#But its not by far the greatest determination of the quality of your roleplay

[heartlessconviction]

No... Literate RP is not strictly about length. Why do Muns make it out to be?

One thing that boggles my mind is when somebody states they are a literate Roleplayer, only to be proven otherwise as for some bizarre reason, many Muns assume Literate refers to how much you write, not the quality of the writing. Whilst length is one aspect which determines whether you fit into that category, it is by far the least important factor. Anybody with time can type up a lengthy post and call it a day, however that doesn't mean the quality of the writing will be there or the fact if its actually readable. Literate by its defining core is to simply have the capability to read and write. When Literate RP is used, generally what Muns should be referring to are a combination of the following factors: 1. The quality of your writing and characterization. This is by far the most important aspect when it comes to Literate Roleplay, what Muns are generally looking for are those who are able to describe in an efficient and immersive manner. The key aspect of this would be detail. Detail of the world that surrounds the plot, how your character moves in action and how that interacts with the world itself, what are they wearing? How does the enviorment interact with such, for example if its raining are they getting wet? Or are they wearing a coat?  If so does the wind cause the sleeves and fabric to sway etc. There are many factors that you need to consider when you are writing in an RP setting, all of these to some may appear to be un-needed details that just increase the length of the post through arbitrary means. However even the finer details can help paint/refine an immersive world, you are telling a story at the end of the day when you RP. You want your partner to be immersed within it, so they can build on top of the foundation and in that same vein challenge you in many different areas that you may not feel entirely confident in. Different Genres, different styles of RP etc. When it pertains to Characterization, is it accurate? If you are portraying a character from an anime and you are not canon divergent, is your portrayal on point? Does it sound/read like the character in question when it pertains to speech mannerisms, actions and personalities? If so you have succeeded. I see time and time again on other platforms that some Muns aren’t canon divergent, yet when they RP its as if they are portraying themselves not the muse. Having your own style and personality in your writing is awesome and is the breeding ground into making everybody unique and having their own style, this can still be upheld and maintained whilst properly conveying the characters well character.  2. Your application of punctuation. The second most important factor which will also play into length, is your ability to use punctuation effectively. Whether it is used to properly convey a characters thoughts and actions (With these Symbols> * or -   Or what a lot of us do now and not use either of those, if you go this route use quotations to clearly show where the action ends and the dialogue begins. ). Plus proper use of quotations to indicate when they are speaking. To the simpler aspects of ending a sentence. If your character is screaming or asking a question you use the right punctuation marks to properly convey this, and for the love of god the Commas. I'll be completely transparent when I say this, if I'm rping with somebody and they don't use a Comma. I'm not even going to read it. Your goal within an RP is to have fun, this goes both ways. If I have to translate the fucking Elder Scrolls to determine what you are saying for me to properly form a response, that is not fun. Commas go a long way in this regard, they are essentially your air. When you see a Comma whilst reading, you have a minute to breathe as it pauses and breaks up the sentence, how we are in 2020 and people still don't use Commas when they state they are a Literate RPer I will never know. Commas are essential and are straight forward in application. When they are used in the correct manner they greatly improve the quality of your Roleplay, especially when the presentation is involved. Just use Commas please... Also when it comes to Presentation this is your time to enable your personality to shine through, whether you use italics, bold, smaller fonts or a different style of font entirely. Make it your own and be creative! If you want to add small images which also give the reader greater clarity into the emotion of your muse do so!  Lets talk about Synonyms... As they are yet another great method of improving the structure of your writing and the presentation in some respects. Synonyms are basically words that are different but have either identical or near identical meanings. A common trap a lot of writers fall into when they RP especially if they are describing something in a detail heavy response, is that they use the same descriptive word for every part of their response. Making the structure of their writing appear extremely repetitive as you read on, if you are applying heavy detail into your writing use Synonyms to keep the overall structure of your post fresh whilst still providing you the length and freedom to truly add immersive levels of detail into your responses. ^ This is a trap I still fall into from time to time, when it pertains to the overuse of “However”. Acknowledging that flaw rather than ignoring it entirely is key to improve at the end of the day. The final point in this section would be the correct usage of Homonyms. “Their” is a good example. Their and There are not the same thing, so when somebody uses the wrong spelling which means something entirely different to the one they were thinking of. It can create all kinds of confusion and overall it just makes your writing seem messy. Spelling and Grammatical errors are always forgiven if the rest of your writing is near spot on, but if your RP is riddled with these traits, that is when it becomes a concern that needs addressing. 3. The Length We've finally got to the meat of it, truth be told people have such an obsession with the Length of an RP. Whilst I believe you should be striving for at least one or two Paragraphs per response {IF YOU RP WITHIN THE LITERATE SUB-GENRE LET ME STRESS THIS!}, naturally the quality of your writing is much more important than the quantity of such. Again I have to stress this, having 1 paragraph taking the other factors into consideration and applying them correctly. Has a much greater impact on the quality of your writing, making it far better to read and to participate with over those who write over 5 Paragraphs that are riddled with Spelling errors, Grammatical errors, misuse of Homonyms, Punctuation etc.  These other aspects are far more important than the length of your Roleplay and are the areas you truly should be focusing on, if you want to improve your writing. When somebody prefers Literate Roleplay they are by no means asking you to write a novel. They just want a good piece to read with great characterization, immersive detail and actually being able to read the damn thing without whipping out Google Translate.

[grigori77]

Movies of 2020 - My Pre-Summer Favourites (Part 2)

The Top Ten:

10.  TRUE HISTORY OF THE KELLY GANG – Justin Kurzel has been on my directors-to-watch list for a while now, each of his offerings impressing me more than the last (his home-grown Aussie debut, Snowtown, was a low key wallow in Outback nastiness, while his follow up, Macbeth, quickly became one of my favourite Shakespeare flicks, and I seem to be one of the frustrated few who actually genuinely loved his adaptation of Assassin’s Creed, considering it to be one the very best video game movies out there), and his latest is no exception – returning to his native Australia, he’s brought his trademark punky grit and fever-dream edginess to bear in his quest to bring his country’s most famous outlaw to the big screen in a biopic truly worthy of his name. Two actors bring infamous 19th Century bushranger Ned Kelly to life here, and they’re both exceptional – the earlier half of the film sees newcomer Orlando Schwerdt explode onto the screen as the child Ned, all righteous indignation and fiery stubbornness as he rails against the positions his family’s poverty continues to put him in, then George MacKay (Sunshine On Leith, Captain Fantastic) delivers the best performance of his career in the second half, a barely restrained beast as Ned grown, his mercurial turn bringing the man’s inherent unpredictability to the fore.  The Babadook’s Essie Davis, meanwhile, frequently steals the film from under both of them as Ellen, the fearsome matriarch of the Kelly clan, and Nicholas Hoult is similarly impressive as Constable Fitzpatrick, Ned’s slimily duplicitous friend/nemesis, while there are quality supporting turns from Charlie Hunnam and Russell Crowe as two of the most important men of Ned’s formative years.  In Kurzel’s hands, this account of Australia’s greatest true-life crime saga becomes one of the ultimate marmite movies – its glacial pace, grubby intensity and frequent brutality will turn some viewers off, but fans of more “alternative” cinema will find much to enjoy here.  There’s a blasted beauty to its imagery (this is BY FAR the bleakest the Outback’s ever looked on film), while the screenplay from relative unknown Shaun Grant (adapting Peter Carey’s bestselling novel) is STRONG, delivering rich character development and sublime dialogue, and Kurzel delivers some brilliantly offbeat and inventive action beats in the latter half that are well worth the wait.  Evocative, intense and undeniable, this has just the kind of irreverent punk aesthetic that I’m sure the real life Ned Kelly would have approved of …

9.  JUST MERCY – more true-life cinema, this time presenting an altogether classier account of two idealists’ struggle to overturn horrific racial injustices in Alabama. Writer-director Destin Daniel Cretton (Short Term 12, The Glass Castle) brings heart, passion and honest nobility to the story of fresh-faced young lawyer Bryan Stevenson (Michael B. Jordan) and his personal crusade to free Walter “Johnny D” McMillan (Jamie Foxx), an African-American man wrongfully sentenced to death for the murder of a white woman.  His only ally is altruistic young paralegal Eva Ansley (Cretton’s regular screen muse Brie Larson), while the opposition arrayed against them is MAMMOTH – not only do they face the cruelly racist might of the Alabama legal system circa 1989, but a corrupt local police force determined to circumvent his efforts at every turn and a thoroughly disinterested prosecutor, Tommy Chapman (Rafe Spall), who’s far too concerned with his own personal political ambitions to be any help.  The cast are uniformly excellent, Jordan and Foxx particularly impressing with career best performances that sear themselves deep into the memory, while there’s a truly harrowing supporting turn from Rob Morgan as Johnny D’s fellow Death Row inmate Herbert, whose own execution date is fast approaching.  This is courtroom drama at its most gripping, Cretton keeping the inherent tension cranked up tight while tugging hard on our heartstrings for maximum effect, and the result is a timely, racially-charged throat-lumper of considerable power and emotional heft that guarantees there won’t be a single dry eye in the house by the time the credits roll.  Further proof, then, that Destin Daniel Cretton is one of those rare talents of his generation – next up is his tour of duty in the MCU with Shang-Chi & the Legend of the Ten Rings, and if this seems like a strange leftfield turn given his previous track record, I nevertheless have the utmost confidence in him after seeing this …

8.  UNDERWATER – at first glance, this probably seems like a strange choice for the year’s current Top Ten – a much-maligned, commercially underperforming glorified B-movie creature-feature headlined by the former star of the Twilight franchise, there’s no way that could be any good, surely?  Well hold your horses, folks, because not only is this very much worth your time and a comprehensive suspension of your low expectations, but I can’t even consider this a guilty pleasure – as far as I’m concerned this is a GENUINELY GREAT FILM, without reservation.  The man behind the camera is William Eubank, a director whose career I’ve been following with great interest since his feature debut Love (a decidedly oddball but strangely beautiful little space movie) and its more high profile but still unapologetically INDIE follow-up The Signal, and this is the one where he finally delivers wholeheartedly on all that wonderful sci-fi potential.  The plot is deceptively simple – an industrial conglomerate has established an instillation drilling right down to the very bottom of the Marianas Trench, the deepest point in our Earth’s oceans, only for an unknown disaster to leave six survivors from the operation’s permanent crew stranded miles below the surface with very few escape options left – but Eubank and writers Brian Duffield (Jane Got a Gun, Insurgent) and Adam Cozad (The Legend of Tarzan) wring all the possible suspense and fraught, claustrophobic terror out of the premise to deliver a piano wire-tense horror thriller that grips from its sudden start to a wonderfully cathartic climax.  The small but potent cast are all on top form, Vincent Cassel, Jessica Henwick (Netflix’ Iron Fist) and John Gallagher Jr. (Hush, 10 Cloverfield Lane) particularly impressing, and even the decidedly hit-and-miss T.J. Miller delivers a surprisingly likeable turn here, but it’s that Twilight alumnus who REALLY sticks in your memory here – Kristen Stewart’s been doing a pretty good job lately distancing herself from the role that, unfortunately, both made her name and turned her into an object of (rather unfair) derision for many years, but in my opinion THIS is the performance that REALLY separates her from Bella effing-Swan.  Mechanical engineer Norah Price is tough, ingenious and fiercely determined, but with the right amount of vulnerability that we really root for her, and Stewart acts her little heart out in a turn sure to win over her strongest detractors. The creature effects are impressive too, the ultimate threat proving some of the nastiest, most repulsively icky creations I’ve seen committed to film, and the inspired design work and strong visual effects easily belie the film’s B-movie leanings.  Those made uneasy by deep, dark open water or tight, enclosed spaces should take heed that this can be a tough watch, but anyone who likes being scared should find plenty to enjoy here.  Altogether a MUCH better film than its mediocre Rotten Tomatoes rating makes it out to be …

7.  ONWARD – Disney and Pixar’s latest digitally animated family feature clearly has a love of tabletop fantasy roleplay games like Dungeons & Dragons, its quirky modern-day AU take populated by fantastical races and creatures seemingly tailor-made for the geek crowd … needless to say, me and many of my friends absolutely loved it. That doesn’t mean that the classic Disney ideals of love, family and believing in yourself have been sidelined in favour of fan-service – this is as heartfelt, affecting and tearful as their previous standouts, albeit with plenty of literal magic added to the metaphorical kind.  The central premise is a clever one – once upon a time, magic was commonplace, but over the years technology came along to make life easier, so that in the present day the various races (elves, centaurs, fauns, pixies, goblins and trolls among others) get along fine without it.  Then timid elf Ian Lightfoot (Tom Holland) receives a wizard’s staff for his sixteenth birthday, a bequeathed gift from his father, who died before he was born, with instructions for a spell that could bring him back to life for one whole day.  Encouraged by his brash, over-confident wannabe adventurer elder brother Barley (Chris Pratt), Ian tries it out, only for the spell to backfire, leaving them with the animated bottom half of their father and just 24 hours to find a means to restore the rest of him before time runs out.  Cue an “epic quest” … needless to say, this is another top-notch offering from the original masters of the craft, a fun, affecting and thoroughly infectious family-friendly romp with a winning sense of humour and inspired, flawless world-building.  Holland and Pratt are both fantastic, their odd-couple chemistry effortlessly driving the story through its ingenious paces, and the ensuing emotional fireworks are hilarious and heartbreaking in equal measure, while there’s typically excellent support from Julia Louis-Dreyfus (Elaine from Seinfeld) as Ian and Barley’s put-upon but supportive mum, Laurel, Octavia Spencer as once-mighty adventurer-turned-restaurateur “Corey” the Manticore and Mel Rodriguez (Getting On, The Last Man On Earth) as overbearing centaur cop (and Laurel’s new boyfriend) Colt Bronco.  The film marks the sophomore feature gig for Dan Scanlon, who debuted with 2013’s sequel Monsters University, and while that was enjoyable enough I ultimately found it non-essential – no such verdict can be levelled against THIS film, the writer-director delivering magnificently in all categories, while the animation team have outdone themselves in every scene, from the exquisite world-building and character/creature designs to some fantastic (and frequently delightfully bonkers) set-pieces, while there’s a veritable riot of brilliant RPG in-jokes to delight geekier viewers (gelatinous cube! XD).  Massive, unadulterated fun, frequently hilarious and absolutely BURSTING with Disney’s trademark heart, this is currently (and deservedly) my animated feature of the year.  It’s certainly gonna be a tough one to beat …

6.  THE GENTLEMEN – Guy Ritchie’s been having a rough time with his last few movies (The Man From UNCLE didn’t do too bad but it wasn’t exactly a hit and was largely overlooked or simply ignored critically, while intended franchise-starter King Arthur: Legend of the Sword was largely derided and suffered badly on release, dying a quick death financially – it’s a shame on both counts, because I really liked them), so it’s nice to see him having some proper success with his latest, even if he has basically reverted to type to do it.  Still, when his newest London gangster flick is THIS GOOD it seems churlish to quibble – this really is what he does best, bringing together a collection of colourful geezers and shaking up their status quo, then standing back and letting us enjoy the bloody, expletive-riddled results. This particularly motley crew is another winning selection, led by Matthew McConaughey as ruthlessly successful cannabis baron Mickey Pearson, who’s looking to retire from the game by selling off his massive and highly lucrative enterprise for a most tidy sum (some $400,000,000 to be precise) to up-and-coming fellow American ex-pat Matthew Berger (Succession’s Jeremy Strong, oozing sleazy charm), only for local Chinese triad Dry Eye (Crazy Rich Asians’ Henry Golding, chewing the scenery with enthusiasm) to start throwing spanners into the works with the intention of nabbing the deal for himself for a significant discount.  Needless to say Mickey’s not about to let that happen … McConaughey is ON FIRE here, the best he’s been since Dallas Buyers Club in my opinion, clearly having great fun sinking his teeth into this rich character and Ritchie’s typically sparkling, razor-witted dialogue, and he’s ably supported by a uniformly excellent ensemble cast, particularly co-star Charlie Hunnam as Mickey’s ice-cold, steel-nerved right-hand-man Raymond Smith, Downton Abbey’s Michelle Dockery as his classy, strong-willed wife Rosalind, Colin Farrell as a wise-cracking, quietly exasperated MMA trainer and small-time hood simply known as the Coach (who gets many of the film’s best lines), and, most notably, Hugh Grant as the film’s nominal narrator, thoroughly morally bankrupt private investigator Fletcher, who consistently steals the film.  This is Guy Ritchie at his very best – a twisty rug-puller of a plot that constantly leaves you guessing, brilliantly observed and richly drawn characters you can’t help loving in spite of the fact there’s not a single hero among them, a deliciously unapologetic, politically incorrect sense of humour and a killer soundtrack.  It got the cinematic year off to a cracking start, and looks set to stay high in the running for the remainder – it’s EASILY Ritchie’s best film since Sherlock Holmes, and a strong call-back to the heady days of Snatch (STILL my favourite) and Lock, Stock & Two Smoking Barrels.  Here’s hoping he’s on a roll again, eh?

5.  THE INVISIBLE MAN – looks like third time’s a charm for Leigh Whannell, writer-director of my current horror movie of the year – while he’s had immense success as a horror writer over the years (co-creator of both the Saw and Insidious franchises), as a director his first two features haven’t exactly set the world alight, with debut Insidious: Chapter III garnering similar takes to the rest of the series but ultimately turning out to be a bit of a damp squib quality-wise, while his second feature Upgrade was a stone-cold masterpiece that was (rightly) EXTREMELY well received critically, but ultimately snuck in under the radar and has remained a stubbornly hidden gem since.  No such problems with his third feature, though – his latest collaboration with producer Jason Blum and his insanely lucrative Blumhouse Pictures has proven a massive hit both financially AND with reviewers, and deservedly so.  Having given up on trying to create a shared cinematic universe inhabited by their classic monsters, Universal have resolved to concentrate on standalones to showcase their elite properties, and their first try is a rousing success, Whannell bringing HG Wells’ dark and devious human monster smack into the 21st Century as only he can.  The result is a surprisingly subtle piece of work, much more a lethally precise exercise in cinematic sleight of hand and extraordinary acting than flashy visual effects, very much adhering to the Blumhouse credo of maximum returns for minimum bucks as the story is stripped right back to its bare essentials and allowed to play out without any unnecessary weight.  The Handmaid’s Tale’s Elizabeth Moss once again confirms what a masterful actress she is as she brings all her performing weapons to bear in the role of Cecelia “Cee” Kass, the cloistered wife of affluent but monstrously abusive optics pioneer Aidan Griffin (Netflix’ The Haunting of Hill House’s Oliver Jackson-Cohen), who escapes his clutches in the furiously tense opening sequence and goes to ground with the help of her closest childhood friend, San Francisco cop James Lanier (Leverage’s Aldis Hodge) and his teenage daughter Sydney (A Wrinkle in Time’s Storm Reid).  Two weeks later, Aidan commits suicide, leaving Cee with a fortune to start her life over (with the proviso that she’s never ruled mentally incompetent), but as she tries to find her way in the world again little things start going wrong for her, and she begins to question if there might be something insidious going on.  As her nerves start to unravel, she begins to suspect that Aidan is still alive, still very much in her life, fiendishly toying with her and her friends, but no-one can see him.  Whannell plays her paranoia up for all it’s worth, skilfully teasing out the scares so that, just like her friends, we begin to wonder if it might all in her head after all, before a spectacular mid-movie reveal throws the switch into high gear and the true threat becomes clear.  The lion’s share of the film’s immense success must of course go to Moss – her performance is BEYOND a revelation, a truly blistering career best turn that totally powers the whole enterprise, and it almost goes without saying that she’s the best thing in this.  Even so, she has sterling support from Hodge and Reid, as well as Love Child’s Harriet Dyer as Cee’s estranged big sister Emily and Wonderland’s Michael Dorman as Adrian’s slimy, spineless lawyer brother Tom, and, while he doesn’t have much actual (ahem) “screen time”, Jackson-Cohen delivers a fantastically icy, subtly malevolent turn which casts a large “shadow” over the film.  This is one of my very favourite Blumhouse films, a pitch-perfect psychological chiller that keeps the tension cranked up unbearably tight and never lets go, Whannell once again displaying uncanny skill with expert jump-scares, knuckle-whitening chills and a truly astounding standout set-piece that looks set to go down as one of the year’s top action sequences.  Undoubtedly the best version of Wells’ story to date, this goes a long way in repairing the damage of Universal’s abortive “Dark Universe” efforts, as well as showcasing a filmmaking master at the very height of his talents.

4.  EXTRACTION – the Coronavirus certainly has thrown a massive spanner in the works of this year’s cinematic calendar – the new A Quiet Place sequel should have been setting the big screen alight for almost two months now, while the latest (and most long-awaited) MCU movie, Black Widow, should have just opened to further record-breaking box office success, but instead the theatres are all closed and virtually all the big blockbusters have been pushed back or shelved indefinitely. Thank God, then, for the streaming services, particularly Hulu, Amazon and Netflix, the latter of which provided a perfect movie for us to see through the key transition from spring to the summer blockbuster season, an explosively flashy big budget action thriller ushered in by MCU alumni the Russo Brothers (who produced and co-wrote this adaptation of Ciudad, a graphic novel that Joe Russo co-created with Ande Parks and Fernando Leon Gonzalez) and barely able to contain the sheer star-power wattage of its lead, Thor himself.  Chris Hemsworth plays Tyler Rake, a former Australian SAS operative who hires out his services to an extraction operation, under the command of mercenary Nik Khan (The Patience Stone’s Golshifteh Farahani), brought in to liberate Ovi Mahajan (Rudhraksh Jaiswal in his first major role), the pre-teen son of incarcerated Indian crime lord Ovi Sr. (Pankaj Tripathi), who has been abducted by Bangladeshi rival Amir Asif (Priyanshu Painyuli).  The rescue itself goes perfectly, but when the time comes for the hand-off the team is double-crossed and Tyler is left stranded in the middle of Dhaka with no choice but to keep Ovi alive as every corrupt cop and street gang in the city closes in around them.  This is the feature debut of Sam Hargrave, the latest stuntman to try his hand at directing, so he certainly knows his way around an action sequence, and the result is a thoroughly breathless adrenaline rush of a film, bursting at the seams with spectacular fights, gun battles and car chases, dominated by a stunning sustained action sequence that plays out in one long shot, guaranteed to leave jaws lying on the floor.  Not that there should be any surprise – Hargrave cut his teeth as a stunt coordinator for the Russos on Captain America: Civil War and their Avengers films.  That said, he displays strong talent for the quieter disciplines of filmmaking too, delivering quality character development and drawing out consistently noteworthy performances from his cast.  Of course, Hemsworth can do the action stuff in his sleep, but there’s a lot more to Tyler than just his muscle, the MCU veteran investing him with real wounded vulnerability and a tragic fatalism which colours his every scene, while Jaiswal is exceptional throughout, showing plenty of promise for the future, and there’s strong support from Farahani and Painyuli, as well as Stranger Things’s David Harbour as world-weary retired merc Gaspard, and a particularly impressive, muscular turn from Randeep Hooda (Once Upon a Time in Mumbai) as Saju, a former Para and Ovi’s bodyguard, who’s determined to take possession of the boy himself, even if he has to go through Tyler to get him.  This is action cinema that really deserves to be seen on the big screen – I watched it twice in a week and would happily have paid for two trips to the cinema for it if I could have.  As we look down the barrel of a summer season largely devoid of big blockbuster fare, I can’t recommend this film enough.  Thank the gods for Netflix …

3.  PARASITE – I’ve been a fan of master Korean filmmaker Bong Joon-ho ever since I stumbled across his deeply weird but also thoroughly brilliant breakthrough feature The Host, and it’s a love that’s deepened since thanks to the truly magnificent sci-fi actioner Snowpiercer, so I was looking forward to his latest feature as much as any movie geek, but even I wasn’t prepared for just what a runaway juggernaut of a hit this one turned out to be, from the insane box office to all that award-season glory (especially that undeniable clean-sweep at the Oscars). I’ll just come out and say it, this film deserves it all.  It’s EASILY Bong’s best film to date (which is really saying something), a masterful social satire and jet black comedy that raises some genuinely intriguing questions before delivering some deeply troubling answers.  Straddling the ever-widening gulf between a disaffected idle rich upper class and impoverished, struggling lower class in modern-day Seoul, it tells the story of the Kim family – father Ki-taek (Bong’s veritable good luck charm Song Kang-ho), mother Chung-sook (Jang Hye-jin), son Ki-woo (Train to Busan’s Choi Woo-shik) and daughter Ki-jung (The Silenced’s Park So-dam) – a poor family living in a run-down basement apartment who live hand-to-mouth in minimum wage jobs and can barely rub two cents together, until they’re presented with an intriguing opportunity.  Through happy chance, Ki-woon is hired as an English tutor for Park Da-hye (Jung Ji-so), the daughter of a wealthy family, which offers him the chance to recommend Ki-jung as an art tutor to the Parks’ troubled young son, Da-song (Jung Hyeon-jun).  Soon the rest of the Kims are getting in on the act, the young Kims contriving opportunities for their father to replace Mr Park’s chauffeur and their mother to oust the family’s long-serving housekeeper, Gook Moon-gwang (Lee Jung-eun), and before long their situation has improved dramatically.  But as they two families become more deeply entwined, cracks begin to show in their supposed blissful harmony as the natural prejudices of their respective classes start to take hold, and as events spiral out of control a terrible confrontation looms on the horizon.  This is social commentary at its most scathing, Bong drawing on personal experiences from his youth to inform the razor-sharp script (co-written by his production assistant Han Jin-won), while he weaves a palpable atmosphere of knife-edged tension throughout to add spice to the perfectly observed dark humour of the situation, all the while throwing intriguing twists and turns at us before suddenly dropping such a massive jaw-dropper of a gear-change that the film completely turns on its head, to stunning effect.  The cast are all thoroughly astounding, Song once again dominating the film with a turn which is at once sloppy and dishevelled but also poignant and heartfelt, while there are particularly noteworthy turns from Lee Sun-kyun as the Parks’ self-absorbed patriarch Dong-ik and Choi Yeo-jeong (The Concubine) as his flighty, easily-led wife Choi Yeon-gyo, as well as a fantastically weird appearance in the latter half from Park Myung-hoon.  This is heady stuff, dangerously seductive even as it becomes increasingly uncomfortable viewing, so that even as the screws tighten and everything goes to hell it’s simply impossible to look away.  Bong Joon-ho really has surpassed himself this time, delivering an existential mind-scrambler that lingers long after the credits have rolled and might even have you questioning your place in society once you’ve thought about it some. It deserves every single award and every ounce of praise it’s been lavished with so far, and looks set to go down as one of the true cinematic greats of this new decade.  Trust me, if this was a purely critical best-of list it’d be RIGHT AT THE TOP …

2.  1917 – it’s a rare thing for a film to leave me truly shell-shocked by its sheer awesomeness, for me to walk out of a cinema in a genuine daze, unable to talk or even really think about much of anything for a few hours because I’m simply marvelling at what I’ve just witnessed.  Needless to say, when I do find a film like that (Fight Club, Inception, Mad Max: Fury Road) it usually earns a place very close to my heart indeed.  The latest tour-de-force from Sam Mendes is one of those films – an epic World War I thriller that plays out ENTIRELY in one shot, which doesn’t simply feel like a glorified gimmick or stunt but instead is a genuine MASTERPIECE of a film, a mesmerising journey of emotion and imagination in a shockingly real environment that it’s impossible to tear your eyes away from.  Sure, Mendes has impressed us before – his first film, American Beauty, is a GREAT movie, one of the most impressive feature debuts of the 2000s, while Skyfall is, in my opinion, quite simply THE BEST BOND FILM EVER MADE – but this is in a whole other league.  It’s an astounding achievement, made all the more impressive when you realise that there’s very little trickery at play here, no clever digital magic (just some augmentation here and there), it’s all real locations and sets, filmed in long, elaborately choreographed takes blended together with clever edits to make it as seamless as possible – it’s not the first film to try to do this (remember Birdman? Bushwick?), but I’ve never seen it done better, or with greater skill. But it’s not just a clever cinematic exercise, there’s a genuine story here, told with guts and urgency, and populated by real flesh and blood characters – the heart of the film is George MacKay and Dean Chapman (probably best known as Tommen Baratheon in Game of Thrones) as Lance Corporals Will Schofield and Tom Blake, the two young tommies sent out across enemy territory on a desperate mission to stop a British regiment from rushing headlong into a German trap (Tom himself has a personal stake in this because his brother is an officer in the attack).  They’re a likeable pair, very human and relatable throughout, brave and true but never so overly heroic that they stretch credibility, so when tragedy strikes along the way it’s particularly devastating; both deliver exceptional performances that effortlessly carry us through the film, and they’re given sterling support from a selection of top-drawer British talent, from Sherlock stars Andrew Scott and Benedict Cumberbatch to Mark Strong and Colin Firth, each delivering magnificently in small but potent cameos.  That said, the cinematography and art department are the BIGGEST stars here, masterful veteran DoP Roger Deakins (The Shawshank Redemption, Blade Runner 2049 and pretty much the Coen Brothers’ entire back catalogue among MANY others) making every frame sing with beauty, horror, tension or tragedy as the need arises, and the environments are SO REAL it feels less like production design than that someone simply sent the cast and crew back in time to film in the real Northern France circa 1917 – from a nightmarish trek across No Man’s Land to a desperate chase through a ruined French village lit only by dancing flare-light in the darkness before dawn, every scene is totally immersive and simply STUNNING.  I don’t think it’s possible for Mendes to make a film better than this, but I sure hope he gives it a go all the same.  Either way, this is the most incredible, exhausting, truly AWESOME experience I’ve had at the cinema this year (so far) – it’s a film that DESERVES to be seen on the big screen, and I feel truly sorry for those who missed the chance …

1.  BIRDS OF PREY & THE FANTABULOUS EMANCIPATION OF ONE HARLEY QUINN – the only reason 1917 isn’t at number one right now is because Warner Bros.’ cinematic DC Extended Universe project FINALLY got round to bringing my favourite DC Comics title to the big screen.  It’s been the biggest pleasure of my cinematic year so far getting to see my top DC superheroines brought to life on the big screen, and it’s been done in high style, in my opinion THE BEST of the DCEU films to date (yup, I loved it EVEN MORE than Wonder Woman).  It was also great seeing Harley Quinn return after her show-stealing turn in David Ayer’s clunky but ultimately still hugely enjoyable Suicide Squad, better still that this time round they got her SPOT ON this time – this is the Harley I’ve always loved in the comics, unpredictable, irreverent and entirely without regard for what anyone else thinks of her, as well as one hell of a talented psychiatrist.  Margot Robbie once more excels in the role she was basically BORN to play, clearly relishing the chance to finally do Harley justice, and she’s a total riot from start to finish, infectiously lovable no matter what crazy, sometimes downright REPRIHENSIBLE antics she gets up to.  Needless to say she’s the nominal star here, her latest ill-advised adventure driving the story – finally done with the Joker and itching to make her emancipation official, Harley publicly announces their breakup by blowing up Ace Chemicals (their love spot, basically), inadvertently painting a target on her back in the process since she’s no longer under the supposed protection of Gotham’s feared Clown Prince of Crime – but that doesn’t mean she eclipses the other main players the movie’s REALLY supposed to be about. Each member of the Birds of Prey is beautifully written and brought to vivid, arse-kicking life by what has to be the year’s most exciting cast – Helena Bertinelli, aka the Huntress, is the perfect character for Mary Elizabeth Winstead to finally pay off on that action heroine potential she showed in Scott Pilgrim Vs. the World, but this is a MUCH more enjoyable role outside of the fight choreography because while Helena may be a world-class dark avenger, socially she’s a total dork, which just makes her thoroughly adorable; Rosie Perez is similarly perfect casting as Renee Montoya, the uncompromising pint-sized Gotham PD detective who kicks against the corrupt system no matter what kind of trouble it gets her into, and just gets angrier all the time, paradoxically making us like her even more; and then there’s the film’s major controversy, at least as far as the fans are concerned, namely one Cassandra Cain.  Sure, this take is VERY different from the comics’ version (a nearly mute master assassin who went on to become the second woman to wear the mask of Batgirl before assuming her own crime-fighting  mantle as Black Bat and now Orphan), but personally I like to think this is simply Cass at THE VERY START of her origin story, leaving plenty of time for her to discovery her warrior origins when the DCEU gets around to introducing Lady Shiva (personally I want Michelle Yeoh to play her, but that’s just me) – anyways, here she’s a skilled child pickpocket whose latest theft inadvertently sets off the larger central plot, and newcomer Ella Jay Basco brings a fantastic pre-teen irreverence and spiky charm to the role, beautifully playing against Robbie’s mercurial energy.  My favourite here BY FAR, however, is Dinah Lance, aka the Black Canary (not only my favourite Bird of Prey but my very favourite DC superheroine PERIOD), the choice of up-and-comer Jurnee Smollet-Bell (Friday Night Lights, Underground) proving to be the film’s most truly inspired casting – a club singer with the metahuman ability to emit piercing supersonic screams, she’s also a truly ferocious martial artist (in the comics she’s one of the very best fighters IN THE WORLD), as well as a wonderfully pure soul you just can’t help loving, and it made me SO UNBELIEVABLY HAPPY that they got my Canary EXACTLY RIGHT.  Altogether they’re a fantastic bunch, basically my perfect superhero team, and the way they’re all brought together (along with Harley, of course) is beautifully thought out and perfectly executed … they’ve also got one hell of a threat to overcome, namely Gotham crime boss Roman Sionis, aka the Black Mask, one of the Joker’s chief rivals – Ewan McGregor brings his A-game in a frustratingly rare villainous turn (currently my number one bad guy for the movie year), a monstrously narcissistic, woman-hating control freak with a penchant for peeling off the faces of those who displease him, sharing some exquisitely creepy chemistry with Chris Messina (The Mindy Project) as Sionis’ nihilistic lieutenant Victor Zsasz. This is about as good as superhero cinema gets, a perfect example of the sheer brilliance you get when you switch up the formula to create something new, an ultra-violent, unapologetically R-rated middle finger to the classic tropes, a fantastic black comedy thrill ride that’s got to be the most full-on feminist blockbuster yet – it’s helmed by a woman (Dead Pigs director Cathy Yan), written by a woman (Bumblebee’s Christina Hodson), produced by more women and ABOUT a bunch of badass women magnificently triumphing over toxic masculinity in all its forms.  It’s also simply BRILLIANT – the cast are all clearly having a blast, the action sequences are first rate (the spectacular GCPD evidence room fight in which Harley gets to REALLY cut loose is the undisputable highlight), it has a gleefully anarchic sense of humour and is simply BURSTING with phenomenal homages, references and in-jokes for the fans (Bruce the hyena! Stuffed beaver! Roller derby!).  It’s also got a killer soundtrack, populated almost exclusively by numbers from female artists.  Altogether, then, this is the VERY BEST the DCEU has to offer to date (Wonder Woman 1984 has got a MAJOR job ahead of it beating this one), and my absolute FAVOURITE film of 2020 (so far).  Give it all the love you can, it sure as hell deserves it.

[undeific]

i promise it’s not that deep, or why you’re wrong about self-inserts: an essay by your friendly neighborhood chaotic neutral

So, self-inserts. A hot topic, apparently. In 2020. Perhaps it’s due to a dashboard full of young, possibly underage writers (which is not a bad thing! embrace your creativity!), but this is a discussion I believed we had matured past. Since it has been floating around, though, here is my take, and the take a great deal of circles have embraced in the past 6-7 years or so. 

There’s always been a self-insert problem in the community — not necessarily self-inserts themselves, but rather the response to them. It’s no secret that these characters are commonly regarded with disdain and always have been: they’re viewed as the most self-indulgent form of character, the least creative, and the worst-written, having been made solely for the purpose of connecting with canons and living out one’s own Mary Sue-adjacent fantasies. To some extent, these generalizations make sense and line up with a reality we are all very familiar with; after all, these assumptions must come from somewhere, and there would be few canon-portraying writers among us who could say they’ve absolutely never been met with an uncomfortable situation brought on by an overeager self-insert. In 2013, the worst crime a roleplayer could possibly commit was create a character like this, and would result in what was considered, and many times was, a well-deserved blacklisting from entire fan spaces and writing circles. A self-insert was, after all, created with no integrity and only had bad intentions. 

We all know the self-insert girl — and yes, she is a girl, of course. Her dialogue is clichéd, her plots are threadbare and consist primarily of smut and romance, her backstory is tragic and attention-seeking. She often has the same name as her creator and her faceclaim is self-flattering. She seeks out canons and attractive original characters of the male persuasion, persistent in her attempts to reach out, hoping to begin shipping with her victim — or victims — of choice. She is a being purely of self-gratification and wish-fulfillment. She is, in a word, embarrassing. We do not like her. She is told on the rule pages she does not read that she will be blocked, banned, and ultimately mocked by those who have seen her floating about. She is “politely” insulted and threatened for crimes she has yet to commit, and chased from the platform as quickly, cruelly, and efficiently as possible. Yet she always comes back in one form or another, like a cockroach.  

These characters still exist, of course. They were never a myth. I am familiar with them, as are you, and everyone else who has dipped their toes into the writing pool. But they are an exaggerated breed these days, and often used to perpetuate elitism in spaces where it is entirely unnecessary. The shadow of the stereotypical self-insert’s reputation has been cast over original characters as a whole, specifically female characters, and has created an unwelcoming environment prone to cliques and harassment. A character outside an established canon is suspect. A woman outside an established canon — and sometimes even within — is eyed suspiciously, hypercritically, before being thrown a generous bone by a “lower-tier” roleplayer who will determine whether or not she’s worthy of attention.

If any desire for wish-fulfillment is detected or perceived, she’s dropped quickly, often with no warning. 

There is a strange idea that permeates throughout roleplaying culture that wish-fulfillment writing is done in bad faith. This is flawed logic in many ways. Roleplaying is not a job. It is not an inaccessible artform. If you engage in this form of entertainment, you are getting something out of it. You are stepping outside of yourself and becoming someone else, and you are enjoying it; you are, in other words, engaging in a form of wish-fulfillment, though perhaps not with the sticky connotations you are familiar with when contemplating the term. This very idea goes against the rhetoric that has been built up by the community, however — self-indulgence is taboo, roleplay is serious business, and only those worthy and “quality” shall partake and be given attention. (It has even been taken to the rather sad extent that if one does not keep up with aesthetic-based trends, they are met with passive disinterest if not outright disdain. But that is another essay entirely.) If you seek wish-fulfillment, you are not welcome. If you are a self-insert, you are not welcome. If your character shares too many traits with yourself, you are obviously seeking wish-fulfillment, and probably a self-insert to boot, so you are not welcome. 

There are layers to this. People do not want to associate with these leper characters, and so they create strict rules to be adhered to — and that makes sense, as everyone is entitled to their own pleasurable experience, and their own guidelines. But these rules become meaningless in the shuffle, placed on carefully-crafted Google Documents to do nothing other than promote elitism and limit creativity, whether that is the intention or not. If you like a character, but find out it shares the same name and birthday with its creator despite little else in common, what do you do? If this character does not seem interested in pushing a ship onto you in your interactions, are they still breaking your rules? If a character was created with its writer as the base, though they do not behave in the stereotypical way that makes self-inserts unbearable, why is it so important? What do the origins of a character have to do with its current iteration? Why, if it does not have a negative impact on interactions, does it matter if a character is a self-insert or not? At the risk of sounding like a dusty academic, the bard once wrote, “A rose by any other name would smell as sweet.” What, aside from preconceived ideas, does a character’s self-insert status have to do with anything? 

“Discomfort” is the word primarily used when discussing these characters negatively, and many hoops are jumped through to justify why this discomfort is felt if there is no concrete reason, no offense committed. If one is willing to dissect another’s character, but not one’s own reasons for their own discomfort when confronted with the simple, low-impact reality that this character exists, some self-reflection is warranted. Even more so if this character is, as far as you have seen, well-written, fleshed out, and interesting, with the only “downside” being that it is, in fact, a self-insert. 

To write well, one must understand the character they are working with. Divorcing oneself entirely from the characters they write will only work to their detriment. All creations, all characters, must contain a piece of the writer within them to some degree; that is the only way a piece of fiction will function — but if that is against the rules, we cannot write. We cannot engage in any sort of believable storytelling. Self-inserts are, at their core, only the most exaggerated form of original character. 

This, of course, is capable of leading to problems; one of the greatest issues here is the possibility of the lines between fantasy and reality getting blurred. This has happened to me when dealing with self-inserts, as well as other original characters and even canons. It is distressingly common, one of the most unpleasant situations to arise in roleplay spaces. However, if it is your assumption that the lines of fantasy and reality will be blurred purely because a character has self-insert origins, that likely says much more about your own grasp on reality rather than the self-insert’s. It is and always has been important that proper distinctions and boundaries are maintained, no matter who the writer or character are. During heavy or dark threads, writers will often be found shooting jokes back and forth in the tags to put each other at ease, and people give out their handles on instant messaging platforms to ensure easier, more efficient communication out of character. If this is done efficiently, any issues that arise are handled in a stable, mature way, and the problems that lend themselves to roleplaying become ever rarer. 

Self-inserts are like any other character, they just have a label with nasty connotations and an unfortunate history and stereotype attached. There should be no thorny questions here, only whether or not the character interests you personally. If the very term is a dealbreaker for you, you are taking yourself, and this, too seriously — and missing out on some fascinating storytelling in the process. 

That being said, the character I portray owns a knife and I own a knife, so I am practically a self-insert myself. I guess I’m gonna be blocked! 

[rpgsandbox]

At its heart, SINS is a narrative role-playing game, specifically focused on telling the stories of powerful entities known as Nemissaries - reborn individuals back from the dead with a wealth of mysterious powers, who have risen once more to fight an eldritch hive-mind of the undying, known as the Brood, in the post-apocalyptic ruins of a 22nd Century Earth.

For all its high-octane combat and supernatural forces, SINS is a cinematic game about choice, morality and the consequences which come from wielding great and terrible power in a world desperate for heroes and leaders. It’s also about embarking on life-changing adventures, battling supernatural horrors, and often, simply surviving life in an unforgiving world fraught with danger, where even the Nemissaries’ great powers won’t necessarily protect them.

Sins is all at once an exciting, mysterious and terrifying game which crosses several genres, and contains a rich mythos with a great deal to explore and inspire the imagination, all whilst taking familiar genres that you know and love into creative new ground.

A Dying World Sins takes place in our own world, albeit about a century from now. The world as we know it is gone, replaced with a bleak post-apocalyptic wilderness. Some areas of the world have been scorched by nuclear weapons, and others have returned to their natural state, but the one constant is that mankind is no longer the master of the world. Large nations or civilisations are rare, and most contact takes place primarily on a local level between nomadic groups and small settlements. There are exceptions however, and one of the core themes of the game is the re-emergence of civilisations.

A Monstrous Enemy A major aspect of the setting are the aforementioned Brood, which are best described as a vast horde of highly mobile animated dead who share a dim collective consciousness and have the capacity to evolve into more dangerous, specialised forms. It’s a mistake to view the Brood simply as the walking dead, because as their numbers grow, they begin to hear a strange, unearthly call, which lends a frightening degree of regenerative endurance and cunning coordination to their actions.  

Forgotten Horrors A major part of the world’s history, and one of the reasons for the dramatic fall of civilisation was the emergence of seven individual beings with almost god-like destructive capabilities and the capacity to control the Brood. These creatures, now most commonly known as the Reapers, slaughtered their way through the largest concentrations of military might, and personally took a hand in the murder of many of the world’s leaders.

At the height of their reign of terror, their victory seemed certain, but after a succession of surprising setbacks, including the death of one of their number in China, they seemed to disappear utterly. The Reapers now represent one of many unsolved mysteries for players to potentially stumble upon.

Dark Heroes The beings which players portray were originally individuals consumed by the Brood, who fought back against their Hive-mind to retain a sense of self-awareness, and as such, regained their human forms and consciousness. Striking out against the Brood, they became known as the Nemissaries, after the ancient Greek goddess of retribution.

In a way, the Nemissaries sum up everything about the setting. They are at once monstrous, forced to survive as parasites, feeding on human emotion, but also incredibly powerful, capable of leading the way into a new future, and even opposing the Reapers, should they re-emerge. Nemissaries have many powers at their disposal – not least of which are the five primal Songs granting control over Blood, Bone, Flesh, Will, and the Brood. Collectively, these Songs of eldritch power, along with their impressive physical abilities, allow Nemissaries to overcome almost any opposition, particularly when they choose to work together. Nemissaries have a dark side as well, however – a strange wound in their soul, perhaps a side effect from their rebirth, or the lingering power of the Brood. In any case, every Nemissary contains their own worst enemy, and greatest weapon, inside of them - The Hollow. A demonic alter-ego of everything a Nemissary hates about themselves, the Hollow is an internal monster that just wants to watch the world burn.

The Judges The downfall of the 21st Century began with a phenomenon known as the Black Rain, where a great number of crystalline objects, most roughly the size of cars, but many much smaller, fell to Earth. These objects have now come to be known as the Shards, and represent one of the deepest mysteries of the 22nd Century. On the one hand, most of the Shards seem to repel the Brood, but on the other, they often also have a damaging effect on the human psyche, forcing people to relive the mistakes of their lives, sometimes driving them to insanity or death. Some of the Shards are also known to be more positive, offering a strange sort of oasis in the wastelands of the world, free from the Brood. It has also become common knowledge that the tiny fragments of the Shards – also known as Voidglass – are extremely damaging to the Brood. The Shards themselves are also capable of communication, often giving out cryptic advice to the Nemissaries, along with spiritual guidance, but anyone who spends prolonged time communing with one will soon begin to suspect that the Shards know far more than they are willing to tell...

Great Conspiracies We’ve mentioned that in the world of Sins, civilisation as we know it has fallen. The existence of the Nemissaries has offered new hope, but also brought about new conflicts and pain. Across the world, new powers are emerging. Some extol the nearly-forgotten virtues of Democracy and Freedom. Others are authoritarian dictatorships. Behind it all however, are the influences of the First-born – the eldest of the Nemissaries – who have begun to use their powers to build their own visions of the future. The Nemissaries themselves, along with mankind as a whole, have often fallen in with the factions these powerful individuals have woven about themselves. Their gathered followers preach their ideals and cooperate with one another, rebuilding human civilisation but also setting the stage for the horrifying conflicts to come.

Hope and Despair The world of SINS is bleak, and even considering everything we’ve just mentioned, it gets worse. The Brood is not defeated, the factions of the Nemissaries are at each other's throats, and the Reapers are still out there somewhere, licking their wounds. Worse still, powers long asleep have begun to take an interest in the mortal world for the first time in millennia.

The truth is though, is that SINS is really about hope. The characters you play, for the most part, are those individuals who want to change the world for the better. They are people who aren’t content to let their loved ones die, or to be the pawns of mad gods.

They mean to make the world a better place, or die in the attempt. This is the choice each player will make – the choice each character must make – to stand and fight when the dawn seems furthest, or to just be one more collaborator in mankind’s demise.

Caught Your Interest?

Great! This is a 357 page, full colour, Core Rulebook, complete with everything needed to play and stunning artwork throughout, all by Will Kirkby (Grenade, Wraithking, Tuk Tuk, and featured in Image Comics, Oni Press, and the upcoming Critical Role Artbook)

Our plans are for at least another 3 further major expansions which will be released over the next 3 years, along with smaller, intermittent supplements supporting the game's longevity and an active social media presence that provides weekly lore updates and free, supplemental scenarios and game prompts. In other words, once SINS is out, we'll constantly have new content for players to explore - handy for those busy weeks where the GM might not have had time to prepare!

SINS runs on its own unique engine, the HOPE engine, based on Degrees of Success from small, attribute-based D6 dice pools that average 7 die and never exceed 10 die, even at the top levels of play.

Players gain Successes determined by Skill Ratings, and compare their results against target numbers to gauge if they've scored a Success or not.

The GM sets the amount of Successes required to pass an Action, and any more Successes than required become outcome, a unique system that allows for epic, cinematic and co-operative actions. The game boasts over 100 unique powers, known as Arietta, and over 75 Skills, Traits and Qualities with which to affect both mechanics and narrative, supported in play with an easy to read, single-page character sheet.

Another integral part of the SINS system is the lack of a conventional levelling system. Instead, characters take narrative-based paths towards their goals with Motivations, and as they work towards them, they gain Achievement Points. These in turn can be used to mechanically increase a character's stats, skills and abilities in the more traditional sense.

Characters can also call on Motivations they believe to be important to the Session or events in play, and receive appropriated bonuses as a result. We believe this integral combination of narrative and mechanics right at the heart of the system is the perfect balance of progression and achievement, and defines SINS as a truly narrative-driven roleplaying game.

The SINS system, and in turn the HOPE engine, have now been play-tested by hundreds, including both private groups with varied experience levels, and by open display groups at the 2017 UK Games expo, each to overwhelmingly positive feedback.

Kickstarter campaign ends: Tue, September 19 2017 12:40 PM BST

Website: SINS RPG