Fandomlife.net has been moved from Ourinternet to Flinthost. Regrettably, this was born out of a complete breakdown in buyer trust in the supplier. I've been with Ourinternet for sometime, since the site has been developed in Coldfusion, and I've been happy with the service. Recently, they seem to have been doing everything they could to instigate the breakdown by failing in the communications department. That's the sad thing about it from their perspective, it wasn't even the faults, which I'll go into next, but their response to them.

For some reason, I've been hampered by a series of faults on the site which seem to be a mixture of database faults and issues caused by administration errors. I'm guessing at the administration errors as what happens is things stop working even though I've changed nothing, then things are 'fixed', some of them needing subsequent changes on my side (which is annoying). The whole reason why the sequence of events is necessary is never explained. The database faults are usually some form of database corruption, again with very little explanation of why they happen. I'm sure it's not me as the site gets very low traffic and I post to it, on a web scale, at an infinitesimal rate. They usual follow this by asking for my backups despite the fact they have them and the mean time to repair (MTTR) is often measured in a day or so.

The final straw was another database fault (quite plainly one as even PHPMyAdmin ceased to work). Despite this, I spent over 24 hours persuading them it wasn't a syntax error on my part. Basically, four days later the fault had not been fixed. It's a personal site. I have no delusions of grandeur. It being down isn't overly a problem, but they would never communicate what was going on. A request for an update would be an update saying they are going to update and that would be it. Since they always refused to say (1) what was wrong, (2) what the plan was and (3) what the time scale to fix was I lost trust and moved hosts.

I'm glad I did. The site on Flinthost is just an order of magnitude faster. They are constantly highly rated and they are based in the UK, with a UK number that isn't on some fiddly dial code. They also seem to be focusing more on Coldfusion hosting, which is a good thing. The transfer was also very smooth. It took a bit of programming work on my side to scan all content for links to content within the site and remove a superfluous folder, but that is a good thing longer-term.

Hopefully all will go well.

The contents of my inbox have been the same for some time. I don't have a problem with spam, as I've ceased to receive any spam since I put my two mail accounts through Google Mail, the issue is all I receive in my inbox is status updates from various kinds from social networks. E-mail is effectively dead for me. The only time I use e-mail is at work (and then radically less than most people) and when I need to interface with something 'work related' from a personal perspective. This in itself is significant: the corporate setting uses e-mail, but the personal setting increasingly doesn't and has, or is rapidly in the process of, consigning it to the scrap heap.

Personally, I've never been a big user of e-mail in my personal life. This is because something more focused has always been available, such as a discussion forum or IM. I've always been a big fan of IM from the very early days, and I can track the way crowds of people moved from one IM to the other. Now it's Facebook IM by a significantly large margin and it was obviously a very sensible idea for them to integrate IM into their site. I have less than a handful of contacts on Google Talk and MSN, everyone else is Facebook IM. I just can't remember using e-mail in a big way. I remember the odd role-playing game discussion over e-mail in the early days, but most of it has been IM, forums and private messages on forums.

The only time I use e-mail now is for interfacing with the job market, but this is driven by the fact e-mail is still a core application for business. I wonder how long this can continue, to be honest?

Now, I'm not a big fan of e-mail in the work place. I'm not some sort of weird Luddite, obviously, I just think e-mail gets misused a lot and often becomes problem rather than a solution. E-mail has it's place, and it's uses, I think my issue is there is often a better way to do something and e-mail just gets used by default.

First, e-mail is really bad for focused, sensible and productive discussion across a group of people. If you have a dispersed workforce IT is brilliant for bringing intelligent minds together to solve problems. E-mail just isn't the tool. The thread of conversation gets disjointed, all messages don't go to all people, etc. This is why I believe discussion forums, team rooms, web 2.0 tools (or Lotus Domino tools back in the mid-nineties) are all better. They focus the conversation in one place resulting in a richer and traceable thread of ideas and concepts. Link it all up with a contextual presence awareness and you have a much better way of doing things than e-mail, and it can be extensible by adding more tools into this virtual location. As is usually the case, all this has been possible for a while before the Web 2.0 stuff, as IT tends to recycle, improve and renew ideas. If you're running a project with a range of stakeholders I'd rather use a properly configured team room than shoot e-mails off in every direction. I'd restrict e-mail to notifications of new content in the team room.

Second, it seems all too easy for some organisation to fall into management by e-mail, and this rapidly engenders a range of systemic problems around bad communication, inefficient organisation and a strange psychology shift to 'I sent him an e-mail' somehow equating to a job having been done. It's very dysfunctional, impersonal and can reach almost surreal levels of ridiculousness. It gets so bad, medium sized change projects amount to an e-mail being sent to a significant proportion of individuals and an assumption that that's the end of it. What then happens next is so many e-mails are sent the lag from reception to reading an e-mail can be days or nearly weeks. It's my view something is seriously going wrong with someone's work patterns or the organisation itself if individuals don't even get around to reading e-mails for a handful of days. This process tends to foster the impersonality of the organisation, to the extent of fostering resentment, rather than utilising IT to bring teams together, it's almost the opposite of what's supposed to be going on.

The back of e-mail will eventually be broken in the business environment, and it'll be replaced with something more interactive, but not necessarily so, and something more personal and focused. I suppose Google Wave is one possible shot in this direction. The web is becoming less anonymous and more identity-based with surprising speed. It may well take a while. It may well take a generational change. As far as I'm concerned? I ain't going to lament the loss as I've been personally trying to break the back of e-mail for sometime.

The death of e-mail? Bring it on. Of course this means I'm a Gen-Y person in a Gen-X body, so the studies tell me, but then I've 'suffered' this for a while.

So, over the month of January I've been putting my 2010 resolutions into practice, specifically taking notes, resolving the input problem and sprinkling the MBA dedication around a bit. As mentioned in the resolutions, individually these aren't that great, but they do have a high amount of synergy. A lack of inputs results in a lack of outputs. I tend to have a thought or two and not note it down and it goes. Then, if I have remembered sparks of imagination, I need to apply a bit of dedication to do stuff with them.

I've been applying this three pronged strategy to all things Space Fantasy (or Opera, but I'm going with the fantasy tag for now) and building upon my first and second pondering of Space Opera scale.

Basically, playing Mass Effect 2 has injected some fuel into the process by acting as a primary input, and it's serving the purpose I hoped it would and delivering on MGS being more than just about playing games. It's got me thinking about how a space fantasy could be framed and the types of things I would want to have in such a set-up. Basically, I've got a number of influences going around in my head: Fading Suns, Dune, Mass Effect, Warhammer 40K and, to a lesser degree, Babylon 5. Now, these are quite different, but Fading Suns, Dune and Warhammer 40K are similar enough to have some broad common principles. Then I'm looking at those through the lens of Mass Effect. Steal liberally seems to be the order of the day.

What's the result? Well, a scrambled primer 'document', more a set of notes, on a space fantasy milieu that is hopefully strong on generating conflict, story and good space fantasy action while having enough colour to give a sense of richness. It's hoped the current inputs generate the primer notes which then, in a glorious feedback loop, generates another input and so on. The aim being to vanquish the lack of inputs which has dogged me for sometime.

Progress so far?

First, I'm keeping a lot of the Fading Suns signature riffs. It's probably the core. The reason for this is I want space to remain big and mysterious. I also want to keep a lot of the structure and have religion. I also wanted mystery and mythology. In short, space fantasy. While the presence of interstellar travel will mean star systems will be trivialised to some degree, I do want to keep the feel of star systems being very big and empty. I am merging this with a bit of Warhammer 40K and the odd space opera book and Mass Effect (which works this way but without the dangerous warp and uses Mass Relays rather than Fading Suns-style moon size gates). So, interstellar travel is currently facilitated by Warp Gates and Warp Drives. The Warp Gates connect clusters / sectors of star systems which can be traversed by Warp Drives. You can't use the Warp Drive technology within the heliopause of a star system so that means travelling outward which takes days of time (the Warp Gates are all positioned at least 80 AU out). I'm keeping the fact the suns are fading. I'm also keeping warp technology mysterious, it's known that without the correct shielding individuals come out mad, theology holds dark creatures exist within the warp field and can break through in the darkness between the stars.

I've also kept a lot of the structure of Fading Suns in terms of political structure and religion. Humanity is ruled by a Imperium, which is dominated by the Great Dynastic Families, The Church and The Guilds. I've changed things a bit, in the sense that things aren't so literally medieval, but the weight of these powers keeps the Imperium in check ('terrorist' groups like Second Republic Reformists aside). The change of Noble Families to Great Dynastic Familities is one example of an alteration, it might be largely cosmetic, but in my eyes the Great Dynastic Families are like the the Kennedy's extrapolated to the max, being a combination of interstellar corporation, royal and political generational families of old, galactic celebrities and government bodies. The Guilds are largely the same, though I've dropped the Charioteers and the restrictions on travel, most Warp Gates go to any other. Obviously, I'm paraphrasing, this presents lots of potential conflict based around politics, terrorism, power and responsibility, religion, etc. A bit of this stuff intersects, the religion in Fading Suns is based around the light of stars holding back the darkness beyond the stars, well that links in 'scientifically' and 'spiritually' as to why the technology won't work in the heliopause, etc. Warp Gate imagery also features a lot.

I'm using Fading Suns and Dune as inspiration for a brief history, what paraphrased version of it there will be in my head (I'm not writing a source book or anything). Humanity found a Warp Gate, extended out throughout the stars, had an interstellar war with an alien race, formed a grand Second Republic which saw the peak of human 'achievement' and it all went to shit in The Machine Crusade in which humanity fought a devastating war with AI they created. Now we are in a darker age of concentrated power, slightly feudal with less understanding. This also links into other things, The Earth That Was is mythical and was lost millennia ago, the ancient War in the Heavens between the Warp Gate makers, and supposedly the darkness beyond the stars, is mirrored in humanities war with the machines due to humanities hubris, etc. Technology is best described as 'used' and 'diverse'. The Imperium has its rare, new, shiny and fantastic technology, but this is not the norm, the majority has a used, utilitarian look and feel. Some of it even has a history, like an ancient relic or a vast starship maintained over the years. There is little blasters for instance, in colour terms I'm sticking with weapons of the bolt throwing variety (similar to Mass Effect, basically).

Aliens? Yes, I'm going with aliens, three major interstellar ones as well as the human Imperium, and probably some minor ones in single systems and sectors which I'll not overly define. Not sure how many 'minor races' I'll go with, might be strict and stick with the three interstellar ones. I'm focusing on settings things up as human centric anyway. The alien races have connections and conflicts and a history with humanity in a couple of paragraphs of notes fashion. Let's admit it, we steal completely for these things, so my races are orientated around certain types. I'm thinking of 100% stealing The Citadel from Mass Effect and having that as my Babylon 5 with the human Imperium, the three alien races and any league of minor races I may have consolidating there in an 'interstellar UN'. The Citadel is too big, awesome and a grand piece of 'ancient alien technology' not to use.

The dramatic crucible of the idea? Well, at the minute I'm thinking of lifting things straight from Mass Effect and going with a Spectre concept. The players are basically individuals of some skill or consequence (whatever that may be) who are assigned by The Citadel Council to solve problems and investigate mysteries, whether that means blowing shit up or negotiation or a bit of both. It provides a level of freedom, always has a backup reason driving conflict and a level of legitimacy, it's another version of being Jedi, sanctioned privateers, a Ranger, or whatever. Needless to say these 'Spectres' (if I keep the name) will find themselves in all sorts of dangerous situation dealing with innumerable threats and the powers within the milieu. Queue lots of starships, actions, religious theology, politics, mystery and dangers from beyond the stars.

I've also started to glance through the Starblazer Adventures book and see what some of my basic milieu choices mean for some of the rules. As an example, the Star Drive skill on starships needs altering slightly, etc. This is going better than usual as well.

We shall see if the process holds up. In truth, I've already got further than I usually get.

This is spoiler free. I'm going to try and take a different approach to the one I took when I played the original Mass Effect and try and include less of the actual story. We'll see if it works out. So, after about nine or so hours of play what's great about it? What's great about it is many people are questioning whether it's a role-playing game at all, mostly because of it kicking out the RPG baggage, and this is officially a good thing.

It kicks out the RPG baggage. I've discussed this before so I'll keep it brief, but Mass Effect 2 throws out a lot of the baggage that traditional role-playing games began to ditch in the eighties, though computer role-playing games kept a lot of the baggage for much longer. Mass Efffect 2 is all about getting to the awesome, whether it be playing out an action scene or one of dramatic worth. It's not about managing inventory, levelling up characters, having random encounters while walking from City A to City B and whatever other old rubbish. In a way, it's the CRPG to come closest to a very scene-focused storytelling game focused on conflict and choices. Hell, it even maintains the results of those scenes not just in the game but to the next two.

It focuses on player skill and not character skill. Okay, I've discussed this before and back then I was still focused on role-playing games being based on characters skill. That's the point right? You're playing a character and just like in a traditional games I might be crap at shooting but my character may be great. I was wrong. I wasn't thinking it through. Mass Effect 2 changes things, it makes you realise it's all about player skill because the elements combine to create something unique. Once a CRPG has dropped all the RPG baggage then it's all too easy to see character skill as just another facet of that baggage. A CRPG is different to a traditional RPG and as such character skill is less important, because player skill in terms of interfacing with the game is a totally different dynamic. I can't use my skill at shooting in a traditional RPG but I can use my skill at 'shooting' in a CRPG. This makes it more visceral and more immediate, which works well with a fluid, scene-based game blending game and interactive narrative almost perfectly. The narrative, the scenes, the action and the choices sort of blend into a continuum of awesome.

It kicks simulative play in the bollocks. Mass Effect 2 is following a trend in the traditional RPG market of giving simulative play of a setting a kick in the bollocks. There is very little myth of reality. There is no need to create stuff and have things happen, just to maintain the illusion of being in a real world. It's not about engendering verisimilitude for the sake of it. It's about telling the story, as it pertains to the protagonist, with colour to provide a contextual awesome, and choices to be made. This is why the game is constructed to cut to the point of action or narrative, it doesn't feel the need to present the setting to you as having value in itself. Don't get me wrong, the setting is there, but it's not valuable in and off itself, it's valuable in terms of the fabric of colour.

The setting is awesome. The setting of Mass Effect 2 (and the original) is pretty, damned fine. They've managed to do something with a computer game that is rarely witnessed: provide a setting that is just brilliant. It doesn't feel like a CRPG setting, it feels real, it has weight. It sounds real. It looks real. The concerns of the people and species within it all feel incredibly important. It does this without labouring you with world building, as the setting comes through via the brilliant visuals, the excellent acting of the cast and the dramatic choices you make. This is how setting should be revealed.

The soundtrack is great. I rarely notice the soundtracks to games, but I notice the one is Mass Effect 2 just like I do a great film soundtrack. It's not just the bombastic moments, it's the relatively subtle music when speaking The Illusive Man, or the music in the club on Omega. It's very good stuff, and I'm listening to it on a very basic sound system, I can't even begin to contemplate the aural part of the game if I had something good blaring it out across the room.

The characters are exciting.Last, but by no means least, the characters really draw you in. Basically, it's the science fiction magnificent seven (well, more than seven I think) setting off on the ultimate 'suicide mission' to save the galaxy. The characters are visually exciting and excellently drawn in that grand, soap opera manner of melodramatic awesome. They are a varied and unique bunch. Not only that, they are each backed up with an individual quest that focuses on their back story. I've only done Miranda's, but it was very good. It was exciting. It was sad. I'd even say those computer characters go a long way to actually acting. If each of the personal quests is as good as Miranda's that's some awesome sauce right there.

The irony of all this is Bioware has released two games, in almost as many months, that define two radically different CRPG approaches. Dragon Age: Origins harks back to how such games used to be done. It's about the party. It's about tactics. It's about character over player skill in terms of ability (the player skill comes in choosing what character us used where and does what). It's about a lot of the old baggage updated only slightly. It has a setting that feels more like you're 'walking around living in it' rather than just being part of a narrative within it. It's the traditional RPG. Mass Effect 2 is much closer to the story game approach. It drops all the old baggage. It doesn't have character skill, it's all player skill. It's about aggressive scene framing whether it be an action or dramatic scene. It's about setting coming through action and colour rather.

As one can expect, the two approaches are divisive. Only about 40-minutes ago I read an article on how Mass Effect 2 is no longer an RPG for the very reasons it cuts out all the things that Dragon Age: Origins keeps. The argument wasn't that dissimilar to why some story games aren't role-playing games because they cut out simulative goals of setting verisimilitude and various elements of RPG baggage.

Today I spent eight hours playing Mass Effect 2. The game can be summed up in one word: awesome. I'm sure I'll wax lyrical about it a lot over the coming weeks, but for the moment I'm interested in one set of choices the game design encompasses. Computer role-playing games and traditional role-playing games face many of the same issues, just in different ways. A traditional role-playing games faces them in terms of game design and decisions at the table, while the computer role-playing game faces them largely in game design as that also covers the play experience. In the past, I've discussed conflicting issues over player versus character skill, the handling of character death and whether opponents should scale. Now Mass Effect 2 brings up some interesting issues regarding the tossing aside of traditional RPG baggage.

Historically, traditional role-playing games came with a host of sacred cows and baggage. It's hard to list them all, but a selection of them would be: character build science, encumbrance, random encounters, gear, the importance travelling to places and no doubt other things I can't remember at this stage. In terms of traditional role-playing games, key products arose that challenged the concepts upon which role-playing games were based: Ghostbusters (1986), WEG Star Wars (1987), Prince Valiant (1989), (Over the Edge (1992), Fengshui (1996) and no doubt others I'm missing. They shifted what was important in a game away from the aforementioned elements to storytelling and supporting genre conventions.

Computer role-playing games have kept the traditional RPG baggage for longer. In fact, the biggest games in the genre have had a focus on the baggage. Virtually all of them have a strong element of character building as an important part of the game in order to be more effective. They've also involved inventory management and collecting gear, often plugging into the character building. A number of them even have travel and random encounters. This has been true for a very long time, though Fable ditched a lot of the elements. The big Bioware games like Baldur's Gate, Baldur's Gate II, Neverwinter Nights and even the Knights of the Old Republic held onto the baggage, and Dragon Age: Origins is a nostalgic throwback to such games (not a bad thing). The Final Fantasy games are all about the baggage, right down to grinding experience to confront non-scaled enemies.

What makes Mass Effect 2 different, is not only does it represent an even more perfect merger of game and interactive narrative, in that they are one and the same, it also strips down the baggage.

The levelling and build science of the original Mass Effect is stripped back to a lean set-up that seems to be so lean the game is almost experimenting with advancement not being important. The choice of skills for each character is that limited the efficiency gains for playing the build game is probably very small, if not non-existent. They have set abilities rather than a palette of many choices which can result in highly varied ranges of character power. This has two advantages for me. First, I don't care about character power advancement. Second, it means the game can be more effectively balanced as the variance will be smaller (or the chance of a particular build rendering the challenge irrelevant will be smaller).

The need to manage inventory and gear and even fancy ammo types has been almost completely removed from the game. It's just a non-issue and what is there pretty much happens automatically. Yes, you will see yourself having one pistol and at some point using another, but this seems to happen without major decisions needing to be made. Not only that, once you have that pistol everyone in the team seems to be able to use. It's like you gain the right to use the equipment rather than finding a single pistol which then has to be micromanaged across your team. Simple and efficient, a simulation of reality be damned. It's the same with gear upgrades, as it's done by research. You just seem to pick up ideas for upgrades and get resources from surveying planets and every so often it's just possible to research an upgrade. All of these are not specific items, but equipment spanning bonuses like +20% on all assault rifle damage. It's in the game, it's good to get the bonus, but it doesn't count as a 'game' in and off itself.

What this means is Mass Effect 2 has made the transition to a new type of computer role-playing game. It's focused on delivering a grand, exciting space opera in which are central to the story, making choices on which 'great things rely' and the game is a mixture of enjoying the cinematic action scenes, soaking up the brilliant colour provided by the setting and getting to be a major protagonist in a science fiction epic. It weaves and imaginative and dramatic fabric that is truly brilliant.

I am playing it, and as I set out in my resolutions for 2010, I'm making notes. It might be useful one day.

Downloadable Content (DLC) is now being used to combat both piracy and the re-sale market. I'm only half interested in the anti-piracy tactic, but one can understand it's use, especially on the PC. People will talk about how piracy on the PC would end if only games were produced people really valued and wanted to play, etc. I don't hold to this argument. I believe it's basically true, but not to the extent of having a significant effect. Anecdotal evidence suggests to me there is a core of PC gamers who just don't buy games, despite forming communities around them and getting literally years worth of entertainment from them (yet they'll spend five times that much on one night out). A number of year ago our guild in World of Warcraft had a handful of ingrates who had formed communities around a range of games they'd pirated. Paying for a game on a subscription wasn't new for them, paying for them at all was new. In 2009, Call of Duty 4 was downloaded 4.1 million times for the PC despite selling an estimated 200,000 to 300,000 (it sold 6 million on consoles). Okay, each of those 4.1 million downloads isn't necessarily a sale or represents a person who went on to play it in any meaningful way but, come on, 4.1 million? I think DLC as an incentive to purchase is fighting a losing battle on the PC market.

This brings me to the much more interesting second use of DLC: the battle against the re-sale market on consoles. The re-sale market is a thorny one. It's thorny because I can't see myself supporting some sort of legal ruling that disallows it. You've bought the game, it's yours to do what you like with, and if there is a market for it second hand, so be it. You don't see many other products trying to secure revenue from re-sale? It tends to be creative industries like video games and film. Do car makers invalidate warranties on re-sale? Not sure. At the same time, there is a part of me that recognised the pain of the development studios and even the publisher to a degree. They put in the creative effort. They put in the money and funding. They spend a fortune on marketing to shift the demand curve and make demand more price inelastic. Yet they receive nothing from every penny spent in the re-sale market. The store gets it. It's a monopoly for only that portion of the sector's value chain for relatively little effort which doesn't return in anyway to fund bigger, better or more games. Technically it's not a free rider issues, but it shares some of the elements.

While economically sound, it is pretty harsh, and it could be argued destructive to the sector as a whole.

The use of DLC to disrupt the re-sale market is fascinating. Initially, they've tried to do this with special editions, and they still represent a good tactics as they undoubtedly represent a higher return per box than the standard edition. If they didn't at least have an equal return I'd question their use. The trouble is, a potential special edition customer is highly likely to be first hand purchaser anyway. Launch DLC is clever, as it means only those buying the game first hand, no matter when, will get the launch DLC. It's an incentive to buy first hand, rather than on re-sale copy. Even more importantly, it's not time limited, so if you want to wait until the game is half-price that's fine. Sound tactic.

Electronic Arts and Bioware have raised the tactic to a new level with Mass Effect 2, which I think is a stroke of genius. Not only is there launch DLC, there is also a launch code for access to the Cerebus Network. The Cerebus Network is the delivery mechanism for future DLC. The launch DLC is access to all DLC. If you buy the game on re-sale and you want access to the Cerebus Network then the access code is itself DLC and it's going to cost you 15 USD (or the UK equivalent). In this way, Electronic Arts and Bioware get some money from the re-sale product if that person is interested in DLC (possibly for each re-sale). It's a great strategy, produce DLC to minimise the number of people putting the game on the re-sale market and also charge for access to the DLC for anyone not buying first hand.

Is this a bad thing? Again, it's hard to say. Since I can't bring myself to support a legal ruling to stop the re-sale market, I find myself liking the incentive approach. The purchaser has a choice. It may not be a choice he likes, but that's hard luck. I'm in a unique position really, as apart from using the re-sale market to get DS games for a 'play value' of a few pounds, I don't touch the re-sale market. I don't overly understand the appeal of PS3 and 360 games selling on re-sale for 5 GBP less than new. I have contributed to the re-sale market by offloading games gathering dust on my shelf.

I like the strategy, I suspect we'll see more of it. It'll backfire though if Bioware doesn't pump out some good DLC over the lifetime of the game.

Okay, so last time in Liberty City, Niko had just found out that Vlad was doing the wild thing with Roman's girl, who is also a friend of Michelle. I didn't think it would end well and it didn't. The pixelated crap hit the fan. Roman apologised on behalf of his girl. Niko just got infuriated and set of to give Vlad a piece of his mind. The end result? You end up on a bit of wasteland next to the river pointing a gun at Vlad with the option to cap him in the head or not. Have to admit, not sure what the whole angry drama was, Roman's girl is a free agent, but Vlad sure is annoying, so I took him out. This lead to a series of events that got me involved with the next tier of criminals in Niko's world only to kill someone else for that boss due to hum having anger management issues.

I suspect this is going to cause much drama also.

The Michael Mann stuff has kicked in. I've done the odd job for Little Jacob who, you guessed it, ain't little. I also never understand a word he's saying. It's a good job the game provides 'mission' instructions otherwise I'd be at a complete loss. He likes Niko to pick-up packages and drop them off. The trouble is they always go wrong. In one a group of gang members was waiting for me resulting in a shoot out in an alley. Another caught me in a police sting operation resulting in a Michael Mann style shoot out in a city park followed by a serious police chase. They don't like it when cops go down. It was epic stuff. I liked the fact the police kept shooting as I dived into my car, the windows exploding as I drove away. It was a great car chase, followed by another street shoot out and then another car chase, they must have then got bored.

I was hoping to reach the end of chapter one, but the game was refusing to give me the next mission on the main story. I assume it will do eventually. This meant I've filled my time doing some some taxi driving for Roman and the much riskier stuff for Little Jacob.

I usually spend a good while obsessing over MBA assignments. This is a good thing for the most part, especially on the marked assignments. It can also absorb a lot of time. Due to the existence of Facebook you get an idea of how other members of the MBA cohort are doing their assignments. A few sit down and finish them in one sitting, often ridiculously late in the game. While there is a lot of context missing, such as how they studied and prepared up to that point, finishing them in a short burst of time had some appeal.

So, I thought I'd give it a go with the tutor assessed assignments (TAA).

It went well and I got the first draft done today in about five hours. What was even more noteworthy is I actually enjoyed it. The goal of getting it completed, the knowledge it wouldn't be hanging around for several weekends in a row. All good. In truth, the preparation and the writing can't be separated. What I did this semester is focus on the TAA before I even cracked open the study materials. This meant I studied with a focused awareness of the questions and how the topics in question were distributed through modules one to four. In short, rather than the TAA just focusing what I learned it focused how I studied. This seems to have translated into me being more prepared for the essay, who'd have thought? It wasn't a specific, more intense effort, it's just you pick up what is necessary as you have it in mind. I'll also admit to focusing my efforts a bit more, rather than cramming in too much, and brought in more real world examples. You only have 1,500 words. It's not a mark that contributes to the final result.

The other TAAs present a few wrinkles that the Strategic Supply Chain Management one doesn't have. The Strategic Marketing module requests that you analyse a few different sales forecasting methods, ideally in the context of 'your organisation or an organisation you are familiar with'. I know why they do this and I agree it's great. The problem is if the question just happens to put you in the situation of your current organisation not being applicable and one you are familiar with not helping either (like a past one or a supplier, etc). It's also a bit of a pain finding any studies or discussion of the topic. Tricky one that. I can hit the second part which is about product development and market penetration.

The Small Business Management one isn't to bad, but I need a franchise to analyse. Domino Pizza have sent me through their franchise contract, and they have the usual investor information on the web. I'm going to try and get the franchise pack they send to interested parties. That'll take a call or two I suspect (my first contact gave me the necessary names).

The conclusion? Subject to the marks coming back and telling me this was a disastrous way to do it. I like this method better. I think in the past I've spent too much time on them for no more a guarantee of a 'reward'. This is inevitable as you gauge effort for things over time. Taking the one I did today as an example, it doesn't feel significantly better or worse than the others I've done. We shall see.

Exactly thirteen months after the the final heroic battle, we have the final paragon battle. The end of the paragon tier, some sixteen sessions in length. The paragon tier has been focused on the retrieval of five McGuffins, the 'hearts' of each of the five primordials. We started this session in possession of them all and with the goal to return to the City of Kings, the place the campaign started, enter the labyrinth of madness and stop Sopias, one of said primordials, escaping from his prison and / or cure him of a chaos infestation.

Battle in the Skies

I liked the first battle because it felt less like a 4E encounter and more like a dynamic action scene that just happened to involve a 4E encounter. It started with us giving the enemy an illusionary set of primordial hearts. It ended with us ramming the enemy battle cruiser airship and teleporting out of the descending wreckage into the City of Kings. In the middle was an encounter with the enemy to regain control of our ship before the enemy realised and the giant battle cruiser airship turned around. This meant the actual 4E tactical play seemed to be framed within a larger dramatic set-up and, as such, it felt different. The overall cinematic situation didn't get lost when the battle zoomed into the encounter experience in this instance. It didn't for me anyway.

And I got to shoot an arrow into one of the airship's power nodes to take out an enemy mage, which was great. It was cool and dramatic. It gave the character an 'awesome weight' above and beyond repeated application of the same powers. That's what allows you to 'feel the awesome' rather than relative encounter maths.

The Sinister Five

The second encounter involved the return of five previous enemies we'd killed during the heroic or paragon tier. They'd been raised to rain revenge and destruction upon us. It was an interesting fight because it seemed to be the closest we've come to fighting a party like ourselves. They'd been built using the monster construction rules, but they fell into various 'class-like' slots. Rather scarily they included an Invoker and a Barbarian which have ridiculous damage potential. It also meant that was one enemy for each one of us. A few things came into focus in this encounter. As a strike (Ranger), I can take things down quickly, but go down easily myself when the enemy really insists on focusing on me. The fighter has seriously harsh abilities to keep things focused on him, and in the case of our fighter, causes a significant amount of steady damage to those so locked around him while being ridiculously hard to take down (and even more so with the Demigod Epic Destiny).

It was a swingy fight, it looked doomed at one point but we pulled it around but there was key points were it could have swung either way. It was very interesting fighting a group of enemies with a healer in the mix, as we did focus on taking him down due to his power magnification. The use of status effects was also interesting on both sides (they kept their healer alive a few rounds longer through judicious use of them).

I'm not sure this encounter had as much emotional investment as it did for some of the other players. Enemies returned for revenge! Yeah, but to me it was like a load of henchmen returning for revenge rather than someone important! I could think of a few others that would have really got the adrenaline flowing. I mean, Paldamar the Ganked?

Sopias Kill Steal

What's not to like about this battle? A massive, I mean obscenely massive, Sopias raging against his chains slowly being corrupted by chaos looking out across the field of battle as the chaos demon and his forces, consuming his very soul, is confronted by a group of heroic mortals. Frickin' excellent. This is a perfect example of how the 'encounter zoom in' erodes the dramatic weight. I completely lost track of this imagery in the scene as you concentrate on the tactics. It's not part of each round, more opening and closing colour. It's only after you consider it again.

It was another good encounter. The number of minions on the field was legion, and that really showed off the awesome of the mage. Despite their numbers they had very little influence on the battle due to continually being killed by AOE awesome. Cloud Kill may not be great empirically (though I have no idea), but it was certainly awesome on that field on that day. It was the first encounter in a long time to see us relying on our at-will powers, not for a boring 1001 rounds, but in the last handful of rounds it was certainly the case. The main boss also had a fiendish ability, a throw the dice at the GM in frustrating ability. It had an AOE attack that gave the GM a dice roll for each enemy in the area of effect and the result of those dice rolls could replace any GM or player roll until they ran out. Annoying, but cool.

The best bit at the end? I got to stand over Sopias and make a fateful decision to send an arrow from his fellow primordial's weapon, The Solar Bow of Ashura, into his chest. Did I choose to fire the arrow? Of course, I did. Artemis, Slayer of Gods, shall be whispered across the fabric of reality!

Fateful choices. Freckin' excellent.

The Paragon Tier In Conclusion

The paragon tier felt very long. It swapped the five month, eleven session heroic tier for a paragon experience of sixteen sessions and thirteen months. If we imagine each tier as a season then both are quite long by the gaming groups standards and the paragon tier is probably longer than the two seasons of the Buffy campaign added together. I suspect each tier isn't that much shorter (if not longer) than whole of the Crescent Sea campaign? We played the paragon tier for a whole year? Shheeet!

It may have been a marathon, but it was a fun marathon. The picture the DM paints is fantastic, if sometimes so deep it becomes superfluous as no one keeps on top of it as it seems too distant from the protagonists themselves (though it gets closer as the game goes on). The encounters have been great. It's a great, round the table experience. It's just a sort of fun that seems less immediate, visceral, intense, chaotic and emotional. It tends to be more controlled, delivered and mediated and a story held by the GM certainly exists to a greater extent than in other games independent of player issues, premise and desires for their characters. It's no secret my favourite bits are were a bit of chaos and unpredictability sneaked in.

All the immediate, visceral, intense, chaotic and emotional stuff is there but it tends to be lost in either the encounter rush (and the time they take) or obfuscated behind power-based, transactional politics and 'ultimate pragmatist' characters rather than being based on emotional needs and wants due to loves, hates, the weight of history and other dramatic constructs. In short, the why of the power dynamics. I suspect the larger 'story fabric' also has an influence.

I also find the actual plays interesting. They have an Alastair Campbell sort of 'sexed up' feel about them in that they reflect generally what happened at the table but in a much better fictionalised form. It's a dramatic reconstruction of events that isn't exactly a piece of fiction inspired by the game. Idealised I guess. The DVD extras that are often added onto the end are great, despite the fact it relegates them as 'off table'.

The game is a great achievement though, and the final session was awesome.

The epic tier looms. Hopefully, a shorter and more intense experience full of fateful protagonist decisions born from emotions and relationships and wants and desires that effect all of reality itself! A bit of chaos, for good or bad? Bring it on.

I've had a week of podcasts and it's been brilliant. Podcasts are great if you have dead time that you can't really do much else in. I have circa 90-minutes of dead time per day in order to get to and from work. I also like to go for a walk for an hour during dinner as it's the only exercise I get during the day. All this week, I've spent that 150 minutes listening to podcasts.

What have been listening to? The gaming podcast Fear the Boot and the Marketing and Strategy podcast from Cambridge University's Judge Business School.

I like Fear the Boot. I used to listen to it before, along with Sons of Kryos, and then I sort of drifted away from them both (and I believe Sons of Kryos isn't made any more). Despite Sons of Kryos being more compatible with the gaming groups approach, I found that less interesting, probably because it was so compatible, it had an element of 'simple confirmation' about it. Fear the Boot is still interesting, largely because they use a language and seem to have a body of experience that ignores a certain strand of game development post-1996. Whenever they quote game examples they come from D&D, Battletech, Vampire, FASA Star Trek, Palladium and the token simpler and classless game of Savage Worlds. Despite sometimes breaking away from it, a lot of the language focuses on the 'GM story and setting' and the separation of the GM and the player, and too much use of the term 'RP'. Anyway, it's still good because it's about gamers in a different place with different experiences, though it does mean you sometimes mean I'm shaking my head in the car. Still, one of them was also very enlightening, and pulled together a number of thoughts I've been having about gaming generally, and the two on live action role-playing was interesting in terms of the thoughts and mindsets of those involved in the hobby (they had a panel).

The Cambridge University Business School podcasts were an experiment with iTunes U. The first minor issue is iTunes U podcasts don't download to the iPod. No idea why. If you go into the subscription and change all the file types to podcasts rather than iTunes U they will download. When something is so easily changed it always seems odd the restriction is in place? I've listened to a good number of them and a core of them are the usual academic of the day telling people what they should do with marketing budgets in the recession, or the latest academic theory. All when and good but they involve little application, so they are interesting, but are sort of repeats of things that can be picked up elsewhere. It's not that hard to know what you should be doing theoretically, after all. The interesting ones involved either case studies or new theories and their application to the real world. The most interesting one was on global strategies and how true the Global Market really is. As I've always suspected it's not that true. Capital and commodity markets are global, but it turns out even the top 500 global companies are remarkably slanted to their home market or markets just a hop away in the same region (Europe, Asia Pacific, etc). In short, we have a quasi-global market and the detail may be in regional markets along with the various regional structures and bodies and extending globally is hard. I've always had thoughts in this direction, it was interesting hearing it backed up with research, facts, theories and some wider thinking. Overall, based on the podcasts I've listened to, I'd recommend the odd iTunes U experiment if you've got dead time.

The trouble is, I've ran out of back catalogue, so now I'm waiting for new episodes to drop into my iTunes subscriptions. The strategy is now going to have to change to less back episodes and more subscriptions. As a result, a bit more trawling around iTunes shall feature in my future.

You don't have to go back very far and I'd have not been a big fan of tablet computers. This is understandable, as I do quite a bit of stuff on the computer that wouldn't be suitable. Typing this blog entry for one. Historically, they've also been still too much like laptop computers, just with a screen that could swivel. They also seemed to involve utilising a pen.

I've now had a revolution, and while I don't hanker after the tablet devices of old, I'm certainly thinking the tablet devices of 2010 and onward are going to be great. So what's changed?

The main thing is the Internet. I probably spend too much time browsing websites and I also update Twitter, Facebook and Linkedin. Traditionally I've done this on my PC and that's fine. I even have a more portable netbook. They both have one problem: they're not immediate. It's the nature of things on the web that as you engage with it more, the need to engage with it in a more immediate mode increases. As we put more of ourselves in The Cloud, it also makes more sense to be able to access that stuff easily and quickly.

Then we have the convergence of digital media. Everything is a digital file, even books are slowly being dragged into the act. It was inevitable that the digitalisation of everything would eventually make the PC the wrong device to access them all from. It's been happening for years with all sorts of other devices coming out that allow you to play your digital content that isn't the typical PC. The tablet is wonderful for this. You can read books on it, you can watch video and you can play music, though anything audio wastes the screen a bit. Basically, the tablet absorbs a lot of the portable media player market. Think of all those digital photos? Just make sure they're on the tablet for when the relatives come around? Or not, just browse them wirelessly from the storage under the staircase from The Cloud.

I'm even experiencing the potential of tablet nirvana already with my iPod Touch. It's essentially a table device just with a more mobile phone form factor (rather than the 7 to 10 inch screens proposed for tablets). It turns on instantly giving me access to the web and social networks. It plays music. It plays video. It plays to that need for immediacy. I can update social networks when I feel like it when I'm lying on the sofa downstairs without needing to boot up a PC of one type or another. I've been listening to podcasts on the way into work and as I go on my dinner time walk. It's not only immediacy, it allows a more aggressive use of time as the time I'm listening to podcasts would normally be dead time.

You know what? I even love the keyboard. I'd not write anything beyond a social network update on it, but for the purpose it's designed for the iPod Touch virtual keyboard is a work of genius. Even for my large western hands.

The best bit? These tablets aren't supposed a cost an arm and a leg, we're talking less than netbook prices. Sweet. I'll be happy with the iPod Touch for some time, but tablet will feature in my future at some point. It just makes sense. Bring on the tablets.

As mentioned in the Resolutions for 2010 I'm naming Sunday afternoon Mega Gaming Sunday. It's a re-branding of Sunday afternoon, specifically the hours circa 1300 to 1900 hours. Basically, those six (possibly four when busy) or so hours on a Sunday afternoon are now Mega Gaming Sunday, colloquially known as MGS, and will involve gaming of one sort or another.

MGS is born out of the MBA. Which is a bit weird when put it like that, but more specifically it's born out of the time management of the MBA. It demands you put time into it. In my view, regular time, constantly hit with military precision. Historically, this semester aside, this has meant slots 1900 to 2100 on most evenings and when writing essays usually Saturday and / or Sunday morning. It seemed to work. I'm going to do it for my leisure activities, and MGS is it. I've put a repeating 'appointment' in my Google Calendar, it doesn't get more official than that.

So, what is going to happen on MGS? You know, nothing that special, it's more about actually doing it. Obviously, 50% of Mega Gaming Sundays, on average, will be taken up with the regular campaign of the gaming group. Currently the 4E campaign. The remaining days might be spent playing games on the Xbox, such as working my way to some sort of interesting plot in Grand Theft Auto IV, it's rumoured to exist. I might also be be getting blown away by the space opera awesome of Mass Effect 2. I may also put time aside to watch a film or TV shows.

There is another angle to this: the fact I have an inputs problem. True, I have the MBA, which does work for me on a similar level, but that input translates into something different than what watching films, TV shows and playing imaginative games of various types translates into. Basically, playing games begets more games which in turn keeps the imagination active. Watching exciting genres films and TV shows has a similar effect as does playing awesome computer games. The weighting has been too focused on the MBA. If I'm a bit more aggressive with my time there has to be space for both.

After doing some character levelling for the 4E Campaign, and still failing to 100% decide on my level 19 Daily Power, I moved on to giving GTA IV some dedicated time on the first MGS experiment. The result was good, and I'm starting to really like the game, which has a number of longer-term positives I'll come back to.

The dramatic web of relationships is extending, and I'm sure some of them aren't going to end well. I'm doing work for Roman, Vlad (some Russian thug who shows up at the Taxi firm) and a drug and gun dealer known as Little Jacob. The most recent ones have graduated to involving guns. The mission I started just before I stopped playing has Vlad involved with the girl Roman fancies, a friend of Michelle (the girl I'm dating) and it doesn't look like it's going to end well. I'll re-start the mission next time, but someone is probably going to get seriously beaten up at a minimum.

Speaking of Michelle, she's a nice girl, but not very demanding. She seems to be willing to go out with a guy just off the boat still dressed in some cheap, Eastern European threads since the only clothes shop seems to be a Russian factory outlet. She's also easily pleased, having been taken to a Kentucky equivalent, a burger joint as well as playing pool and darts. I wondered if I should try the strip joint for a laugh, but it doesn't show as an option for her dates. I know she likes the dates because she allowed me into her flat and I gained an achievement. Yes, we've done the wild thing. At the moment this is a diversion, it would be cool if such relationships became critical to the story. She's obviously used to minor criminals as on two dates I stole a car to take her home and she didn't mind.

I have got the hang of the driving. I'm not brilliant at it, but I can now career around the streets and motorways with enough finesse I don't cause a mass of accidents everywhere I go. It feels cinematic, it conjures images of something like The French Connection. I've combined some tourist activities with earning money by being a cab driver for Roman, I can ring him up when I like and get a job, if I'm already in one of his taxis I can just get on with it. I did a few of them in a row today and it was interesting to see the detail in the different neighbourhoods. Liberty City is an amazing achievement. I've also figured out how to change the radio station in the car, which not only allows me to vary music genre, but some of the insane shows that exist across the Liberty City airwaves.

That's the structure of the game basically. There is missions which in turn lead to chapter conclusions and the chapters eventually lead to a grand ending of some sort. I must still be on chapter one. The exact nature of the story I'm not aware of, but based on conversations woven through the game it looks like it is going to have something to do with the war and why Nikko came to America. The missions are accessed at key geographical locations kicked off by yourself, or via the mobile phone. The effect is you can free roam and encounter a core of the missions at your own pace. I wouldn't be surprised that later, more complex missions are obtained for events a day or so later. The game keeps track of time, hours and days pass. It also means the 'open world' and 'dramatic narrative' and co-exist in some fashion.

What are those longer-term positives I mentioned at the start? Well, if 'open world' games are finally starting to realise they have to mix the 'open world' with some sense of context and drama, this is a good thing, as it then means I like them. I don't mind enjoying the open world elements if that's not all there is to it. One game on the horizon that could be amazing, if they get it right, is Just Cause 2. This is basically GTA IV, but you're a super spy rather than a criminal rising through the ranks and it's a fully realised pacific island rather than Liberty City. That sort of game, with the aim being to destabilise the regime in charge, could be seriously awesome. The shorter answer is, any new genre that starts to appeal to me is good considering the number of genres I used to like that have fallen to the FPS onslaught.

A day late, mostly because I'd half convinced myself I wasn't going to bother. Then I see other people posting up there aims, resolutions and general intent for the year ahead and I can't resist it. It's not as negative this year, in fact, taking them as a holistic whole, it's a pretty grand set.

Become An Obsessive Note Taker

Not the biggest resolution known to man, but it's a problem I've known I've had for years and I know the solution and I never do anything about it. I have a prodigious long-term memory (for important things anyway), but a pathetic short-term memory for anything. I've lost count of the amount of nuggets, ideas, concepts, models and just stuff that enter my head and leave it at some point in the future. That's value I've lost. I did this with the personal branding. I wrote everything down that I'd done and achieved, along with hobbies, and mapped that to frameworks and transferable skills. Brilliant.

If something pops into my head I note it down. It doesn't matter how random it is. Invariably, I know it's something I should remember, a key skill of achievement in a new light, a visual idea, a model for looking at a specific problem, a sequence for a role-playing game and the issues explored. Whatever. Note. It Down. It works because it builds up momentum because what you've written down and not forgotten spins off into other things you'll not forget. I've lost count of the things I've solved with my pure genius which seems to peak between 0400 and 0600 am, or a walk over dinner. Now I won't forget them.

Sprinkle MBA Dedication Amply

In 2008, I made a resolution to adopt a strategy of time management on steroids. Though I didn't know it then, I would start the MBA in the second half of the year and time management would kick in big style. What has also happened over the last 24 months is the application of a level of dedication I've not applied to anything outside of work. Work yes, personal time, not so much. As can be appreciated, it's had fantastic rewards and has seen great results on me personally and my approach to certain objectives.

What can be achieved if I apply that level of singular dedication to other things? Okay, hard to do at the same level while still doing the MBA, but it's a mindset issue more than just a matter of pure time.

What's going to receive this dedication, it's not anything specifically, but certainly the rest of the things I mention here. It's also going to involve some aggressive time management. The plan is to be able to look back at any point in time in 2010 and see virtually zero temporal wastage. In work, I'm happiest when I'm 110% occupied, ideally weaving together multiple strands of work, all of which have a level of challenge, grandeur and achievement about them. This needs to happen in my personal life more, the MBA has it and as such it's a success.

Navigate To More Lucrative Shores

I undoubtedly entered the eye of the economic storm in late 2008, and I happened to enter it on a small, rubber dingy (a 4-man micro-company). The result, as you can imagine, wasn't good. It was a tumultuous year during which I learned a lot about myself. While getting all my work through connections previously is a great selling point, it did mean I never built up skills of selling myself effectively to people who didn't know me at all. This has now changed. The MBA, a personal branding exercise, an excavation of even further value within my experience and any murky territory with respect to selling myself, the language I was using and what I stand for, has been eradicated. While this is a continual exercise, the results have been significant.

Having secured financial revenue throughout 2010, the aim is to take things further now I'm standing on firmer ground. While the storm isn't over, it's probably safe to say I'm now in the severely choppy waters on the edge of the storm but I'm in a sturdier boat. The intention is now to navigate it to a more lucrative shore, whatever that happens to mean.

Resolve The Input Problem

There was a time when I was surrounded by gaming and genre related inputs. I lived it. Every breath I took was soaked with it. Computer Games. Role-Playing Games. Films. TV. Novels and, to a lesser degree, comics. Last, but by no means least, conventions and the synergy and fabric of them all woven together. While I'm certainly not looking to return to a pre-1996 orgy of such inputs, I do believe I have a lack of inputs problem, which in turn creates an output one. It's not coincidence that bursts of imaginative outputs coincide with periods of concentrated inputs.

One way I'm looking to address this is Mega Gaming Sunday, the aim being to do something genre and / or gaming related on Sunday afternoon. A proportion of this time will be taken up with the activities of the gaming group, currently the 4E Campaign, the weeks not doing that will be spent doing something else. Initially, this will almost certainly be computer games (a form of valid input), but I just hope to mentally grow into the space being used for that purpose and see what happens. It's in my Google Calendar for the foreseeable future, so now it's pre-destined to happen. I'm aiming for a 'force of habit' effect combined with applying MBA dedication to take me in interesting directions in the medium term.

Return To The GM'ing Chair

I've not came even close to running anything for the last 29 months. I've even resisted guest spots. A few things have changed though. I understand my gaming brand. It's big, heroic, brash and involves protagonists doing big things in exciting ways while undergoing a range of dramatic and personal crises. I understand my commitment level. I'm not going run the next 4E Campaign involving an 18+ month commitment. I'm firmly in the sporadic specials (think Doctor Who in 2009) or failing that the mini-series end of the spectrum, ideally quite intense ones. The MBA has given me God like expectations management skills. If you don't learn personal expectations management on the MBA you die a rabbit in the headlights death as things you've never done, about things you initially know nothing about, are thrown at you constantly. The 'take this all in your stride' policy can be applied to running games. I was guilty of trying too hard.

So, what, when and how? At this point I have no idea. The gaming group needs to settle into 2009. We need to finish the 4E Campaign. Possibly accommodate a model of less players, not entirely a bad thing. That's fine. It's not a grandiose return, it may end up just being a guest slot or something. It also depends on how we structure our gaming as a group post-4E. Personally, I'd be an advocate of 4-8 (average 6) session mini-series to stand a chance of getting three of them in a year (you could also come back to S2 of one after S1 of another, etc). We've done seasons (each Tier in 4E is analogous to a season) longer than that but I'm not sure the value has been much more enhanced (it's just stretched things out due to system specifics like encounter lengths and / or issues remaining in stasis for longer).

All I know is I used to enjoy it. I happen to think I was / am pretty good at it. I think my life is better for being in that chair, occasionally. We shall see what 2010 brings and build on that.

Conclusion

This was hard. I think was because there is an element of none of these resolutions being discreet. They are holistic in that their application as a whole may end up being greater than the some of their parts. It could also be I'm just shallow and had to kick a load of bollocks out of my head in order to do the obligatory early January resolutions post.

I guess I'll find out in December 2010.

After some random cursory reading of the various text books, I've come to the conclusion Small Business Management is going to be very intriguing; Strategic Marketing is a more detailed study of the topics covered in the core module, and that's fine, as I tend to see a level of marketing in everything I do; Strategic Supply Chain Management may well turn out to be a bit of the pain. There are parts of Strategic Supply Chain Management I like the look of, such as trust in supplier relationships, but while it's interesting on some level to understand the supply chain purchasing processes of larger companies, it's not immediately and directly relevant. Everything has some relevance, I'm all for the value of holistic learning, bu, out of the three, it's third place.

I've also revised my study schedule. Instead of doing the units for each module in parallel, I've decided to end run the first 1 to 3 (and the 4 for Small Business Management) units of each module in the first three weeks. Small Business Management first, followed by Strategic Marketing and then Strategic Supply Chain Management. The reason for doing this is simple: the formative assessment (the TAA) task is based on the content of these first three units. The 'end run' approach allows me to start considering the TAA for any particularly module up to a week or two early. As an example, I'm studying 1 to 4 of Small Business Management currently, which is proving a pleasure as it's well structured and effectively interwoven with the text book (and studies). I'm doing this with the TAA question in mind: the critical evaluation of a particular franchising concept. I'm thinking of using Domino Pizzas as a my case, I've begun some initial enquiries regarding this.

The TAA run has begun and they all have to be in on the 1st March. The above schedule allows me to have completed all the units needed for the TAA by w/b 18th January giving me plenty of time for the assignments, though I'll also be studying the remaining four units for each module in time for the release of the examined assignment released on 15th March 2009.

The Small Business Management units have proven intriguing. As usual it's taking what you perceive to be the case via experience, and refining it through a wider perspective, theories and academic models to provide a much firmer understanding and wider perspective. The material on the disparity between marketing as taught and marketing for the small business was enlightening, a mixture of experience confirmation and new ideas. I could view the material through the filter of having been involved in a micro-company and marketing and sales activities within a specific sector. You get the usual result, some good ideas on what was potentially done right, and things you could have done better. It again makes you realise what achievements and experience can be mined from your CV and how to sell it in the wider context.

In fact, the current spurt of studying has allowed me to refine what the MBA does into a single sentence: It takes knowledge created out of enacted experience, challenges you to processes it, producing proactive learning formed on a base of wider and deeper understanding. This is what's it's doing for me anyway. It's genius and great. It's worth a holiday or two a year.