What Makes Star Wars to You?
Something I've pondered on and off, especially while running (or mourning) the game I did. What makes Star Wars Star Wars? From some discussions, it appears my own opinions already differ from at least one friend. I suppose that's to be expected.
The Force is a big one. It's one of the unique features of the SW universe, after all. You could have a SW story without it, but if the Force is ignored completely, something's missing. This also includes a certain degree of "real" good and evil in the setting. While it's interesting to explore sometimes, the source material I consider most canon makes it pretty clear that there is a "dark side" and a character thinking otherwise is ultimately deceiving himself.
Times of conflict are pretty central. After all, it is called Star Wars. So it's no surprise that most of the stories take place during or around massive, galactic battles.
Redemption is a huge theme in my book. Luke confronting, eventually refusing to fight, and turning Vader against the Emperor was (at least in my perspective) one of the biggest arcs/climaxes in the original trilogy. There you also have Han and Lando turning from darker paths to become more "respectable" individuals among the Rebellion. The story of post-war Ulric Qel-Droma and Sylvar from the Dark Horse comics was one of the most poignant for me.
But... in order for there to be redemption, there must first be a fall. Betrayal and the temptation of the dark side both ring out for me as major themes in numerous stories. Good may win out in the end, but it has to struggle past evil to get there.
Technology is beside the point. Along with the mysticism of the Force, this is what makes me classify Star Wars as "fantasy" over "science fiction." Scifi trappings are there, but where "real" science fiction might examine the implications on society or humanity or whatever, the technology is just sort of there in SW. Cause or effect, this is tied to how there's no real technological advancement shown in the setting - because that isn't at all what the setting is meant to be about.
Global backdrops are common. In the same way that the technological stagnation isn't "realistic," this point certainly isn't either. Individual planets are used as single scenes. If snow is wanted, the scene's set on Hoth. If a major, shining city is wanted, you have Coruscant. Desert? Tatooine. Very rarely is a world presented as multi-thematic itself, and then usually for a reason (the class division present in KotOR's Taris, for example). This sort of leads to perception of galactic scope, because scene variety uses whole different worlds.
---
There there are some other minor themes, of course. Droids used as comic relief (which I feel Lucas himself overdid as time went on), hordes of faceless bad guys, adventure, romance, and such. But those points feel to me either like a given of the larger genre or an element of a specific story rather than common threads.
Someone once said to me they wanted to see more exploration, to see who and what there was in the galaxy. That... feels a lot like the technology aspect to me - not really the point. Exploring new worlds and new societies is more a Star Trek thing in my book. Star Wars just uses those elements as colorful backdrop and flavor while telling its story.
The Force is a big one. It's one of the unique features of the SW universe, after all. You could have a SW story without it, but if the Force is ignored completely, something's missing. This also includes a certain degree of "real" good and evil in the setting. While it's interesting to explore sometimes, the source material I consider most canon makes it pretty clear that there is a "dark side" and a character thinking otherwise is ultimately deceiving himself.
Times of conflict are pretty central. After all, it is called Star Wars. So it's no surprise that most of the stories take place during or around massive, galactic battles.
Redemption is a huge theme in my book. Luke confronting, eventually refusing to fight, and turning Vader against the Emperor was (at least in my perspective) one of the biggest arcs/climaxes in the original trilogy. There you also have Han and Lando turning from darker paths to become more "respectable" individuals among the Rebellion. The story of post-war Ulric Qel-Droma and Sylvar from the Dark Horse comics was one of the most poignant for me.
But... in order for there to be redemption, there must first be a fall. Betrayal and the temptation of the dark side both ring out for me as major themes in numerous stories. Good may win out in the end, but it has to struggle past evil to get there.
Technology is beside the point. Along with the mysticism of the Force, this is what makes me classify Star Wars as "fantasy" over "science fiction." Scifi trappings are there, but where "real" science fiction might examine the implications on society or humanity or whatever, the technology is just sort of there in SW. Cause or effect, this is tied to how there's no real technological advancement shown in the setting - because that isn't at all what the setting is meant to be about.
Global backdrops are common. In the same way that the technological stagnation isn't "realistic," this point certainly isn't either. Individual planets are used as single scenes. If snow is wanted, the scene's set on Hoth. If a major, shining city is wanted, you have Coruscant. Desert? Tatooine. Very rarely is a world presented as multi-thematic itself, and then usually for a reason (the class division present in KotOR's Taris, for example). This sort of leads to perception of galactic scope, because scene variety uses whole different worlds.
---
There there are some other minor themes, of course. Droids used as comic relief (which I feel Lucas himself overdid as time went on), hordes of faceless bad guys, adventure, romance, and such. But those points feel to me either like a given of the larger genre or an element of a specific story rather than common threads.
Someone once said to me they wanted to see more exploration, to see who and what there was in the galaxy. That... feels a lot like the technology aspect to me - not really the point. Exploring new worlds and new societies is more a Star Trek thing in my book. Star Wars just uses those elements as colorful backdrop and flavor while telling its story.
Star Wars -- to me it is essentially a fantasy setting set in space. The Force, of course, is a big part of this. The Force is the 'magic' of the setting. For me, a good fantasy setting has magic, but has more importantly has functional magic. It has connections with religion, because it has a belief structure, a philosophy that surrounds it, but also provides an understanding of what it can and can not do. Somewhere between science and art, a good fantasy setting provides magic which answers a lot of questions, but leaves enough room to inspire debate -- in this case, the Light Side versus the Dark Side. Conflict. This is a tricky one. To some extent, I can understand having the setting be in a period of conflict, but then I run into the same thing which broke my suspension of disbelief in L5R. 'We had a hundred years of peace, and now we're stuck in three generations of nearly non-stop violence'. There's something to be said about sitting in a movie and watching a major war play out on the screen, but when I'm involved in a game I rarely have interest in being a part of that. I'm more interested in personal conflicts and resolving them without having everything be tied to some huge event. The war in Star Wars, for me, was more a side-story -- the real interest was in the personal lives of the characters, and watching these be resolved. Luke's training under Yoda, the tension between Han and Leah (Empire Strikes Back), the mentor / student relationship between Obi-Wan and Luke (Star Wars), and the rescue of Han from Jabba and the resolution of Han's personal story arc (Return of the Jedi), for me, were much more interesting than 'there is war in the galaxy'. Redemption. That was Anakin / Luke's story arc, but there's a hundred other archetypal themes you can explore in Star Wars that doesn't have to use that. That's one reason I refuse to let Deveron go down the path. He may ponder the nature of the Force, the conflict between the Light Side and the Dark Side, but he won't turn to the Dark. Understand it, philosophically? Sure. Choose that path? No. It's been beaten to death, I feel. The struggle, in his case, is the cost of doing the right thing and trying not to waver from it. Technology. I don't see technology and fantasy being in conflict (steampunk anyone?). The thing is, in a futuristic setting, technology will be a factor. Unlike science fiction, where the focus is how technology has impacted humanity, in fantasy technology is part of the 'magic' of the setting. And like magic - it should make at least some amount of sense, and be part of the flavour. I can easily see a gadgeteer in Star Wars, someone who has hordes of gadgets and drones and droids that he directs to do his work (like... oh... a summoner in a more traditional fantasy setting). I can see a cat burglar with high-tech gadgets which let her infiltrate into places she shouldn't normally get into (like a rogue). Technology is 'sort of there', but the fact is there means it should be usable. Networks, programs, guided drones, autonomous weapons and vehicles, I can easily see these working in Star Wars (just like in a fantasy setting -- telepathy spells which allow warriors to communicate seamlessly on the battlefield, utility spells, summons, animal familiars, dancing swords, and flying carpets). Global Backdrops. Honestly? I never have a problem with this. It's amusing, and unrealistic, but I'm always willing to let it slide. One of the themes in fantasy is exploration -- going places, seeing people, and experiencing the world. Star Wars provides a lot of that, considering the amount of detail that has been put into different worlds and different races. Why go through all the trouble of fleshing these out if nobody's going to explore them? :)
ReplyDeleteStar Wars to me is: Mysticism and Tradition versus the advance of Technology. The Hero's journey. Good versus Evil, including falls from grace and redemption. The Natural versus the Artificial. Robot servants and aides. Star Wars is not: Corny characters acting goofy or spouting catch-phrases. Forced relationships. "Hard" Science to define things. Realistic.
ReplyDeleteWell, we discussed this a little last night. Mostly, I agree, but there are a couple points that, while there, don't feel like major themes to me. Natural versus artificial - I see the machinification of Vader (and Luke to a lesser extent) as more of a not-so-subtle metaphor for loss of humanity: "... more machine now than man, twisted and evil." And even the ewoks taking on the Empire feels to me more like it's about good versus evil or the underdogs coming out on top (though frankly I feel the ewoks were a bit... overdone to begin with). And mysticism versus technology seems... more like part of "mysticism" to begin with. Han derides the Force for a blaster, Tarkin and Vader debate the merits of big weapons to blow up planets, but while that portrays the philosophical framework of the setting, there isn't actually any real conflict to that end. If a majority of people really had faith in the Force, it wouldn't seem nearly so special or mystical, so these voiced opinions make it moreso.
ReplyDeleteWhile you see temptation/fall/redemption as primarily an Anakin/Luke thing, I guess it just means more to me. The Star Wars stories that have most impressed and influenced me include that: the original trilogy, KotOR, Tales of the Jedi, and at least a few of the other novels I've read. It's there in what I consider the best of the setting, so it becomes a part of the setting to me. I'm not saying the technology is fully ignored, just that it's not really a major thematic component of Star Wars. Stories include what tech bits they need, the stories aren't about the tech. "Why go through all the trouble of fleshing these out if nobody's going to explore them?" Uhh... well, the direct response to that is: only the worlds/races that are being addressed (be it by movie, story, or whatever) get fleshed out to begin with. The huge lists of races and planets came about as people made new stuff in their additions to the setting, not the other way around.
ReplyDeleteRe: Technology Well, no. The stories aren't about the technology (that's more science fiction), but tech is still there, and there to be used. For example, the ship we had in your campaign -- I saw nothing wrong with having autonomous tracking and firing (similar to modern sentry turrets in RL). The game doesn't become about the fact we have it, it's just something we have that we can use. I think, in some ways, it helps with my suspension of disbelief. I mean, if you were playing in a modern game, people have internet, cellphones, GPS, IM, and a hundred other modern conveniences. If you were playing a game where those things could be useful, but the GM hand-waved their presence and usefulness, it would be harder to get into the setting. Now, admittedly, I had a talk with Cat about 'tech creep'. I pointed out that on Earth, you have cultures which are still in the stone age, adjacent to cultures which are firmly in the 21st century. It will take another few centuries for technology to level out on Earth. Taking that to outer space, it becomes more of a problem -- some planets are going to be way ahead of the game, others aren't, and some planets will have sporadic bits-and-pieces here and there, rather than being uniform in their technology. So, yeah, Bespen has more advanced technology than Tatooine, this makes sense.
ReplyDelete1) Catch phrases. Actually, I'd say that's a big part of it. The original trilogy had this in abundance, and the prequels had this a hell of a lot less. For SW-ESB-RotJ, it made the characters seem more human and natural, and did a lot for the movies. 2) Mysticism vs Technology. I really don't see these at odds in the series. The Jedi used technology just as much as anyone else did. Technology in and of itself wasn't a problem. It existed, people used it, whatever. You can run a perfectly fine Star Wars campaign just prior to the movies, and have the Jedi be a thing of the past, and still have it be Star Wars. Aside: One thing a few of my friends mock is how the Jedi became 'myth' in under eighteen years. Apparently, they went from 'guardians of the Republic' to 'what, them? Feh, don't exist. Force? Superstition.' I have to agree ... that's pretty damn lame. 3) Hero's Journey. For Luke, sure. That's his schtick. That doesn't have to be the story for everyone though. There's more storytelling archetypes that can be used. 4) I agree, hard science isn't really a part of Star Wars, but soft science should exist. Basically, enough that the setting makes sense, and that people can relate to 'yeah, this exists, and this can probably be done'. You can have a PC hacker who can take over any ship they get into, and get into nearly any fortress, without having to go into the fine details of 'these are the programs I have, and these are the specific tools I need'. You can, however, say 'I have a datacomm with the proper programs and a variety of tools for cracking blast doors'. ... I think I have a new character concept... Jedi Intruder.
ReplyDeleteSee, I consider certain technological details part of the setting. Hyperdrive is how people get around. Lightsabers are Jedi Knights' swords. Blasters are the ubiquitous guns. Droids exist, quirky personalities and all, but tend to still be "inhuman." But your discussion is getting into why I think of all that as simple window dressing and period-setting (whatever actual time period you look at, as it's all pretty much the same), and why I hate to discuss it as technology in any sort of "realistic" sense. The more you think about Star Wars tech, the less sense it makes. Automatic gunnery systems are perfectly reasonable and logical. And yet, we still see Han and Luke climb into gunnery seats themselves. You can try to apply some excuse for that (auto-guns are expensive, or restricted, or just not that good), but it's still going to be just an excuse. The existence of droids (especially droid starfighters) pretty much refutes any argument I can think of. As I see it, you can either 1) overlook the tech flaws entirely, 2) go nuts trying to apply "logic" to the setting's technology, very likely rendering everything in the movies totally nonsensical and inconsistent, or 3) apply just as much "realism" as you need for what you're doing and move on. As an audience, I'll try to go with #1 as much as I can. As a player/GM/writer, I'll probably opt for #3. Also, with your chosen example, you've got the concern of playability, too. PCs take over gunnery and piloting so players have something to do other than twiddle their thumbs while the GM rolls everything.
ReplyDeleteThird time's a charm, eh?
ReplyDeleteHmm. The thing is, when you're looking at the Falcon, it could simply be that Han couldn't afford to have them put in. That's pretty 'pat'. It would have required a major overhaul of the ship. The thing is, when you're not in the gunner pods, the guns are forward-firing (if I'm not mistaken), Lando and whats-his-name were using the Falcon without gunners, and did everything from the cockpit. I'm sure, if Han had the funds, he could have had the Falcon retrofit, and then put in automated turrets. But he doesn't have a great love of droids, and he was in debt up to his eyeballs, so the solution for that's pretty pat. Given the proper funding, I'm sure someone could get automated turrets, auto-pilot, ECM/ECCM, and so forth. Some of that (ECM/ECCM) is probably illegal in Imperial Era, and would require you to either be a military vessel, or go out to the Rim or the black market to get it installed. >.>
ReplyDeleteFormatting errors on my part and no edit option for comments. >.>
ReplyDeleteSee, we could come up with excuses and debate all day. It just feels pretty futile to me. Others already have, mostly coming to a concensus that those turrent can auto-fire, live gunners are more accurate, and there were gunners in the Battle of Endor. But all that's guesswork based on scant observation and some deleted scenes. But that's all sort of straying from your specific example anyway... "I saw nothing wrong with having autonomous tracking and firing (similar to modern sentry turrets in RL)." Using very, very loose in-setting logic, it's feasible either way. Sure, it could have had that. Or maybe not - a ship purchased at a backwater trading post isn't guaranteed any perks even if you have the money. Or the system could have been very basic, and any of you playing active gunner would be better. I really don't remember this being an issue of more than the briefest of discussions. Using the game rules, there's a bit of an issue. Firing takes an action. Vehicles don't get their own actions, they rely on operators. You could simulate an automated gunnery system by making a droid gunner and just calling it part of the ship, I suppose, but that's somewhat outside any of the rules I recall - and leaves players with less to do, which seems counter to the game design in the first place. If you can come up with excuses for the Falcon's situation, why would this even be an issue in your mind for the game? ... And oh my god, the evil of the internet is that I feel compelled to continue discussions like this long past the point it seems to matter and it just becomes opinions butting heads. @.@
ReplyDelete