Narbonic: Shitty Shit, or Shittiest Shit (naw, I'm just foolin')

Because my blogpost about Homestuck is quickly turning into a giant morass of endless WORDS WORDS WORDS, it's time to talk about something simpler but still webcomic-y, namely, Narbonic (http://www.narbonic.com/) which has the benefit of being over, and, as such, easier to talk about. I'm not going to claim Narbonic is an awesome, life changing event. In fact, for most people, I really wouldn't recommend it, but, since you're one of the elect (those people reading my blog- all one of you), I'm going to make a reasonable guess that you'll like it. Also, it's not a super-high traffic thing, and I feel Shaenon deserves a little non-traffic.

System Mastery and Games

So, I've been recently reading a lot about indie RPGs, and Dogs in the Vinyard, which is a game in which the players are Mormon peacekeepers in a weird west version of Deseret. It has a really interesting way to resolve interactions, in that conflicts are always escalating, either by the required dice increasing, or in that the conflict gets more dangerous (words->fists->guns). However, the specifics of exactly what goes on is up to the players, and has very little mechanical crunchiness. This is a common feature of most indie rpgs- beautiful resolution mechanics, and very little in the way of crunchiness. This makes them much better than traditional RPGs for storytelling. Moreover, because the mechanics are so elegant, they're easy to pick up, making the barrier to entry very low, as far as RPGs go. Furthermore, they're much more imaginative, easily lending themselves towards new players who aren't yet familiar with the constraints of a traditional system. Finally, they are much more varied and adaptable, able to work in any kind of universe, either because there is a system for the setting (see above) or because the rules themselves assume so much less than non-indie (D&D) systems

Nevertheless, Dungeons and Dragons remains the system of choice for the vast majority of RPG gamers, and, moreover, over time, it has developed to be more and more mechanical and rules-heavy. It's a system that moves slowly, inelegant mechanics,  and is very closely tied to a swords and sorcery universe with very specific assumptions. Trying to change them causes all manner of silly effects and poor balance. Even for people who move away from D&D, the other systems that are commonly used (White Wolf, Rifts, and GURPS) are either tied extremely heavily to a universe, mechanically ungainly, and/or horribly unbalanced.

I refuse to believe that the main problem with indie RPGs is simple publicity, because you would figure that in such a situation, a system like the Dresden Files RPG, which is 1) an indie RPG, using the FATE engine and 2) has a super-popular book tie-in would be an enormous success. Moreover, it's not a stable equilibrium to assume that mere lack of popularity is holding these systems back, as popularity tends to bring popularity, meaning a system like Mouse Guard, which has gotten some exposure from the geek press, would explode and make a million bucks. However, these are self-evidently not the case, which leads me to believe that the "problem" with indie RPGs, in so far as there is a "problem," is the very things they cherish.

In my mind, people like to master complex systems, and they like to operate within rules. Coming up with a character and story is hard, and takes thinking in ways that most people don't do on any sort of a regular basis. On the other hand, operating within rules systems, and optimizing those systems are things that people (or at least people who play RPGs) do every day. The popularity of WoW may be due in part to skinner-box-esque mechanics and a mile-deep sheen of Blizzard polish, but, in another sense, the systems mastery aspect is facinating, and it's something that's very easy to sink your teeth into.

The systems mastery component goes deeper, as games like Minecraft or EUIII, which are effectively sandboxes of tools to play in, tend to cause a lot of fatigue and pose a large barrier to entry, especially at first (at least, that was what I experienced). D&D is easy to grasp, because it's all about killing monsters and accomplishing quests. The mechanics are built around the optimization of one's personal character and the murder of things that stand in the way. In comparison, DitV or Burning Wheel, which are designed for expression, rather than task accomplishment, don't lend themselves as much to this. I know this isn't an original observation, I don't think there's an easy way to make indie RPGs more popular without making some compromises, but it's quite interesting. After all, how many bugs that are bemoaned by designers, people who work with a product extensively, and even casual users turn out to be the very things that contribute to a formula's success.

See you in the funny papers!

Things that I would like to make

Another set of little half-ideas for games/things. None of which will actually happen:

1) A parliamentary politics board/card game. It allows for: 1) non-zero sum player interaction, 2) Power differentials which still allow for weaker players to influence the course of the game (to make a government, you need 50%, so you can have dominant parties beholden to smaller ones), 3) Dynamic rules! 4) Meta-games which aren't "gang up on the leader"

2) Some sort of a counterinsurgency war game. I know there's a GWOT game out by GMT, but it's not quite what I'm looking for... you'd have to do it as a computer game, or have some really nifty ways of handing assymetric information, as well as a way to overcome the "HA HA" problem.

3) A fun little 3/4-player wargame set during/after the death of Jan Huss. It's at a great period in time, the early part of the gunpowder era, and you have such great factions!

4) A thorough analysis of the evolution of empire from the economic perspective.

5) Magic button which accomplishes thesis work and/or gives me infinite time to sleeeeeep

6) MORE BLOG POSTS! THE POSTS MUST FLOW!

NEP, Stalin, and Aesthetics

So, I just finished reading A History of Modern Russia as a result of a long time being stuck on the tarmac. For the most part, I found the book useful, but uninteresting, as it is mainly an overview of the history USSR from an extremely leader-centric point of view, as opposed to a more interesting (at least in my mind), systematic, pericentric point of view. However, it did bring up an interesting point, namely, the question of whether or not Stalin can be credited with preparing the country economically for Operation Barbarossa. It claims (with some evidence), that if the NEP policies of limited market economy were continued, the final economic outcome would have been similar to the effect of Stalin's Purge/Boom. Moreover, it claimed (with less evidence), but with similar persuasiveness, that the brutality of Stalin's regime did nothing to ensure social commitment to the war effort, and may have been counterproductive. 

It brings into sharp relief a question that has been percolating in the old brainpan for quite some time- namely, what amount of supposedly "vital" policy is merely the result of the requirements of personal aesthetics, rather than reality. This question is also prompted by Seeing Like a State, which argues, very convincingly, I might add, that the reason for a lot of modern political experiments is to make things easy for centralized organizations to see and manipulate, rather than because they are required, historically necessary, or "better."

There's not much more to this than a question- how many things that are "required" are actually just the result of preference? I don't know the answer, but it's a good question, isn't it?

Aristotle, Drama, and Games

So, I've been trying to beat Psychonauts* recently, instead of rocking some Revolution Under Siege, which was originally going to be the topic of a post. This is mostly because Revolution Under Siege, despite being a fascinating turn-based wargame in which I can order Trotsky around like a good little academic Pinko, is basically impossible to understand. I exaggerate, but only slightly. I think I've just about got the first real scenario figured out*, but I find it extremely non-intuitive, thanks mostly to the fact that there's a LOT of weird stuff going on that only makes sense if you read all the political updates, and then THINK about them, and sometimes I'm bad about thinking**.

Speaking of being bad about thinking, this post is the nexus of several observations:
1)I'm having a hard time bringing myself to play a lot of hard-core strategy games, instead, opting for the simple pleasures of Minecraft or Psychonauts

2)It's (much much) harder to write up a game of Dominions than a game of BSG, and, moreover, a game of Dominions is a lot less fufilling than a game of BSG

3) I am sick to death of Operation Barbarossa. Also- Operation Barbarossa is everywhere.


The link that ties these three threads together? The problems of the dramatic arc of the strategy game. We'll take a look at how strategy games can actually have a narrative arc below the jump, true believer!

"Politicians talk, men of action.... go to prision"! A Battlestar Galactica Battle Report

So, I play board games sometimes. I also read a fair number of SA "Let's Play"s, so I have delusions that people will want to read about my own board games adventures. Therefore, prepare yourself for a thrilling tale of betrayal and politics aboard the Galactica, the last, best hope for humanity against the vile Cylons*. 

Hearts of Iron, Men of Cardboard

I have, in general, nothing but praise* for Paradox games, for example, Europa Universalis (EU) III and Victoria (Vicky) II have absorbed far more of my life than I would care to admit, with Sword of the Stars (SotS) acting as an occasional distraction. Therefore, Hearts of Iron (HOI) III seemed like another dose of the same sweet, sweet, hyper-detailed, poorly documented, overwhelming, quasi-historical empire building. However, I've found HOI to be.... less than fully engaging.  This isn't to say that I'm not going to try to take USSR to victory** in the Great Patriotic War***, but I doubt that I'll lose many weekends to it. So, is it Nazi fatigue, or is there something more at work?

What's the Big Idea, anyway

So, I was considering beginning with a proper content post, rather than this bullshit meta* stuff, but it felt forced, like I was walking down a deserted street and began loudly talking to myself. So I figured I brief introduction was in order. I'm Ned, a senior graduate student at an east coast university on a particle physics project, but for purposes of this blog, that's mostly irrelevant. What IS relevant is that I'm loud, opinionated, and full of self-loathing. Therefore, I've decided to write about things, partially to ensure that my writerly self doesn't completely atrophy from years of slave** labor*** in the code mines of Academia VI,  partially because I like crafting arguments that make sense, and writing is the easiest way I've found to do so****, and partially because I want to be nerd funny on the internet*****.

The blag will primarily focus on games, both board and computational, because that's a huge chunk of my free time, with occasion deviations into politics, culture******, academia, and other things that I enjoy talking about and/or am annoyed with. Basically, you get a free copy of me. Shouting. CONSTANTLY.  INTO THE INTERNET.

The update schedule is roughly bi-weekly (as in once every two weeks), but with a high variance. I'll leave the exact calculation of this value as an exercise for the reader*******.


*Now it's double meta (all the way)
**read: paid, voluntary
***read: slacking and general laziness
****and the medium allows for FOOTNOTES, my favorite thing!
*****A rich and unexplored niche, for sure
******read: I like movies and read Harpers
*******PROTIP: FFT that shit.