On the Importance of Fandom

[I ask] that they may all be one, just as you, Father, are in me, and I in you, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that you have sent me. — John 17:20-21

One of the important principles in Orthodoxy Christianity is the idea that multiplicity is capable of becoming one. Through Christ, the various nations of the earth become one church despite all of the various things that we humans do to try and separate ourselves from each other.

This idea of one and many exists in every order of creation from the most high (God is both One and Three) all the way down to subatomic where electons, protons, and neutrons are gathered together as the building blocks of matter.

I don’t normally lead with such theological musings, but I want make clear the persupposition for why I find such beauty and joy in the idea of fandoms. When a fandom manifests itself properly, the love that each individual has for said franchise, game, hobby, sport, etc. can overcome all kinds of differences we impose upon ourselves and each other. 

For example, the majorty of the folks who read this blog are not Orthodox Christan, and I would venture a good chunk do not even consider themselves Christian. Despite this, we can all gather in this corner of the internet and revel in the love we have for RPGs. That love overcomes the fact that we do not all agree about religion. It can also overcome all kinds of barriers such as language, race, politics, ethnicity, gender, etc.

To put it theologically, the unity that Christ gives us through the Cross, the Resurrection, and His Church manifests itself in a small way through fandoms. Conversly, the unity we find in fandoms demonstrate that the unity promised by Christ is very real.

As a consequence, I firmly believe that the reason our beloved IPs from Star Wars to Indiana Jones, to Star Trek, to Dungeons & Dragons are in such bad shape is the fact that the companies that are in control of these IPs have roundly rejected the fundamental premise of unity from multiplicity and the role fandoms play in overcoming differences.

Companies such as WotC, Disney, Warner, etc. have almost universally adopted ideas found in Critical Race Theory, Intersectional Feminism, and Diversity Equity and Inclusion. At first glance, all of these concepts are laudable. There is no question that various groups of people have suffered at the hands of others throughout history and that trying to fix the various problems that come from this suffering is something I would hope everyone is on board with.

There is one very large however here, though. All of these ideas are based on a dialectic — the Opressed versus the Opressor. As a consequence, every single one of these ideas requires division. Not a single one of these ideas can ever unify humanity because the smallest possible number in a dialectic is always two.

Thus, when the fandom becomes hostile to the direction a company is taking a particular IP, these ideas don’t allow for love to overcome differences of opinion. They don’t allow for fandoms to become part of the solution. Rather, the fandom is moved from the in-group (the Oppressed) into the out-group (the Oppressor). This is why fans have been accused of being bigoted in all kinds of ways over the last several years.

Those of us who participate in RPGs are very fortunate because the OGL was born out of fandom. It was designed in such a way that the love we have of D&D could empower us to produce a plethora of products for this hobby. We have seen the fruits of that love and don’t every want to go back. This is why WotC’s attempts to ditch the OGL has been received with such a pushback from across the entire fandom. At some level, we have come to understand that the unity we find in participating in this hobby at all levels is much more profound and valuable than anything WotC could offer alone as the gatekeeper of everything D&D. 

While RPGs are a different medium than television or film, nonetheless, what has happened in the world of TTRPGs is a blueprint for fandoms to move forward and beyond the dialectic being imposed upon us by the likes of WotC, Disney, etc. We can participate in our fandoms (and make money doing so) in all kinds of ways that don’t involve us giving these corporations a dime.

We have a capacity to be one. They have limited themselves to merely being two.

They need us far more than we need them. 

Why Star Wars, etc. Now S*cks

I was one of those kids who saw Star Wars (before it was dubbed A New Hope) in the theater. I was doomed to be a sci-fi/fantasy fan for the rest of my life. I began to buy comic books. I found Dr. Who on my local PBS. My mom brought home the Holmes Basic Box set. I tried reading the Lord of the Rings and found I could scratch my fantasy itch elsewhere. I even tolerated watching Star Trek with my Trekkie friends. Though for many years my entertainment dollar has rarely gone towards anything beyond RPGs and war games, I am still a fan at heart and hope that some day there is a franchise out there that I will find worthy of my time and my dollar.

Unfortunately, companies like WotC, Disney, WB, Paramount, etc. have all decided that I am toxic and whatever is the most recent flavor of -ist this week. I want Star Wars, Marvel, DC, and even Star Trek to be good; however, I don’t just think they won’t be anytime soon, I know they won’t be.

In the past, I have critiqued various movies and shows for abandoning the Divine in their story telling. God is the first storyteller. In the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Old Testament quoted by the writers of the New Testament and the oldest version of the OT we have today, the verb in the first sentence in Scripture (In the beginning God created) has the same root as poetry. This version of to create is only used when in association with God, and he creates (makes poetry) through speaking, “Let there be light.” Thus, just as all creation was doomed to decay and death by humanity turning its back on God, stories are doomed to meaningless drivel when the storyteller turns their back on the source of all stories.

While I still stand by this critique, there is another level of horrid storytelling that has been cropping up recently that I think needs to be addressed because it goes beyond turning its back on God and turns its back on the human person. Let me explain.

Reality can be broken up into two categories: the general and the particular. For example, I am using a computer in order to write this post. Some portion of those who are reading this post will also be using a computer to do so. While the term “computer” helpfully describes all of these devices, I am using a particular computer and the reader is using another particular computer. All computers = the general; my computer = the particular.

The crux of my critique depends on the fact the human beings always experience the particular and never experience the general. Whenever I encounter “computer” in my life, it is always a particular computer. The general “computer” is an immaterial concept that, although outside the particular experience of human beings, is nonetheless very real. The general allow us to make sense of the particular. Without the general, our empirical experience of the world would be a chaotic string of ever-changing data with no basis for interpretation or understanding.

From a Christian POV, this is how we experience and understand the Trinity. The general is God and the particular is the persons of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. It is why Christ became a human being — so that we can intimately know God in the particular.

The reason story telling in the present is so awful is that the characters that occupy our stories are the general instead of the particular. Let me illustrate this my favorite literary inspiration for the Thief class — Bilbo Baggins. In JRR Tolkien’s works, Bilbo Baggins is important because he is a particular hobbit with individual quirks, strengths, weaknesses, and interests that qualify him to be the burglar that Gandalf chooses for the purpose of recovering what was lost to the dragon Smaug. If The Hobbit were written by today’s crop of storytellers, Gandalf would have chosen Bilbo because he is a hobbit and no other reason.

Characters today are largely just a collection of general categories based on immutable characteristics. While I acknowledge the reality of bigotry in the world — there is no question that bigotry exists and affects people on a regular basis — none of us have ever experienced “white,” “black,” or whatever category is fashionable in the present moment. We have, however, experienced particular human persons that have these immutable characteristics.

Herein is the insidious nature of the kind of storytelling we see in today’s popular culture, and why it is so awful. Characters are no longer human persons. They are no longer unique, irreplaceable, and valuable individuals. Characters are merely categories. As individual persons, they have no value because they can be replaced by another character from the same general category.

This type of storytelling can only produce uninteresting and valueless stories because the individual characters that occupy these stories have no intrinsic value in their particularity. As consumers, it becomes increasingly difficult to care about these stories because there is no particular to encounter — these stories deny us the very basic human experience of the particular that is our reality.

This also explains why it is so easy to label fans who demand the particular as toxic and -ists of various flavors. We are denying and criticizing the immutable characteristic — the general category — of the character. Since there is no particular and only the general, we must therefore be toxic and -ist.

All of this dehumanizes everybody. History has shown again and again that when we dehumanize the other, nothing good follows.

Conceptually, Picard is the Best Star Trek Ever

Long time readers of this blog know that I am no real fan of Star Trek. So, it might surprise people to know that I think that Picard, the most recent entry into this long franchise, may conceptually be the best that has ever hit the screen.

Since its premiere, I have listened to fans of all stripes whinging about various aspects of the show. The two most prominent are the overt criticisms of Trump and Brexit (confirmed by actor Patrick Stewart) and the abandonment of Gene Roddenberry’s optimistic, utopian vision of humanity’s future. Ironically, I think both of these are actually the strengths of the show (although both are probably unintentional). This is why I hedge my praise of the show with the word “conceptually.”

Let me explain. Star Trek was always a humanist propaganda tool. It posited that if we could just adopt the right world view, humanity could overcome all of the basest instincts of human nature and stick a fork in the ideas and conflicts that have plagued humanity since we were self-aware. The problem I have with this is that it is wildly unrealistic. It fails to understand that those base instincts are baked in and that they will destroy every single human endeavor regardless of how noble it may be.

The Mosaic Law proved this reality long before humanism ever became a thing. The Law has no salvific value. Rather, it demonstrates that we are incapable of saving ourselves by strictly following any kind of law or order. We will always fall short and fail. The only hope we have of overcoming evil and sin is God.

So, when Picard tried going after Trump by painting the Federation as a xenophobic fascist state I actually was intrigued. While I think criticisms of Trump as a racist and a tyrant are misplaced, lazy, and get in the way of more constructive criticisms of the man and his policies, I don’t think they are misplaced when it comes to the realities of what the Federation would probably have to look like.

Humanity has tried imposing utopias before. They have always devolved into authoritarianism. As the OT points out, we are incapable of living up to any lofty standard demanded by a utopia. Thus, it requires an iron fist to make people toe the line even in the face of a reality that proves the absurdity of the utopia.

Thus, Picard, rather than being a criticism of current political events, becomes an internal criticism of Gene Roddenberry’s utopian vision. It transforms the entire canon from a naive but hopeful humanist vision of the future into propaganda films shoved down our throat from an authoritarian regime that wants us to buy the lie that it isn’t a xenophobic dictatorship.

Thus, all of the various inconsistencies with canon that cause cognitive dissonance within the mind of those used to the propaganda are fair game. For example: Romulus was never the massive empire we were led to believe. If it were, they would have had the technology and resources to save themselves without the intervention of the Federation. So Picard’s rescue mission reveals the lie.

I don’t know if this concept will hold true for the rest of the show, but conceptually I think this is the best thing to happen to Star Trek since it got a second pilot.

Review: Starships & Spacemen 2e

First of all, I would like to congratulate Dan Proctor for getting Starships & Spacemen 2e (S&S) out in a timely fashion. Of all the various Kickstarter and Indiegogo projects I have had the disposable cash to contribute to, Dan’s is the first to actually show up at my door.

S&S is a loving RPG tribute to Star Trek and all of the sci-fi imitators it spawned. If one has been a regular reader of my blog over the years, you might be surprised that I would spend money on something related to Star Trek. Admittedly, I do not much care for the franchise, especially in its most recent incarnation. As I have grown older and wiser, I have found the foundational principles of the Star Trek Universe to be dangerous, I have found myself deeply offended by episodes of TNG and I never really bothered with either DS9 or Voyager because of the lazy way they went about telling their own stories.

I did, however, grow up around Trekkies and remember with great fondness watching original episodes, the short-lived animated series and the first movies with those Trekkies. Though I never shared their enthusiasm, I did learn to appreciate why they had that enthusiasm. Thus, the idea of divorcing Star Trek from its foundational utopian illusions while capturing the enthusiasm that I grew to appreciate so much really appeals to me — especially when one considers that S&S is part of the Labyrinth Lord line of products with the built-in potential for a mash-up of Star Trek, Mutant Future and a D&D retro-clone.

My initial reaction when I did my first perusal of the rules was mixed. I laughed out loud with glee when I found out that there are rules for playing Red Shirts. That in and of itself makes the purchase of the game worth every penny and I truly hope that I get the opportunity to take full advantage of those rules some day.

However, Dan’s claim that S&S is “fully compatible” with LL is a bit of a stretch. For example, combat uses a mechanic where the goal is to roll below the target number. I assume that this is an homage to S&S’s Fantasy Games Unlimited roots (Villains and Vigilantes uses the same mechanic), but it does necessitate a bit of conversion if that Star Trek/Mutant Future/D&D retro-clone mash-up is to happen anytime soon. I will grant that the conversion is relatively simple, because the percentages of each system is basically the same; however, since every monster in the monster section assumes the roll-low mechanic, such a conversion will take some time upfront in order to reproduce the Armor Class of all those cool new monsters.

Here are some of my thoughts after a more thorough reading of the game:

Characters

Character creation will be very familiar to those who have ever played D&D; however Wisdom has been replaced by Psionic Potential. There is a very cool universal table of bonuses that has four columns. Each column is used in different contexts as detailed with each ability.

When determining a class, characters choose from one of three branches — Military, Scientific, or Technical. Each of these branches has sub-classes (for example, Military has Command, Security and Fire Control subclasses). These sub-classes will offer a secondary skill (more on that later) or other mechanical bonuses. If one eschews a sub-class, the character receives an experience point bonus. One can also choose between being a CO or an NCO. The CO track requires more experience points to advance and has more mechanical bonuses while the NCO track requires less experience for advancement and allows players the joy of being a Red Shirt.

Over-all I think this is a rather clever way of dealing with classes and is a loving homage to Star Trek and its ilk. The one draw-back is that one player in every group has to take the Commander sub-class. The upside is that every party gets to command its own ship regardless of level.

Races

There are eight different races available: Adromedans, Daelans, Dreipeds, Gorrans, Humans, Hykhot, Rigel and Taurans. There are plenty of homages to Star Trek races plus a few extra with built-in racial and political baggage with each in addition to all the various mechanical bonuses one receives. One of the nicest touches is that each race has one of three Metabolisms which determine body chemistry and therefore susceptibility to various diseases etc.

Equipment

Since this is based on Star Trek, which laughably got rid of a money-based economic system, equipment is not based upon how much money a character has, but rather by their branch and rank. In addition, there is an optional rule where a party can have a stash of extra equipment that can be traded out depending upon the needs of a mission.

While I don’t think the origin of this system is very realistic, I do like its elegance and could see it easily justified within the context of a military organization regardless of genre. This is certainly one of the modular rules that I would like to experiment with in other frameworks.

Skill System

As seems inescapable with modern or sci-fi RPGs there is a nascent skill system. It is broken down into three types: Primary, Secondary and Other. Depending on the level of the character each skill type has a target number. Primary starts out at 60%, Secondary at 45% and Other at 30%. If one considers that Combat is one of these skills, that means that Military Branch characters are twice as effective in combat than other Branches. In comparison to LL classes, Military Branch characters are slightly more effective in combat than Fighters overall, but every fantasy class is going to be a better combatant than either a Technical or Science Branch character.

Despite my normal reticence about skill systems, there are two things that I like about this one. Firstly, it is wide-open enough that one could easily see both of the following scenarios play out in the same game session:

Player: Since an object in motion wants to stay in motion, if we apply that to our current situation we should get the outcome we want. Star Master (the S&S version of a GM): Sure. Done.

Player: Captain, if we redirect the shield capacitor to reverse the current in the thrust of the nacelle unit, we should be able to force the door open! Star Master: Okay. Roll versus your science skill (with a bonus if said phrase of technical jargon was performed in a passable Scottish accent).

Secondly, this has potential further applications in other contexts. For example, if one wanted to create a non-Vancian magic system for a fantasy world, this is a potential model for how to proceed. Various classes would combine different skills-groups including combat, divine magic, arcane magic and other non-combat skills. The success or failure of a particular spell would be based upon these skill tables and could be modified by the difficulty of the spell, the number of people trying to cast the spell, the place where the spell is being cast, etc. This is another modular section of this game that I will want to experiment with.

Starship Combat

One of the most frustrating aspects of any sci-fi RPG for me is spaceship combat. There is inevitably one class that is significantly better at it than anyone else, which makes things frustrating for anyone who is not a member of that class. If the party is on one ship (as in S&S) there inevitably won’t be much for everyone to do, since the unit of combat is not the individual character, but the ship. There is also the real possibility of a TPK if said ship is destroyed. This can be made much worse when there is the possibility that there will be players who had no way to control or influence the outcome.

S&S tries to mitigate these failings in two ways. Firstly, all ship actions require Energy Units (EUs). EUs also determine when a ship is destroyed. Thus, combat requires that each ship decide how and when EUs are allocated. This gives an opportunity for every member of a party to have a say in the outcome of a battle. Secondly, starship commanders are required by military doctrine to flee combat when their EU count reaches 25%, and there is a mechanic that allows for this retreat. Thus, the chances of the TPK due to the destruction of the party’s ship is minimized (though not eliminated).

Overall, I must say I like this section of the game. It has a nice tip of the hat to Starfleet Battles without all the complication. It also has all the elegance needed to be a potentially fast and exciting part of the game.

World Creation

This is perhaps the weakest part of the whole book. Dan understandably (and correctly) assumes that most sci-fi games actually suffer from having a pre-generated setting. It often consumes the game and makes the task of the GM too daunting to even try (later versions of Traveller are an excellent example of this). Unfortunately, the reverse is also true. Creating an entire sector of space from scratch is also a daunting task — much more so than a small wilderness map on which is a town and a dungeon.

Although Dan provides an example sector map and a sample adventure there is little else in terms of guidance with which to create your own maps and adventures. Thus, S&S does little to inspire confidence in overcoming such a daunting task.

Perhaps S&S suffers from a comparison with Stars Without Number (SWN) which has an absolutely fantastic system for creating not only entire sectors of space with awesome descriptors which inspire adventure after adventure, but has rules for factions that might exist within that sector of space. Fortunately, SWN has a free version, so it is very possible to simply use SWN’s sector creation system for use in an S&S campaign.

Final Thoughts

I am not 100% satisfied with S&S. As a stand-alone product it does a very good job of emulating a Star Trek-type sci-fi game. While the lack of a world generator is annoying it is far from crippling. I am not a big fan of the roll low mechanic (it is one of the few things that I don’t like about V&V). I don’t know why, but the aesthetics of rolling high just appeal to me more.

The strength of S&S, however, is not as a stand-alone product. Rather, it is another set of modular options within the Labyrinth Lord line of products. The reason that LL remains my favorite of all the various retro-clones out there is that it is designed to be modular. We are free to pick and choose various sections of rules from each of these products to make our own unique home brew without having to house rule. Want a 0e-style elf? You got it. Want mutant plant PCs? You got it. Want an extensive AD&D-like spell list? You got it. Now, with the addition of S&S you have the option of space combat, alien PCs, a robust system for running a military-type campaign and some intriguing possibilities for a simple skill system and a non-Vancian magic system.

Ultimately, it is this modularity that makes S&S such a good product and one that I am very happy to have in my library.

Thoughts on Sci-Fi RPGs Part 2

The only long term sci fi campaign I was ever involved with was a Star Wars (d6) campaign. I've played a lot of Traveller over the years, but my friends and I were more enamored with the mini-game that is character creation in CT than we were in the game itself. I've also played a lot of other sci fi games, none of which had the kind of pull that Star Wars did.

I must admit that one of the reasons that the campaign was so successful is the way it was run. The party had ties to the rebellion, and as a pseudo-military unit were sent on various missions. In the hands of a good Referee and willing players, this set-up can work very well; however, I also believe that the source material played large in the longevity of the campaign.

Firstly (and most importantly, in my opinion) religion is an integral and even central part of the Star Wars universe. As a Christian, I have some serious qualms about what George Lucas calls religion, but Star Wars cannot be Star Wars without the Force. This is a far cry from most science fiction (like Star Trek).

Secondly, Star Wars has more in common with fantasy literature than it does with sci fi. The characters are archetypes found in fantasy dressed up for space travel. The hero wields a sword and rescues a princess. We hear Obi Wan referred to as an old wizard. I could go on. In addition, just as fantasy normally does, Lucas borrowed heavily from mythology. He took very basic mythological and cultural themes, figures and tropes and recast them for a space opera. Thus, like fantasy, the Star Wars universe feels very comfortable.

Lastly, there is also one very important factor that I don't think many appreciate. Due to the geographic simplicity of the Star Wars universe, it lends itself to the fantasy sandbox style of play much more easily than Traveller or dozens of other sci fi games I've played over the years.

Let me explain. Tatooine is a desert planet. Yavin is a forest moon. Hoth is an ice planet, etc. These are akin to hexes on a hex map, where each hex indicates a different kind of terrain. When one needs to have a more detailed map of a particular section of said hex, it is easily done, but for the most part all one really needs to know is desert, forest, ice, etc. This might not seem very important, but I believe it is. Compared with the level of detail required of even the simple and abstract system used by Traveller to describe worlds, the scheme used by Star Wars makes universe creation no harder than creating a hex map for a fantasy campaign. In contrast, even in its relative simplicity, Traveller is rather quite intimidating. I firmly believe that one of the reasons my friends and I never got beyond an entertaining number of one-offs in Traveller is the fact that none of us had the confidence to pull a multi-world campaign off.

In other words, the more a science fiction RPG has in common with fantasy, the more playable it becomes.

Thoughts on Sci-Fi RPGs Part 1

Like James over at Grognardia, I have recently been meditating on science fiction, especially about the question James posed a couple weeks ago:

why do you think science fiction is a lot less broadly appealing than fantasy as a genre for roleplaying games? Is it something inherent to the subject matter or is it simply a matter of presentation? That is, has there been some flaw in previous SF RPGs that have limited their appeal, a flaw that could possibly be fixed?

For most of my life I have been a science fiction fan, not necessarily a fantasy fan. Whereas I couldn't stand reading Tolkien, I devoured Asimov. My best friend growing up came from a house-hold of trekkies. Star Wars plays very large in my development as a person. Whereas I never played out of the LBBs, I did play Traveller from those wonderful little black books. Finally, as I've mentioned before, I've been as much, if not more, of a war gamer than a role player and many of the war games I have played over the years found their inspiration in sci fi.

There is a big however here, though. As I've grown older, wiser and have come to accept my faith as central in my life, science fiction, as a whole, has become a place I no longer feel welcome. This is largely due to a prevailing assumption that Christianity somehow cannot survive or defend itself against the assault of a scientific world view. This a false premise. Science cannot and does not ask or answer the same kinds of questions that religion (especially Christianity) does. If you are asking those religious questions and trying to answer them with science, you have left science and entered into the pseudo-religion of scientism which is not science. Most current sci fi that I have tried to enjoy seem to go out of their way to go down this path. It reminds me of why I was never, or am ever going to follow in the footsteps of my childhood friend's trekkie family.

Take a look at the Prime Directive as defined in the Star Trek episode Bread and Circuses:

No identification of self or mission. No interference with the social development of said planet. No references to space or the fact that there are other worlds or civilizations.

Please note how antithetical it is to the Great Commandment:

Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age. Amen. — Matthew 28:19-20

The underlying implication in the Prime Directive is that the basic assumption and world-view of Christianity is not only wrong, but destructive. Now, I realize that this is not necessarily something a lot of folks out there will have a problem with, but it does speak to the question at hand.

Fantasy works extremely well for the purposes of an RPG because it is a cultural pastiche. Regardless of how alien a setting might be, there is always something familiar that players can relate to. One of the most important realities of human history is religion. There hasn't ever been a human civilization that did not have religion as part of its make-up (though we did see the disastrous attempts of wiping religion out in the horror show that was the 20th century). Even D&D acknowledges this with the inclusion of the Cleric class (with a clear nod to Christianity in OD&D, no less.)

Star Trek rejects this reality, and is representative of a lot of science fiction today. In fact, Star Trek rejects most of human history — as can be seen over and over again by the embarrassment the shows have for the way we have behaved in the past (and even the outright rejection of its own history).

In other words, science fiction has a tendency to ignore, try to move beyond or outright reject the cultural pastiche that makes fantasy RPGs so accessible.

Eradicating the Past

I saw Star Trek (2009) for the first time last night. This in and of itself demonstrates two things about me: 1) I have three young children and don't have the time or wherewithal to see movies in the movie theatre anymore 2) I found out a long time ago that being the first on my block to experience something "new" does not actually make the experience any better, it just usually costs more money. Therefore I am perfectly willing to wait until the DVD release (and take advantage of the pause button and subtitles).

Right off the bat I must say that I enjoyed watching the movie. It is a nice action flick that did a good job of making me suspend my disbelief about a bunch of things that are impossible and/or make no rational sense, had enough of a plot to entertain for a couple hours and was filled with some well executed eye candy. However, I cannot by any stretch of the imagination say that I liked it. In fact not only do I like this movie less the more I contemplate it, the more disturbing I find it.

I have spent much of my life studying history, both formally and privately. This is reflected in my long and steady participation in war gaming and rpgs. Although, as a Christian, there is much to criticize about Rodenberry's utopian vision of the future, I have to respect the loving manner in which this franchise has treated its own history. The best of all the Star Trek movies by a fair margin — Wrath of Khan — is an example of Star Trek paying homage to its own past.

Star Trek (2009) attempts to move forward from this grand tradition by eradicating virtually everything that has occurred in the Star Trek universe over the last 4+ decades in order to re-boot the franchise. They splinter the time line in the first minutes of the movie and never repair the damage. Everything that we ever knew about Star Trek is gone. I disagree with those that say this is an "alternate timeline." The elder Spock came from the Star Trek universe we all know. In order for him to exist in this "alternate" version, the original had to be destroyed. There have been plenty of times that Star Trek has played with time, but has always managed to correct itself within the course of a movie or an episode. This movie, however, deliberately refused to do that.

At the core of this particular decision is an attitude that says, "In order to move forward, we must (to a lesser or greater degree) eradicate the past." As an historian, I find this repugnant. My formal education concentrated upon those societies that lived through such an attitude at the socio-political level. The human damage is stomach wrenching and far-reaching. I know many who still have literal and emotional scars, including members of my own family.

This got me to thinking about the OSR. One of the questions raised in the wake of D&D IV is: how far does a game need to remove itself from its past to stop being that game? To frame this question in terms of Star Trek (2009): has D&D IV tried to go forward by eradicating the past? One of the things that I truly love about the OSR is that it is steeped in history. Even when we take the hobby into uncharted territory, we lovingly acknowledge the roots of the game. We pay homage to what has come before. In my humble opinion, the result is a richer experience and a better game.