Superman - A true revival of the Comic Film

 I saw Superman (2025) twice this weekend, and will likely see it a third time soon, and who knows, maybe a fourth. It's easily the best superhero/comic movie they have done in the last several years, and the interesting choices made by James Gunn to lean heavily into the comic book reality of the movie has, I feel, paid off in spades. This feels like an actual comic book movie, they could have easily called it "Action Comics Issue #1024" and that would have been perfectly okay. It's an optimistic, uplifting film filled with crass villainy that gets soundly defeated, and it does not shy away from providing allegorical content that one can readily read in to. It's the opposite of most Marvel films, in other words.

Gunn's prior comic book outings are starting to reflect a sort of form and style that is consistent, which I suppose is good, as it means you know what you are getting with him, but it does mean you might watch this movie with a recognition of his particular style in the craft. For example, it is now clear to me that every movie Gunn makes has to have that moment in it where someone, usually with a small but incredibly dangerous object, proceeds with what can only be described as a madcap moment of violence that plays out in the background as a sort of montage or collage, often entirely in one take. We've seen it repeatedly in Guardians of the Gaaxy (standing out with Yondu's arrow sequence in the second GotG film), Harly Quinn's hallucinatory rampage in The Suicide Squad, and now Mr. Terrific and his T-Balls vs. Lex Luthor's army of raptors and mad scientists in Hawaiian shirts.

If you've heard about the movie being "woke" then be assured it is, but that is not to the detriment of the film. The "wokeness" of this film is just optimism, human decency, and a desire to see the old, better America stand out...the one that used to care about being decent and good, instead of cruel and spiteful. Salon's review describes this better than I ever could. 

I will say, if you feel (like I have) that the golden age of Superman films was with Christopher Reeves in Superman from 1978 and Superman II, then I think you are likely going to find this film to be a worthy successor. The worst thing I can say about it is that it starts rather jarringly in what feels like the middle of the third act of a normal film, but this only ultimately lends further to the unique take of the film, and I enjoyed it even more on a second watch. A+++! My favorite film so far this year, maybe even this decade.

Reinvigorated! Or maybe Reanimated?

 Well I am feeling less burnout this week! But also sometimes more burnout. I did a deep dive into various systems and found that I was definitely starting to sense a pattern in my interests. Here's what I realize now; noting that this isn't a unchanging constant; just what my tastes seem to be running to in the moment:

Verisimilitude Over Abstraction: I prefer somewhat more simulationist systems, which favor verisimilitude over "rule of cool" as a natural recourse. I liken this to the difference between a movie where our hero drops 10-15 feet and seems to take injury or has trouble getting up from such a fall, vs. other movies (Marvel films come to mind) where same hero seems able to drop 30-50 feet and is unphased, even without having super soldier serum to explain his massive invulnerability.

This means systems like BRP, GURPS, Mothership, Call of Cthulhu, Traveller, Cyberpunk Red and Dragonbane are standing out to me because they provide meaningful engagement levels with some sort of baseline "reality" but some other systems....even ones I like....aren't feeling too good to me at the moment because I am not presently "vibing" with the idea that the abstractions on the character sheet and in the system are really just numbers and have more to do with "did this look cool?" than anything else. That rules our D&D 5.5, Cypher System, Fantasy AGE, Tales of the Valiant, and no doubt others.

Pragmatic Character Info: I'm preferring systems which communicate clearly what you rcharacter is about, without a lot of rule-flipping and holistic interpretation. Pathfinder 2E is not a good example of this; it is laden with weird feats, obscure conditionals, and a balanced mechanical process which means skill sets are very "meh" in figuring out how your character looks different from another similar character. Contrast with BRP, which narrows the character generation to a set of common baselines defined by genre expectations for powers (if used), but in general you can look at a character sheet and understand what it means to run that PC without having to crack the book open constantly. 

The System Respects Theater of the Mind: lots of games these days lean in to the popular desire for maps and minis, and I get it; those can be fun (I suppose). But I have run RPGs for most of my life without such gimmicks, and the sorts of stories I want to convey through gaming these days (and most days) work better when the players aren't focused on the ancient wargame element that remains embedded in conventional takes such as D&D. Admittedly GURPS, as an example, supports elaborate hex-based movement and suggests this can be useful; I have played in GURPS games where the GM used this to effect, and I get it. But I have also run (and played) in countless GURPS games where it was all theater of the mind, and the experience was always more creative and superior. So systems which either implicitly or explicitly support TotM play are preferred.

No Authorial Overtones: I won't single anyone out, but if the system has a heavy authorial overtone which tries to tell you how to play, either explicitly or implicitly, that can be a real turnoff. The author does not trust you to play the game the right way for you, the end-user, and that is just not cool. I can be in 100% agreement with the game writer's viewpoint and this will still piss me off because it is an attempt by the author to control the narrative on the end user experience.* 

There are quite a few RPGs on the market today that like to talk about how their source of inspiration was, shall we say, a racist person in his time, and then denigrate his works, even as they then proceed to write an entire system around said works, implying there was still merit to the man's creations, enough for them to exploit for money. Hypocrisy! It makes it very hard to take such works seriously. Either you acknowledge that you are, indeed, inspired by the creative works of said author which means you feel his imaginative developments have merit and inspiration beyond the unpleasant bits you did not like (okay, yeah, I'm talking about Lovecraft here) and will expand upon his vision despite your dislike of his century-old racist attitude, or you maybe should decide that its ethically better for you to go write a different game and leave well enough alone. I'm looking at you, Age of Cthulhu and Arkham Horror. 

Sometimes it feels like these games were written by authors fearful that their audience would get mad at them for not appearing cognizant of these perceived injustices or social issues. The best head-scratching example I can provide is in Liminal Horror, which has a paragraph about how its not cool to play cops, authority figures or people with wealth or means. This, of course, is actual nonsense; part of the point of RPGs is the ability to explore roles beyond most people's grasps....and horror as a medium is excellent at skewering all sorts of professionals and the wealthy with equal aplomb; its not merely the purview of the poor and downtrodden to be murdered by eldritch cults. But if you were writing this game a few years ago when there was a strong push on social media to "strike back at the man" or you are a younger author (spiritually or physically) enmeshed in antiauthoritarian counter cultural values, then this might feel like a sensible paragraph to put in, no matter how utterly stupid and counterfactual to the actual genre of horror it is. 

Important: despite this minor rant, I really like Liminal Horror as a mini-system; it occupies a unique concept space and I look forward to the Kickstarter backed future edition coming out soon. Also, I find that entire rant ironic given that the best module produced for Liminal Horror so far, the Bureau, is entirely about a fictional authority organization inspired by the Bureau of Control from the eponymous video game. So one of the system's first modules directly contradicts this angry little countercultural paragraph that demonstrates a woeful lack of imagination and genre understanding right off the bat. 

Okay, rant off! Tonight I plan to close out the D&D 5.5 game, and am proposing we tackle Dragonbane or Mothership next (because that's what I packed for).

*Note that I am not talking about games which have advice on "know your audience," sections, or talk about the use of the X card. Those are just practical advice (don't run a game for 9 year olds with Kult, m'kay? or if you are running for a diverse crowd of Gen Z players, an X card may be quite revealing if you are not good at reading a crowd as a GM). Admittedly, if a game tells me to "remove the spiders if a player is offended" my internal advice is: don't run a game with spiders for someone who is scared of imaginary spiders, you know? Maybe find different players?

True Burnout

 In recent weeks I think I hit an almost unassailable wall. I have bailed on a Saturday game night (admittedly, family stuff dragging me away from it as well), but also because I was running out of steam as GM. I have bailed from as much else as possible. I am still running Wednesday night, but even there I am finding the old spark for D&D is gone. I am not even sure its purely a "5.5 is kinda meh" problem although that doesn't help. I need to get this campaign to an end so I can look hard at what to do next, and see what happens. 

I've been fighting with periodic burnout for years, but this time around feels different.....a first for me to make active efforts to dodge out of GMing, something I have historically always enjoyed, but with this recent shift escaping from that responsibility is now now proving so enticing. I have bought some new RPGs of late, stuff I should be very excited about (Daggerheart, Cypher System Neon Noir, Batman Chronicles RPG and more) but I just can't find the motivation or interest to engage with any of it. I am finding most of my free time is subsuming into reading, both regular books and catching up on my comic and graphic novel collections. I'm just.....dang, I hate to say it....worn out on RPGs and gaming at the moment. It's weird. But maybe not so unexpected; I've run an average of two games a week now for most of this century, what did I expect?

Being a player doesn't even help! It's fun for a bit, but never really been the side of gaming I enjoy all that much. It does keep me involved in the friend circle, I suppose, but my sense of dedication as a player is paper thin; I find reading, playing a video game or watching a movie to be immensely more satisfying. 

I'm hoping this is just a phase, and some time off will rest me up for a more productive GM future. But I also worry its a side effect of age, and maybe a general component of just slowing down a bit, with my interests and desires shifting focus. Deep down I am one of those introverts, and know that without effort it is very, very easy for me to sink into an isolation quagmire and that is not ultimately terribly healthy. I must ponder.....I am sure I am not the only one who has experienced this.

EDIT: I may not be giving D&D 5.5 enough credit for how much it impacts my desire to game. I just read Alexandrian's hot-take on Calibating Expectations with 5E and it really resonates with me as a clear enunciation of all the core conceits of this edition that just make it so much less fun for me.