Children of the 21st Century

One casualty of our municipal budget cuts this year is going to be the elementary school computer program. These children of the 21st century will grow up in a world that is ever more divided between the technological haves and the have-nots. The personal computer, and its high-tech spawn, will be central to much of what they do throughout their lives on whatever paths they happen to take. In their wisdom, during the annual belt tightening, this is what our public servants decided to cut. The computers.

I'm ok with that.

My kids are plenty familiar with computers. And they didn't learn it at school. Each school day already starts with me yelling at them to get off the computer because we're going to be late for school. Presumably the curriculum is more edifying than learning how to level-up your Vanquisher in anticipation of her inevitable confrontation with Ordrak. They may skip extended lessons on the proper flora for warding off back-yard zombie infestation. Still, I'm not sure what they are learning in computer class.

Isaac and Leo have grown up with mouse in hand. They're unsure what the "chan" button on the TV remote is for. The telephone eludes their understanding. We can blame the parents for that. They are comfortable with watching shows on iTunes and the subtleties of NetFlix streaming.

The virtues of the computer were discovered early. The pace of exploration has been rapid. My kids were quick to discover the endless video bounty of Star Wars, Lego, and Lego minfigs enacting scenes from Star Wars that awaited them on the internet.

There are hazards of childhood internet exploration. "Eat plasma you stuck up bitch!" - made a surprise appearance during a kindergarten-era game. We had a talk. Our concern isn't that they can't navigate the computer. It's that they can.

Portsmouth Budget Letter

To Members of the Portsmouth City Council,

I grew up and went to school in Lebanon, New Hampshire in the 1980s. Lebanon was not a wealthy town and did not have many of the advantages Portsmouth enjoys today. We had our schools and our classes. We had the basics. We had sports. We had music, art, and computer classes.

When my wife and I moved to Portsmouth we moved here to stay and to have and raise our family. We chose Portsmouth because of its rich history, because those who came before us built such a wonderful civic foundation, and because Portsmouth is a city with an eye on its own future.

As you navigate the budget process this year, in these uncertain times, I ask you to consider that future. We know that times are tough, that state support has fallen, and that some belt-tightening is required. In the proposed budgets each of the departments has made tough choices. The school budget eliminates many teaching positions, cuts the crossing guards, and the computer program. These are smart sacrifices. We can accept them, but only with great regret.

It is inconceivable that these cuts would not be sufficient.

Cutbacks beyond what has been proposed will endanger athletics, art, and music. They will require unacceptable cuts into the core functions of our schools and would not leave us with a system we can be proud of. The schools are already making do after years of tight funding. The fat has been cut. Once these vital programs are gone they will not easily return. Cutting this budget even further would not provide a level of support for our schools that this community can accept.

Thank you for your consideration. Thank for for looking to our future and insuring Portsmouth remains a great city to live and raise children. Thank you for your service.

The Day I Joined the Tea Party

The Tea Party held a tax day rally in Portsmouth. I went to the rally to see what the fuss is about and check it out for myself. I was surprised more by what it was not, than by what it was. For better and worse, the New Hampshire seacoast chapter of the Tea Party doesn't live up to it's reputation.


There were plenty of signs on display. I didn't see signs with egregious spelling and grammar errors and the messages were relatively tame. Nothing racist. No Nazis. Nothing that seemed overly hysterical. No Fox News references.

I expected the general mood to be one of anger and defiance. But it wasn't really. Cranky, yes. But the partiers seemed to be mostly just enjoying the opportunity to curse big government, complain about onerous taxes and root for freedom.

I didn't see any guns. I thought implied violence might be a theme. But it wasn't really. At one point the MC was explaining a mock tea party bit where costumed reenactors were going to dump "the things we don't like" into the river. When someone yelled out "But Obama's not here!" the MC responded with a jokey agreement. He quickly followed up. "You know that's the one line they'll use in the papers." Big laugh.

Another thing the rally wasn't is large. The newspaper estimated the crowd at 250 which seems about right. Prescott Park has certainly seen bigger events. The annual Chowder Fest, for example, draws crowds more than 15 times that size. And they have delicious chowder.

In addition to talking in the scene, I was there for the speeches. I wanted hear what the fine minds of the Tea Party had to say-- to bathe in their vision of human liberty. There was not a lot of thematic diversity. The speakers struck the same notes again and again. I'll outline their arguments. I had some quibbles.

Founding Fathers

The Tea Partiers are big fans of the Founding Fathers. They are under the impression that the feeling would be mutual. Apparently the Founding Fathers would unanimously support every Tea Party utterance. I'm not so sure.

One memorable sequence was called: "Obama or the Founding Fathers". The speaker was going to say a phrase. We, the audience were supposed to call whether it should be attributed to President Obama or the authors of the Constitution. I was looking forward to this. I was genuinely curious what excerpts from the Federalist Papers or out-of-context Obama quotes might be used in service of the Tea Party thesis. I was disappointed.

Rather than draw material from anything the subjects ever said, the speaker just tossed out slogans. "Honest work", "Government handouts", "Freedom from oppression", "Federal control". A few times the speaker said something like "Projecting American power" and the crowd was genuinely confused about who we were supposed to be calling for.

Some notes on the Founding Fathers: They invented the federal government. The reason they invented the federal government is they had already tried the independent states approach and found it to be a disaster. They knew a strong nation would require a strong central government. So they created one.

The authors of the US Constitution held a diverse set of political views. They didn't agree with each other. No matter what your beliefs are, they would not all agree with you. They did ok despite their differences. So do we. Imagine if, by some miracle, we could resurrect James Madison today. Suppose we could invite him to see what has come from their little experiment in Republic-building. He would be impressed. America today is much more than anything they envisioned. We've build a great nation upon the foundation they established. We've kept their principals intact and inspired the world with our example.

The Founding Fathers would not be joining the calls to tear it all down.

Taxes and Deficits

If I hadn't already known that we had a trillion dollar deficit and that 47% of Americans don't pay federal income tax, I could have learned these facts from the speeches and signs at the rally. They neglected to mention that Obama has lowered our taxes or that income tax rates are now the lowest they have been in 60 years. Many of the people there complaining about the oppressive federal tax burden are among that 47% that pay no income tax at all.

It is no coincidence that we have historically low taxes and historically high deficits. One naturally leads to the other. The TPers claim they want to reduce spending. But their lack of specifics is damning. I want to "eliminate wasteful government spending". Everyone wants to eliminate wasteful government spending.  The problem is there is no consensus on what counts as waste. And you can't build consensus without offering specifics.

An energetic call for tax cuts paired with vague hand-waving in the direction of spending cuts is a clarion call for increased budget deficits.

God

God got number of shout-outs (Jesus Christ, not so much). My favorite: "God was the first entrepreneur. He created the universe with His own toil and His own imagination. He derived the pleasure from His work and reaped the rewards. He would have us live by His example."

No. The first artist? Maybe. But God was not an entrepreneur. He may move in mysterious ways, but we can safely assume that God isn't in it for the money. The universe was not created as one big franchise opportunity (The Almighty Dollar Store?). If that is the altar at which you worship then your faith rests on a very shaky foundation.

Liberals 

Speaking of shaky foundations, much of Tea Party rhetorical edifice is built upon an simplistic house of straw. Each of the speakers was building a bulwark against some imagined, imminent assault on our civil liberties. Apparently, Obama and "the liberals" have some big plans.

I don't claim to speak for all liberals. Like all vaguely-defined labels, liberalism is a many-splendored thing. I am an Obama supporter.

So, to all you Tea Partiers:

I'll happily defend your right to speak your mind. I don't dispute your right to own firearms. I want your employer to thrive, prosper and expand. If you own a business, I wish you luck and hope for your success. I am also deeply concerned about the federal deficit and am concerned that the American people will not support policies that lead to its reduction. I don't believe in federal expansion for it's own sake. I don't like paying taxes. I don't think tax dollars should be spent on initiatives that are unrelated to the public good.

We aren't coming for you. Really.

Politicians

While I was hanging out listening to aspiring Republican senatorial candidate Bill Binnie I was approached by aspiring Republican congressional candidate Bob Bestani. Mr. Bestani was kind enough to entertain a few of my questions. I pressed him on how we'll reduce the deficit, control health care costs, and why American health care costs are vastly higher than those in other countries. His responses were not wildly divergent from typical Republican talking-points. He concluded by suggesting I audit his economics course at Stanford for the full extent of his wisdom.

My encounter with Mr. Bestani left me pondering the fate of Congressional aspirants. What is it like to reach such a position in life? You to put yourself forward. Your quest to be a member of the United States House of Representatives leads to skulking about at the back of a rally, shaking hands, passing out fliers and hoping to score a few votes. The guy at the podium is excoriating the legislative body you hope to join. You're trying to become one of the bums the crowd is demanding to throw out.

By the end of the rally, I had my fill of the New Hampshire chapter of the Tea Party. These people are not part of some formidable, fearsome movement. But nor is it a party I would care to join or in whose hands we can entrust our future.

Building a Better BioWare Game

The search for Kasumi's stolen memory has brought me back to Mass Effect 2 and back to the topic of stories in video games. I've been bemoaning the limitations of video games. BioWare, the studio behind Mass Effect and other excellent games, has been pushing against those limitations. In this post I'll take a look at the BioWare approach to game design.

I want to be able to shape a story in two different ways. I want be able to influence the plot and I want to be able to influence, and be influenced by, the characters.

BioWare provides some illusion of plot control, but this is limited. You have missions and objectives. You can skip some missions and have options regarding the order you'll undertake them. But the story is their story. Most players will end up doing the same things.

We're a long ways away from (and may never see) a game world where the consequences of all your choices have real ripple effects. The studios have a story to tell you and they don't want you to ruin it. There aren't an infinite number of writers devising an infinite number of exciting paths to follow. But they could, and should, design a few inflection points where you have real choices and deal with the consequences. Some of those consequences should be dire. The game should let you screw up and force you to fight your way back.

It's amazing BioWare games are as good as they are given the limitations of their engine. Most glaring is the absence of characters that can move outside of cut-scenes and combat. BioWare worlds are populated by people rooted to a single spot. Some mobile bystanders would make the worlds less sterile.

The engine limitations are also apparent in the combat missions. But some of the limitations maybe be just limitations of imagination. Mass Effect does a reasonable job of presenting some tactical variety and variation to its firefights and action sequences. But far too many missions devolve into corridor crawls. You move from one conveniently-placed spot of cover to another. Enemies pop-up, four at at time, to be dispatched with biotic blasts and head-shots.

Every mission should have some wrinkles. Some options:

• Have enemies approach from all directions
• Take away some or all of your weapons
• Add non-combatants to be saved or imperiled
• Have swarms of enemies
• Have stand-off situations where combat can be avoided or risked
• Neutralize powers
• Add time constraints
• Use 3-dimensions with enemies coming from above and below
• Undertake missions alone with 1 or 3+ companions.
• Go without Shepard
• Tactical retreats where escape is the only option
• More environmental dangers and effects
• Reduce visibility
• Deal with character injury and limitation
• Enemies that can't or shouldn't be killed and must be trapped or evaded
• Take away the cover
• Limit or remove ammunition
• Limit or remove medi-gel

These variations can be mixed and matched for even more variety.

The old BioWare injury model is overdue for redesign. Your companions go down in a hail of blaster fire. Wherever you are, you push a button, lose a dollop of the mysterious medi-gel and your friends bounce back. Even if you can't be bothered with the medi-gel administration, as soon as the last enemy in the room falls, everyone immediately gets up suffering no ill-effects from taking those mass-accelerated metal slugs to the face.

This model lacks a certain verisimilitude. It also lacks drama. It would more interesting if Shepard had to play medic, fight her way over to the injured companion, and apply the medicine in person. After their revival, downed characters should suffer a bit -- make them sit out a few missions in sick-bay while they recuperate.

When Shepard takes a hit players are treated to the old Game Over screen. Mass Effect should never show a game over or reload screen. They are tired, drama draining, and unnecessary. What are space-faring friends for if not to help up a Shepard when she's down? Your companions could revive you. Or Shepard could be shown to summon the strength to apply her own medi-gel. Or team members from the mother-ship could come bail you out. Or you you could fail. Very few of the Mass Effect missions are essential to the core plot. Letting you fall short on a few and face the consequences would be more interesting than the string of endless do-overs and successes.

Game Over is a crutch. Players and designers lean on too much. It's time to throw it away.

BioWare has built its reputation on the strength of its characters and quality of your interactions with them. Good character interaction rests on three requirements:

• Characters that are interesting and fleshed-out enough to care about
• Having some ability to define and control the relationship between you and your companions
• Allowing your choices and actions to determine the fate of other characters

BioWare does a solid job with the first requirement. They've created a number of interesting and memorable characters over the years and are getting better at it with each release. Mass Effect 2 also allows you to have an impact on your relationship with you shipmates. More than any other game, you get to opportunity to explore their past, shape their destiny, and get them killed. But here again there is vast room for improvement.

The loyalty system is fun but should more flexible and less binary. Every action, choice, and conversation should make your various party members more or less loyal. And that loyalty should have a significant impact -- influencing how effective, aggressive, accurate, and helpful they are.

The inclusion of so many character-based missions is great for the game and an excellent device for developing the characters. I was saddened when one of my party members started to shun me. And Jack, you never gave me the chance to tell you this, but I'm sorry. I'm sorry I didn't confront Miranda about how Cerberus tortured you and made you a psychotic, biotic killer. That was wrong. And I'm sorry that big rock fell on your head during the cut-scene and killed you.

The character-based missions worked and I want more of them. Every mission should have one or more characters volunteer to take part. Including the ones who step forward might be optional, but would offer the opportunity for extra dialogue, scripted awesomeness, and heroic sacrifice.

BioWare is notorious for their in-game romantic options. I was torn. Do I choose the bland but anatomically compatible Jacob or grizzled Garrus. In my heart of hearts, do I go for the black guy or the green guy? Garrus won me over and the inter-species liaison was handled with remarkable tact, humor and affection.

I want to explore a deeper relationship with all the characters. Offering a few romanceables should be just the beginning. Every relationship should have a next level. And there should be more variety. I want jealous rivals, greedy high-maintenance mercenaries, subtle betrayers, zealots following their own agenda, moral beacons, reliable right-hands, jilted lovers, and manulative lotharios.

These relationships shouldn't just be incidental to the game but central to it. BioWare's given us a tiny glimpse of the possibilities of character-driven computer games. I love them. Now it's time to take them to the next level.


Part of the Game Design Workshop series.

Me and Scott Brown's Mom: How I Took Down a Fence, Sparked the Tea Party Movement, and Almost Killed Health Care Reform

In the winter of 2003 my wife Christine and I purchased our home from the Brown family. At that time George Bush was President, health care reform was a distant dream, and Scott Brown toiled in obscurity. On that day, as we signed those papers, we had no way of knowing what would transpire in days ahead. We had no way of knowing how our fate would intertwine with that of the Brown family. We could not know how our rash decisions in the years to come might endanger the health of this great nation. Now we know. Only now, can this story be told.

That fateful winter the Brown family was divesting their holdings in Portsmouth following the untimely death of Scott Brown's Grandfather. Their lands were substantial. Standing in what is now our yard, members of the Brown family could look out in any direction and rightly say that everything they laid their eyes upon belonged to them. The houses are in there pretty tight. You can't really see very far. Nonetheless, such a sight must have instilled in the Browns a sense of majesty and pride. Unless they were looking through the window at the pile of black trash bags and the random metal step ladder the tenants kept in the dining room. That was not so majestic.

This corner of Portsmouth was the Land of Brown. It has been thus for many a generation. The sale our home was held up due to a title dispute. Some great ancestor had been willed a portion of the land in the 1860's. The land hadn't been bought or sold since. The lawyers had to locate the papers lost during the Civil War before the sale could proceed.

Proceed it did. We moved into our first home and set about repainting, renovating, and making it our own. This was a time of transition for the Brown family as well. They sold most of the property in the area keeping only the duplex behind our our house as a rental unit. With the substantial income generated by the sale of these homes members of the Brown family would have the opportunity to follow their dreams. An ambitious Brown might have found the means to go into politics, become a nude model in a woman's magazine, or buy a truck.

Looking back now, I can see that the years that followed were, for us, a time of peace and stability. A contributing factor in the neighborhood tranquility was an lovingly constructed but decaying set of white picket fences that ran along each of the property lines, separating all the homes and duplexes. Those who know me best may not be surprised that I purchased a home with a white picket fence. They might also suspect that the painting and maintenance of such a fence is not a task I approach with a lot of energy or enthusiasm.

It was during the fateful spring of 2008 that we decided to take down the back fence. Many have questioned our motivation in this. But our reasons were simple. We had a fence on our property. And we didn't want it. The previous summer, the neighbors had all collaborated on a coordinated fence painting project. The Browns declined to participate claiming the fence was ours to maintain. Considering this and the property line, Christine asked me if we might take down the fence. We would have a more pleasant view from the back porch. Our children would have more space to frolic with their friends and neighbors. I said "Ummm. Sure." The die was cast. Saws and crowbars were deployed. The fence came down. 

For a time the decision to take down the fence seemed like the right one. The new view was an improvement and the neighborhood boys enjoyed multi-family nerf battles. But the good times would not last. Within two weeks Scott Brown's Mom discovered the section of fence had been removed. She was not amused.

Christine observed Scott Brown's Mom examining the space where the fence had been and went outside to confer. My wife was met with a flood accusation. Scott Brown's Grandfather had constructed that fence with his own hand. Why would we tear down a perfectly good fence? Like the Little Tailor confronting an angry giant with a piece of cheese, Christine tore off a chunk of fence remnant with her hand and presented it to Scott Brown's Mom. Scott Brown's Mom was not intimidated by this show of strength. Neither was she convinced of the fence's imperfection. She stormed off cursing our names. We knew she would return.

The men came the next day. They inserted thin metal posts in the ground and attached a 4 foot tall, bright orange, thin, plastic snow fence that ran the full length of the property line. The new fence was an abomination. It came be known as the Fuck You fence. It was a flimsy eyesore that mocked us with it's vastness, it's pointlessness and it's cheapness. It served no aesthetic or protective purpose other than to say "fuck you" to all who gazed upon it.

I placed a call to Scott Brown's Mom seeking to negotiate a settlement between our warring factions. Sadly, the call was not returned and the stand-off continued. For weeks we endured the tyranny of the orange snow fence. Then, one day, we looked out. The Fuck You fence was gone.

That same day, Scott Brown's Mom returned. Christine saw her exploring the fenceless void. Once again she went out in the spirit of inquiry and to extend a neighborly hand. Christine was subject to yet another verbal assault. This one was even more violent, sustained, and expletive laden than the last one. The orange snow fence had not been deliberately taken down by Scott Brown's Mom. It had been dismantled. This was vandalism. Sabotage.

Scott Brown's Mom found the orange fence rolled up on the ground. She tossed it into her car and departed in a storm of rage and recrimination. This would not be the end. This crime would not go unavenged. The police would be looking into this matter.

No doubt the fine officers of Portsmouth Police Department heard about the severed snow fence. They committed all the resources to the investigation that a crime of this severity warranted. And they must have conducted their inquires with great cunning and discretion as their presence went undetected by all.

Within the neighborhood, the case was the subject of intense speculation. Who would dare to perform this brazen deed? Who could have snuck out and struck down the dreaded fence in the dead of night? A thorough canvasing of the neighbors was conducted as well as a full forensic investigation. My son held up a thin strip of orange plastic before me. "Look Dad. This was cut. With scissors." The culprit was never identified.

The new fence was erected within the week. This fence would not be so small or flimsy. Nor would the new fences be constrained by the dimensions of the missing segment. Soon the house behind ours was wrapped end to end in a 9 foot stockade, creating the general impression of a frontier fort meant to repel Apache. But it wasn't quite as ugly as the Fuck You fence.

With the lines of demarcation so firmly established, tranquility returned to the neighborhood. We thought this would the last time we would have to concern ourselves with the Browns. But, of course it wasn't the end. It was just the beginning. 

During the winter of 2010 the nation was embroiled in a great debate about reforming the countries patchwork, expensive health care system. Contributing to that debate was a small but very vocal group of radical right-wing pseudo-revolutionaries that called themselves the Tea Party. At that time Scott Brown was a Massachusetts State Senator. Following the death of Ted Kennedy a special election was being held to determine who would fill the seat of the Lion of the Senate. Scott Brown aimed the win that seat. The Tea Party prepared to rally behind him.

At first glance, it is surprising that hard-line members of the Tea Party would make common cause with a moderate Republican like Scott Brown. The Tea Party was violently opposed to health care reform. Scott Brown has been an advocate and supporter of the Massachusetts health care reforms that had become the model for the national system. What could they possibly have in common?

That winter the Tea Party risked obsolescence. Without an electoral victory they would be forever branded an insignificant fringe movement. They were propped up by partisan media executives that hyped and magnified their every utterance. But their message was incoherent. Their numbers small. And they were seen as beholden to the paranoid ramblings of a crackpot television show host. If they could be seen as crucial to victory in Massachusetts it would catapult them to national prominence. More than anything, the Tea Party was enraged by what they saw as the systemic destruction of the barriers, carefully constructed by the Founding Fathers, between the rights of individuals and the powers of government. They turned to someone who was similarly enraged about the careful dismantling of barriers erected by fathers. They turned to Scott Brown. The Tea Party wanted victory. Scott Brown wanted revenge.

As a state senator Scott Brown's powers dissipated at the New Hampshire border. In the United States Senate he might hold the power to stop health care reform. From this mighty perch he would be able to strike our health, our pocketbook, and our ideals. His formidable will combined with the power of the Tea Party proved unstoppable. He won the election.

But would Scott Brown be too late to stop health care reform? In the weeks before the special election the reform bill had already passed the US Senate with an overwhelming majority. But Scott Brown was sure the Democratic majority would want to try and pass it through the Senate again. This time he would be waiting. With Scott Brown, the Republicans had a 41 seat super-minority. If they stood together they could not be overwhelmed. Heath care reform would be totally impossible. Because lots of people on television said so.

Panic ensued among Democrats and health care reform advocates. Suddenly the dreams of health care reform seemed to be unobtainable. The plan of Scott Brown and the Tea Party was working perfectly.

Just when it seemed that all hope was lost, a Democratic strategist discovered a little-known procedure called "reconciliation". This obscure parliamentary provision has only been used before by every single session of Congress to pass nearly every major piece of legislation in the past 30 years: including the Bush tax cuts, COBRA, and Medicare expansion. It was a bold  gambit but it might just work. They tried it. It worked. Health care reform became law. Scott Brown would not have his revenge.

Are we safe? Or is it just a matter of time before this feud changes form and the battle is joined anew? Even as I write this words, I cannot say what the future will hold. I don't know what fate awaits me, my family, or health care reform. Will we ever be able to extend a hand across the barriers that come between us? I fear there are some rifts that can never be repaired.

Finally, Health Care Reform

They passed it. The President will sign it. The Senate will debate and pass the clean-up "reconciliation" bill. But, mostly, the drama is behind us.

This law is the most significant piece of legislation in decades. It is also far less sweeping than it's critics claim and fear. It is comprehensive, smart, and essential reform. It is not a government take over of health care.

The irony is after a year of arguing and endless hour of debate and breathless news coverage, most Americans have little concept of what the law will actually do. This is a strange by-product of the process. The bill's broad framework has remained consistent, but the details have always been a moving target. In the media, and especially from the right-wing media, there been a relentless focus on the daily talking points, conflict, partisan hyperbole, and politics over policy. Misinformation crowded out information from the beginning. So, it bears repeating what this law will actually do.

 The core components of health care reform are:

• Private insurance companies can join health care exchanges that will be able to sell insurance nation-wide.
• Health insurance companies will not be able to reject individuals because of their health history.
• Some people who don't have health insurance will get a tax credit to help purchase it.
• There are a number of policies and pilot programs aimed at controlling health care costs.
• It will be paid for by extending the %2.6 Medicare surcharge to include income greater $250K.

Most Americans will see no significant change to their health care insurance, to their relationship with their doctor, or to their taxes. For most Americans this is no big deal. Health care reform is a big deal for the uninsured, for people (like my family) who buy individual insurance, for anyone who loses their job, or wants to change job, or wants to start a new business, and for anyone dealing with chronic illness. The safety net just got stronger and wider.

This is also a big deal for anyone who cares about the effect of rising health care costs on their personal, state, local, and business finances or who cares about the national debt and deficit.

 For anyone craving more detail about what this law will actually do, I'll direct you to the excellent Ezra Klein who explains it all in great clarity and detail.

 Unlike the policy details, the politics of health care reform have probably gotten too much attention. Nonetheless, I'll offer my thoughts.

 A nice summary of the politics of health care reform comes from Lamar Alexander's comments during the President's conference:  

'Your stories are a lot like the stories I hear. When I went home for Christmas after we had that 25 days of consecutive debate and voted on Christmas Eve on health care, a friend of mine from Tullahoma, Tennessee, said, "I hope you'll kill that health care bill."

And then, before the words were out of his mouth, he said, "But we've got to do something about health care costs. My wife has breast cancer. She got it 11 years ago. Our insurance is $2,000 a month. We couldn't afford it if our employer weren't helping us do that. So we've got to do something."

And that's about -- that's where we are.'

Lamar's friend from Tullahoma captures the sentiments from the right and much of the American electorate. Reform opponents have been so vigorous and relentless in demonizing health care reform that even those who need it most, and who will benefit the most when it become law, are terrified and angry about it.

It is my hope that when health care reform becomes law some of the smoke will clear. Americans will realize that these are sensible, centrist reforms that provide great benefit to all Americans at relatively modest cost. It's my hope that the American people will realize that the tales of tyranny, taxation, redistribution, rationing, death panels, and government takeover bear little resemblance to the policies being enacted into law. It's my hope that people will recognize who has been feeding them this pack of lies and stop listening to them. And stop voting for them.

 The President and the Democrats should celebrate this victory. They should be proud of it. They have succeeded against mighty opposition from every quarter. They have prevailed where many have failed. This is good policy. It is also good politics. Victory polls better than defeat. The juicy sausage will be much more popular than the sausage making. I'm grateful for my own representatives Congresswoman Carol Shea-Porter and Senator Jean Shaheen. Both of them stood tall through it all and kept their promises to all of us.

Yes, we can.

(GDW) Failure is Not an Option: Storytelling in Video Games

The only disappointing Christmas that I can recall is the year everyone got an Atari 2600 and I didn't. I think my mother still gets guilt pangs. She shouldn't. In the nearly 30 years since then I've more than made up for any lost hours of my youth that weren't spent staring at a flashing screen.


I was there at the birth of video games and never stopped playing. They retain their allure and continue to consume embarrassing amounts of my free time. Over the years the games have grown. I remember when moving around white blocks was the height of sophistication. Today characters can leap from rooftop to rooftop and freely explore a simulation of 15th century Florence modeled in astonishing scope and detail.

As the technology has improved video games have started to come into their own as a storytelling medium. Their promise is that these are interactive stories. Rather than just observing the story unfold you can inhabit the character. You are the hero.

Interactivity is the secret to the magic of video game stories. It is also its bane. The author of a book or film has complete control over their protagonist. The hero follows the author's arc without fail. Video game designers walk a fine line between telling the story they wish to tell and giving the player freedom to steer their own path.

The task of the game designer is further complicated by the limitations of technology and the complexity of human relationships. Entire cities can be modeled and populated with all manner of objects and individuals. But actually establishing a non-trivial relationship between the inhabitants of this virtual world is more difficult. Worlds can be simulated. People are much harder.

The byproduct of this constraint is that designers typically choose points A and B and constrain players to deciding how dispatch the hordes of enemies found in between. The questions of whether and why they journey is taken is out of the players hands-- as is the relationship between the player and characters met along the way. The player controls the action but not the plot. Love, revenge, betrayal, hope, fear, loss and growth may be components of the story. Rarely can they be chosen or avoided. They are simply watched.

In most every game you are called upon to perform some heroics and save the day. A good game will work to set the stakes and ratchet up the tension. Inevitably, failure in not a option. And this is literally true. The story and scenes progress until all adversity has been overcome. When you fail, you go back and do it again until you succeed. Boredom, frustration, tedium, and abandoning the story to go do something else are all options. Failure is not an option. A good game will end with enough spectacle to create a sense of accomplishment. But since perseverance was the only criteria, victory feels hollow.

The idea of interactive stories holds immense promise. I spend so much time with computer games because even the limited interactions of games have a powerful allure that non-interactive media such as books, movies, and television can't match. But I recognize the older forms as vastly superior storytelling mediums. For now.

Some game designers are pushing against the medium's limitations for character and story development. They endeavor, within the structure of the game and hero's journey, to include options and questions of morality, romance, friendship, and loss. In my next post I'll look at what the best of them are doing and explore how to do it better.


Part of the Game Design Workshop series.