Asymmetry and 'Netrunner'

Netrunner is particularly special because through its asymmetry it allows us to engage in a familiar struggle.

There is a beauty to asymmetry, well, at least in playful systems. We may find facial symmetry arousing, but symmetry in game is just so normal. No matter which side of the monopoly board you are on, you play by the same rules as everybody else. It is the rare game like Android Netrunner, which features divergent rules for each player, that offers something special, something thematically rich and mechanically unique in the ways that it evokes satisfying play.

What is Asymmetry?

For the purposes of this piece, I define asymmetry as a disjuncture between the rules governing one player’s behavior and the rules governing another player’s behavior. An overarching set of rules might govern the entirety of a game, but if parts of those rules apply different to each player, then asymmetry defines play.

I like to think of asymmetric games as capturing two different systems within one larger system. Take Left 4 Dead multiplayer as an example. Human players struggle to overcome the mundane zombie hoards in front of them. Ideally their teamwork produces a well-oiled killing machine that speeds through a level quickly and efficiently. Each human player is one part of their zombie-killing-speed-running system.

The special infected have their own goal and win condition: incapacitate all the humans. Their system works differently. Each player may have a unique power that works in conjunction, perhaps, with the others. Their system looks more like a complex trap. One player initiates an attack and the rest follow. Their system is defined, established, and maintained differently than that of the humans, but where these systems meet, one impedes the efficiency of the other.

Asymmetry in Android Netrunner

From the abstract systems perspective, Left 4 Dead and Android Netrunner share certain traits that make asymmetry compelling. Netrunner, the collectible card game designed by Richard Garfield (of Magic: The Gathering fame), also pits one system against an assailant that seeks to impede the first system’s progress.

One player in Netrunner takes on the role of a maniacal cyberpunk Corporation. This corporation scores points by advancing “agendas,” which they hide, facedown, and surround with “ice,” firewall-like pieces of software that protect their cards. They also create and sustain their own economy with assets and operations, which in turn lets them advance agendas and install ice more quickly and more often.

The other player operates their own unique system. Known as a Runner, this player creates an economy with the sole intent of cracking into the corporation’s system. They install programs known as “icebreakers” to work their way into the other players servers, demolishing their assets or stealing their agendas. While one player designs a defensive system, the other designs an offensive system.

What Makes Asymmetry Special?

There is something uniquely satisfying in maneuvering through an asymmetric gaming experience, but what is it? Certainly there is an added challenge for Netrunner players. They must master not just their own system, but sufficiently understand and predict the machinations of their opponent and adapt accordingly. Asymmetric games demand high amounts of empathy.

But this is true of any competitive game. You could argue a sniper in Call of Duty: Ghosts, by virtue of in-game weapon and loadout customizations, plays by different rules than an assault player. If a sniper wants to maximize their kill count, they should think like their opponent and predict their movements and locations and vice versa. You could make a case that the modern shooter is by definition an asymmetrical experience.

However, Netrunner’s brand of asymmetry obfuscates opposing systems in a way that shooters do not. The corporation hides many of their cards face down when played, and, of course, their deck, like the runner’s, is made of an unknown combination of cards. There is joy, of course, in the exploration of systems, particularly when those systems are not your own. The joy in mastery, then, is two-fold: mastery over your own system and mastery over a hidden system that demands interrogation.

Still, this answer to the question feels lacking. Magic: The Gathering and many other competitive card games hide opposing systems but are not commonly considered asymmetric. If my deck, unknown to you, relies on graveyard manipulation and your deck, unknown to me, relies on summoning massive creatures, are we effectively playing by different rules? These games might be great, but it does not offer the unique asymmetrical experience offered by Netrunner.

So what makes this asymmetry special?

It’s All About Power

The mechanic that I return to when searching for Netrunner’s unique core are the agenda cards. When seven points worth of agenda cards are scored, the scoring player wins. The thing is that runners don’t actually have any agendas in their deck, only corporations do. The corporation player, while a bit restrained, ultimately decides what types and values of agenda cards to include in the game. The corporation has all the power.

Were it not for the runner, the corporation would build a powerful moneymaking system and advance its agendas quickly and without harassment. But without the corporation, the runner has no way to win. Thus, Netrunner’s asymmetry is one defined by an inherent power imbalance. The struggle in the game is about either retaining or capturing this finite source of power.

Of course runners have their own “power” of a sort. Indeed, on the competitive scene, runners win slightly more often than corporations. Yet the source of their win condition, the ultimate power, is still defined and controlled by the corporation. Cognitively, the corporation player is the power holder even when facing an terrifyingly efficient runner deck.

The joy in asymmetric games is in the safe practice of lopsided power struggles. In Call of Duty and Magic: The Gathering, the rules define an equal playing field at the start of a match. Theoretically, regardless of your class or regardless of your deck type, at the start of the game, we have an even chance of winning or losing. Often when we think of well played games, we think of fairness on this front.

The fact is, like the parental adage, the world isn’t fair. We live in lopsided systems of power in tiny ones and big ones, personal and global ones, and the negotiation for power is ongoing and relentless. In an abstract way, asymmetric games let us roleplay safely an open struggle to reclaim or retain our power against a skilled opponent. This is true of other asymmetric games as well, from Battlestar Galactica, in which the game system itself is the source of the cylon player’s power, to A Few Acres of Snow, which constructs power differentials into the geography of the board.

Perhaps this is why Netrunner succeeds so beautifully in weaving its rich themes into its gameplay. In the dystopian cyberpunk world of Netrunner, power is obscure and diffuse. Corporations flex their influence invisibly across the world and underhandedly work on their own selfish agendas. It may be set in the future, but the concepts are not so strange. We are increasingly accustomed to the digital life, the way corporations affect our lives and livelihood and the way the struggle for power is often invisible. Netrunner is a marvel of a game for a lot of reasons, but it is particularly special because through its asymmetry it allows us to engage in a familiar struggle.

So far J. J. Abrams and Rian Johnson resemble children at play, remaking the films they fell in love with. As an audience, however, we desire a fuller experience.

As recently as the lackluster episodes I-III of the Star Wars saga, the embossed gold logo followed by scrolling prologue text was cause for excitement. In the approach to the release of any of the then new prequel installments, the Twentieth Century Fox fanfare, followed by the Lucas Film logo, teased one's impulsive excitement at a glimpse into the next installment's narrative. Then sat in the movie theatre on the anticipated day of release, the sight and sound of the Twentieth Century Fox fanfare signalled the end of fevered anticipation. Whatever happened to those times? For some of us, is it a product of youth in which age now denies us the ability to lose ourselves within such adolescent pleasure? There's no answer to this question -- only the realisation that this sensation is missing and it has been since the summer of 2005. Star Wars is now a movie to tick off your to-watch list, no longer a spark in the dreary reality of the everyday. The magic has disappeared… Star Wars is spiritually dead.

Keep reading... Show less

This has been a remarkable year for shoegaze. If it were only for the re-raising of two central pillars of the initial scene it would still have been enough, but that wasn't even the half of it.

It hardly needs to be said that the last 12 months haven't been everyone's favorite, but it does deserve to be noted that 2017 has been a remarkable year for shoegaze. If it were only for the re-raising of two central pillars of the initial scene it would still have been enough, but that wasn't even the half of it. Other longtime dreamers either reappeared or kept up their recent hot streaks, and a number of relative newcomers established their place in what has become one of the more robust rock subgenre subcultures out there.

Keep reading... Show less

​'The Ferryman': Ephemeral Ideas, Eternal Tragedies

The current cast of The Ferryman in London's West End. Photo by Johan Persson. (Courtesy of The Corner Shop)

Staggeringly multi-layered, dangerously fast-paced and rich in characterizations, dialogue and context, Jez Butterworth's new hit about a family during the time of Ireland's the Troubles leaves the audience breathless, sweaty and tearful, in a nightmarish, dry-heaving haze.

"Vanishing. It's a powerful word, that"

Northern Ireland, Rural Derry, 1981, nighttime. The local ringleader of the Irish Republican Army gun-toting comrades ambushes a priest and tells him that the body of one Seamus Carney has been recovered. It is said that the man had spent a full ten years rotting in a bog. The IRA gunslinger, Muldoon, orders the priest to arrange for the Carney family not to utter a word of what had happened to the wretched man.

Keep reading... Show less

Aaron Sorkin's real-life twister about Molly Bloom, an Olympic skier turned high-stakes poker wrangler, is scorchingly fun but never takes its heroine as seriously as the men.

Chances are, we will never see a heartwarming Aaron Sorkin movie about somebody with a learning disability or severe handicap they had to overcome. This is for the best. The most caffeinated major American screenwriter, Sorkin only seems to find his voice when inhabiting a frantically energetic persona whose thoughts outrun their ability to verbalize and emote them. The start of his latest movie, Molly's Game, is so resolutely Sorkin-esque that it's almost a self-parody. Only this time, like most of his better work, it's based on a true story.

Keep reading... Show less

There's something characteristically English about the Royal Society, whereby strangers gather under the aegis of some shared interest to read, study, and form friendships and in which they are implicitly agreed to exist insulated and apart from political differences.

There is an amusing detail in The Curious World of Samuel Pepys and John Evelyn that is emblematic of the kind of intellectual passions that animated the educated elite of late 17th-century England. We learn that Henry Oldenburg, the first secretary of the Royal Society, had for many years carried on a bitter dispute with Robert Hooke, one of the great polymaths of the era whose name still appears to students of physics and biology. Was the root of their quarrel a personality clash, was it over money or property, over love, ego, values? Something simple and recognizable? The precise source of their conflict was none of the above exactly but is nevertheless revealing of a specific early modern English context: They were in dispute, Margaret Willes writes, "over the development of the balance-spring regulator watch mechanism."

Keep reading... Show less
Pop Ten
Mixed Media
PM Picks

© 1999-2017 All rights reserved.
Popmatters is wholly independently owned and operated.