redundant
 

log in or register to remove this ad


evileeyore

Mrrrph
It seems that, really, only those completely clueless about Star Wars, or "critics" (who get free tickets and pre-showings) are saying anything remotely positive. The VAST majority of Star Wars fan plop it firmly into the "bantha-poo-doo" bucket. Same goes for The Last Jedi, and Rogue One.
I'm a pretty hefty, old-time fan... and I like Rogue One.

Not so much for TLJ and TFW.


As far as the toxic incel types who attacked the actress that played Rose, they can expect sanction from the studio, and to be purged.
Ah yes, sanction and purge the labeled group.

You know who that reminds me of?

Yet another thread I wasn't expecting to go full Godwin.
Dang it. Now I can't mention them.
 

S

Sunseeker

Guest
Only because I forgot a comma; "toxic, incel types" is not.

There really isn't anyone who identifies as an incel who isn't toxic. People who aren't getting laid aren't, by definition, incels. Incels are a specific group of people whose very culture is based on the idea that somehow they are owed sex (by women of course) and that women (the collective hive-mind) have shuned them into "involuntary celibacy". That's literally what the term "in-" for involuntary and "cel-" for celibate, MEANS. There are no non-toxic incels, just like there are no non-toxic alt-righters, neo-nazis(thread's already been godwined so, whatever) or TERFs.

There are plenty of dorky neckbeards who have trouble finding romance and sexual relations. These people are not by default incels. Incels core ideology is that women owe them sex by no other grace than their being born a man. It is a horrifyingly sexist and toxic ideology. So NO, there are no non-toxic incels.

---Sorry if you know this, I just want to make it abundantly clear to everyone reading this thread. If this is too far off into politics, that's fine, I shouldn't need to address this subject again now that I have rather clearly explained what an incel is, and what they're not.
 

dragoner

KosmicRPG.com
---Sorry if you know this...

I would wager that those above defending them, know it too. My point is that to be gigged for a typo is muy ridiculoso; plus using "toxic, incel" is explaining that they are toxic, as well as putting emphasis. And yes, I noticed the redundancy shortly after posting it, I just didn't care to edit the post for it.
 

I remember the good old days, when it was possible to have fun and productive conversations about Star Wars, and not have someone come in and inform me that I was not a true fan because I didn't see things their particular way. Of course, I have to think back to the days when dial up was the norm and you paid AOL by the hour to remember what that was like.
 

There really isn't anyone who identifies as an incel who isn't toxic. People who aren't getting laid aren't, by definition, incels. Incels are a specific group of people whose very culture is based on the idea that somehow they are owed sex (by women of course) and that women (the collective hive-mind) have shuned them into "involuntary celibacy". That's literally what the term "in-" for involuntary and "cel-" for celibate, MEANS. There are no non-toxic incels, just like there are no non-toxic alt-righters, neo-nazis(thread's already been godwined so, whatever) or TERFs.

There are plenty of dorky neckbeards who have trouble finding romance and sexual relations. These people are not by default incels. Incels core ideology is that women owe them sex by no other grace than their being born a man. It is a horrifyingly sexist and toxic ideology. So NO, there are no non-toxic incels.

---Sorry if you know this, I just want to make it abundantly clear to everyone reading this thread. If this is too far off into politics, that's fine, I shouldn't need to address this subject again now that I have rather clearly explained what an incel is, and what they're not.

Actually I appreciate your explanation, I was thinking incel as a typo or something, had no idea that this was a thing that people identified as. And I use the word "people" loosely here.
 

S

Sunseeker

Guest
Actually I appreciate your explanation, I was thinking incel as a typo or something, had no idea that this was a thing that people identified as. And I use the word "people" loosely here.

Although I appreciate this forum's strict rules on politics, there are times, as you just demonstrated, that the forum suffers for it, because there isn't an opportunity to explain what is being talked about, and that explanation is necessary for a full understanding of the discussion, even a non-political one.
 

Ovinomancer

No flips for you!
Fantasizing about death camps? Only you. Not surprised though, ironic, yes.

http://www.syfy.com/syfywire/star-wars-has-a-white-male-fandom-problem

I was just following your lead, don't give me all the credit! I'm willing to share. I just figured that we could really clean up on the bennies for turning in toxic, incels to Disney if we, you know, concentrated them first. It's a win-win! They'll be out of our neighborhoods (we'll build the camps in white male neighborhoods, I hear they're next on the list anyway) and easy for Disney to, you know, deal with. ;)

But, no, not fantaasizing about death camps, that would make us Nazis! We're just upstanding citizens with a comically shallow view of other people that we've binned into convenient groups to dehumanize so hating them and hoping that our faceless corporate masters will deal with these problem groups is good and we can get on with liking what we like without all the icky others.
 


Remove ads

Remove ads

Top