The Great Engle Matrix Game Debate: Turn resolution and the art of contradiction

[MatrixGamer]

The Great Debate: Turn resolution and the art of contradiction

An interesting debate has come up from the latest Play by Email Game – "Zulu."  The game is based on the 1964 movie of the same name. Players have taken on roles of various characters in the movie to get a feel for what they want to have happen in the game, then they make one argument a turn to make that happen.

The problem that has come up is about a sequence of arguments that describe the qualities of the wall built by the British soldiers at Rorkes Drift prior to the arrival of the Zulus.

The arguments are as follows. Players took turns making arguments so they were resolved one at a time.

LT CHAD AND BROMHEAD: Made by Peter Lloyd-Jones

Lt Chard returned to the camp and in acordannce with Spaldings
instruction took command. He  had been trained at the Shop, and so had
a good understanding of Fortifications and realised that improvments
could be made.  He used his Sappers (who were also trained engineers)
to supervise the other soldiers in making barricades between the
houses and preparing firing slits.  The marerials he used were grain
bags and biscuit boxes?  

He also had numerous explosives in his Engineers supply wagon, how
could he best put those to use he pondered.

Lt Bromhead could see that the preperations for the defence were well
under way.  He thought back to his training at Sandhurst.  Check
fields of fire.  This he did and was concerned that the Bush to the
North came quite close to the base.  If he burnt it this would achieve
two objectives, 1, better fields of fire, 2, stop the ZULUS firing it
when the wind was blowing from the north, not the south, as it was
now.  He therefore gave instructions to burn the bush.

REF: I decided to combine these two submissions into a single argument. I could have made Peter wait to do the second lieutenant's task till next turn though because they were submitted separately. Anyway I see this argument as really strong. It builds on prior arguments, fits the scene, does not do too much, makes sense, and I like it. I rolled a 5 so it happens. Had I missed the roll I would have used Peter's failure token. As it is he keeps it for later.

[NOTE: In this game were are experimenting with a new rule, where by players whose arguments fail get a "Failure Token" that gives them a second roll the next time they have a failed roll. The purpose of this roll is to moderate the effect of bad luck. Some players just can't roll well.]

ZULU: Made by Marcus Young

The British troops are labouring under the hot sun piling up boxes and
sacks to construct makeshift fortifications. Although the barricades are
rising, the work is going slowly. With no news from Isandlwana and no
real sense of danger from a woefully underestimated froe, the troops
hearts and backs are not in the work, and even the officers think of the
work as a precaution rather than a necessity.


593 Jones: Why are we stacking all these boxes, boyo? We've got a whole
army up at Isandlwana between us and any Zulus hereabouts.

716 Jones: I don't think there will be any real fighting. You know what
they say: Kaffirs never stand under fire. The problem in this war is
finding the bastards, not killing them.

593 Jones: That fellow de Witt is just listening to wild rumours. Let's
take another break. Anyway, if any Zulus do come it will be pleasanter
shooting them than doing all this heavy work!

Colour Sergeant Bourne: Get moving, lads! The Lieutenant of Engineers
has ordered the building of this here barricade, so it's getting built!
It don't matter about the whys and wherefores: if an officer tells you
to make a sugar candy ladder to the moon, that's profound military
strategy handed down from heaven by the Almighty himself as far as you
are concerned!

Joneses: Yes Sergeant!

716 Jones: (Whispers) Just wait till the Sergeant is out of sight.


A sound reminiscent of an approaching freight train is heard, steadily
increasing in volume.


Bromhead: What's that sound?

Witt: That's the Zulus. Their regiments make that sound when running
to a battle.

Bromhead: Running to battle? Most enthusiastic, those chaps.

Witt: This is no light matter, Lieutenant. There are thousands of
them coming. You should have abandoned this place hours ago.

Bromhead: This can surely be no more than a raiding party that avoided
our main army. Rumours have a way of being exaggerated, and soon a pair
of Zulus and their dog becomes an entire impi of warriors! We've
constructed a barricade, we've cleared our field of fire - it's all by
the book. You are quite safe, Reverend.

Witt: That barricade doesn't look too high or sturdy to me...


Just then a frantic man on horseback appears, riding hell for leather
towards the Mission. He is wearing the uniform of the Natal Native
Contingent. He is lightly wounded, very dirty, and both himself and his
horse look about to drop from fatigue. The man is Lt Adendorf.


Bromhead: What is that man shouting?

Adendorf: (Shouting) They're coming! They're coming! You must flee!

Bromhead: (Shouting) Steady on!

Adendorf: (Shouting) They've killed everyone. The whole army. Almost no
survivors.

Bromhead: (Shouting) What are you talking about, man?

Adendorf: (Shouting) The Zulus have destroyed the army at Isandlwana.
Now they're coming here. They're going to kill every last one of you.
You must start running NOW!


As Adendorf's horse staggers the last few yards towards the mission
station and he collapses from the saddle, the entire Zulu force appears
over a rise behind him. Six thousand warriors gaze down on Rorke's
Drift. A single cry of uSuthu! bursts from the ranks. After only a brief
moment's pause, the horde runs forward, spears rapping on shields,
sprinting towards the Mission- a seemingly unstoppable wall of warriors.


The attack has begun!

REF: I brought the most recent version of Engle Matrix Game rules to work so I'll apply them. Are the characters mentioned together (at the start of the argument)? No the Zulus started on the other side of the river. Is it logical? Yes. Does it fit the genre? Yes. Does it build on past successful arguments? Yes. Does it appeal to emotions? Yes (lazy soldiers). Do I like it? Yes. So that adds up to a very strong argument. I rolled a 3. uSuthu! It doesn't look good for the boys in scarlet.

END OF TURN:

Let me see, all the characters are at the mission. The Zulus are on the Natal side of the river. They can attack this turn. The British have build a barrier so there is a wall around the mission linking the two buildings. They also have prepared a nasty bomb to fling at the Zulus. I see a problem though, how will the wagon get out of the wall? They may have just made a bomb that will only hurt them!

Fighting will start when one side or other argues to start the fight. Anything that does this will trigger a conflict round. I already adjudicated Rev Witt's argument for the turn and it failed. Had it happened there would have been a conflict round to see what happened when he set the bomb off.

Things are definitely heating up!

PVT WAYNE: Made by Peter Lloyd-Jones

"Steady Lads Take Post".

As once years of regimental tradition and steady training came
together.  The Sgts, took charge, thankful they had laid out their
range markers.

The soldiers lined their strong, well prepared positions (what does  a
missionary know about it!  these were made under RE supervision).

One of the Engers looked for private Wayne,

"Wayne, I want you to take some men and set the explosives in that
cart,  and when the enemy attack, to drive the cart among them and
explode it in their midst."  This will upset them and deter further
attacks.

John replied that he had a lot of experience of such tactics, and was
bound to succeed.

REF: Peter is trying to redefine the wall of bags as a strong wall, something the British must have to survive the attack. Here goes with the evaluation. Character's together? Yes (with the addition of Pvt. John Wayne.) Is it logical? Yeah, good enough. Does it fit the genre? Hum...John Wayne...sorry that is too cowboy. Does it build on past arguments? Yes. Does it appeal to emotion? Hum...not really. Do I like it? Yes, in my heart of hearts I do want the British to win (even thought the Zulu's sing much better.) That adds up to 4 which makes it a strong argument. I rolled a 6. The wall is strong and John Wayne has a nasty surprise waiting for the attackers. I think I hear country music surging up out of nowhere but where is the cavalry?

WHAT IS THE STATUS OF THE WALL?

The sequence of turns had the wall's quality switch from poor to good, since this wall is vital for the British to have a chance to survive this flip flop of status stirred up the great debate.

[MatrixGamer]

THE GREAT DEBATE

Marcus Young

I must say that I find it a little strange that the principal
established fact from my last Argument- the fact that the British
barricades were not well-built due to a serious underestimation of the
Zulus given lack of knowledge about Isandlwana- can be so easily
overridden by a casual assertion to the contrary in a new Argument.

I am not sure how this new system of adjudicating Arguments is supposed
to work exactly, but I gather that nothing is taken into account apart
from the factors Chris lists at the bottom of his adjudication. Nowhere
does there seem to be any penalty being applied for the Argument
directly contradicting and largely nullifying a previous Argument.
Indeed, the only reason that the Argument seems to be rated Strong
rather than Very Strong appears to be the unfortunate choice of name for
the garrison's new hero.

As a Zulu player I am perfectly prepared to lose the battle (that being
both the historical and movie result after all) but I need at least to
seriously challenge the British players for the game to have any point.
If, however, any hard-won fact established by my Arguments can be easily
overturned by any following British Argument (and there are 3 of these
to every one of mine, so that means 3 chances to reverse history) then
it makes it difficult to make any ground. Indeed, it is almost pointless
to submit Arguments at all, because any gain is purely ephemeral. For
example, if my next Argument involved the Zulus charging in and wiping
out half the garrison in one almighty charge, and then I was lucky
enough to succeed on that Argument, would the British then have 3
chances to Argue that actually those men were not injured at all and
indeed the Zulus had never attacked?

I think it might be useful to spell out the system by which this game is
being judged so its merits can be more closely considered. After all,
this is in the nature of an experimental game- it doesn't much matter
how this game turns out, but if there is a major flaw in the
adjudication rules something needs to change before the same system is
used in a more serious game. It may be that I'm just getting the wrong
end of the stick, but it may be that this is a major problem- I'm just
not sure.

Chris Engle

Sorry you were on the short end of that stick. Events developing too
quickly or not sticking is frustrating for players.

In the past I've just looked at arguments as made up what I thought the
strength was. This time I was trying out a list of questions approach like
John used in "Green and Pleasant Land" it obviously has flaws. The wall
strength being a perfect case in point. Was it logical that the wall would
be better built due to the presence of engineers, yes. Is it logical that
the wall would be weak due to them not thinking it urgent, yes. Should the
pre-existence of the weakness make the second argument weaker? Yes. I
should have not given that argument the point from building on past
arguments. As it is both arguments succeeded so the wall is both strong
and weak. As a referee this is the matrix I must consider for future
arguments. Looks like I need to be more explicite on what "building on
past arguments" means.

As to how the Zulu attack argument would be handled...It would be Very
strong that they would attack. If the argument succeeded then I would say
it triggered a conflict round. The wall is there so I think I'd give the
British first shot at resolving that wave of attack. If they failed then
the Zulus would have a go at it. Say the Zulu's conflict argument was "We
kill half of them." If it happened I'd give the British a single trouble
argument to save themselves or mitigate the disaster some how. I'd make an
historical argument. "Sure we lose half our force. The Native Levies run
off, just as they did historically." If this went through then the boys in
red would be safe. If they failed though and the men died, could a later
argument bring them back to life? At best I'd give that a "roll six sixes
in a row" chance. It doesn't fit the genre - so sometimes violating genre
expectations should completely nix an argument's chance of happening.

Hum...

Any departure from the list of criteria should be able to screw an
argument. This is subtle. I'll have to think about how to teach people how
to do that.

Marcus Young

Any major departure on certain criteria (such as consistency with past
Arguments) should sink an Argument completely, and not merely lead to a
downgrading of an Argument by one level- say from Strong to Average.

Peter Lloyd-Jones

I think the problem here is what comes first.

The Brits argued they were building good defences under RE supervision.

The ZULUs then said they were not well built as the squaddies were not
motivated.

Then Brits then argued, hang on, that can not be true, what does a missionary
know!

I would say
I must say that I find it a little strange that the principal
established fact from my last Argument- the fact that the British
barricades (Delete - were not well-built due to a serious underestimation of
the Zulus given lack of knowledge about Isandlwana - Delete)(INSERT were well
built due to RE supervision) - can be so easily overridden by a casual
assertion to the contrary in a new Argument.

I suppose the Brits should have argued that, historically they had won, game
over.

Perhaps we have a problem?

John Kantor (referencing Chris Engle's response)

"In the past I've just looked at arguments as made up what I thought the
strength was. This time I was trying out a list of questions approach like
John used in "Green and Pleasant Land". It obviously has flaws.  The wall
strength being a perfect case in point."

No, there's nothing wrong with using a rubric - as long as it's designed and used appropriately. Both the Zulu and British arguments are absolutely proper.  The Zulu argument about the wall relied on an opinion about the wall by a bystander, as well as on the level of the soldiers' efforts. The British argument refuted the opinion by questioning the bystander's qualifications and overrode the point about the soldier's level of effort by referring to the excellent oversight of the Sergeants.
The result isn't a wall that is both weak and strong. For game purposes, it was a Weak wall until the British argument made it a Strong wall that had initially appeared weak. The entire point of a matrix game is the ability of arguments to trump one another - changing the game "reality" at some level - but at the cost of spending an argument to do so.
The Zulus could easily trump this again - say by arguing that gaps left in the wall for ingress and egress make critical weak points - or that it is extremely flammable, and so on. The point is that it costs an argument to do that. The crux of a matrix game is that arguments create matrix elements which amplify or trump previous matrix elements.
From an historical standpoint, the only question is how effective a makeshift barricade could be - or in fact needs to be - given the type of combat involved. This is no siege. The wall is merely a barrier to impede a Zulu charge to contact. As such its "strength" is pretty much irrelevent - only its presence is. In fact, that is an alternate British argument. (Unless, of course, the Zulus capture the explosive-laden wagon and drive it through the barricade!)

[MatrixGamer]

Graham Evans

The wall debate is not unusual, and is a common criticism of matrix games, - that they can fall into he said/she said type of arguments.

My take (and I admit that the version I play has much more simplistic arguments) is that once a fact has been established it can't be changed unless there is a material change to events or new circumstances arise.

I feel this is important. If you allow direct contradiction then players can sit around waiting for other people to make a move then say "no it didn't because". I'd rather the players who have the initiative to take the game in new directions are rewarded for it.

So, for the wall in the Zulu game, - I'd say it's a good 'un. If the Zulu player wants it weakening he's got to think of something new or original, - eg he produces an argument about there being a thunderstorm. He follows that with an argument saying the wall is undermined by the torrential rain. Just saying the first guy is wrong, - once adjudication has taken place - is not really on I'm afraid.

Tom Mouat's view is that contradictions are allowed, but that once both arguments have been made and succeed you then roll off and the highest die roll argument stands. I'm not a fan of this, but it works.

Peter Lloyd-Jones

Perhaps PBEM is the problem. I feel if one was sitting at a table doing
argument, counter argument it would not be so bad. Indeed the other player
would be challenging one of my premises (spelling?).

I argue my squaddies under RE supervision make good walls. Before the umpire
resolves the argument the Zulus jump in with the counter argument. I then
counter the counter, and then umpire adjudicates.

But I can not see how we do this with PBEM if it is to remain fun for us all,
Chris included.

Graham Evans

Only by arguments being posted to the umpire and not published until after adjudication. Then the umpire can adjudicate in turn.

Alternatively, players could self regulate and not play a counter argument until something has been adjudicated.

Jim Owczarski

What I guess suprises me most here is the receipt and
resolution of arguments in sequence.

I had thought (and I observed Chris run Scotland the
Brave at GenCon years ago) that MGs ran simultaneously
a la Free Kriegspiel.

If the arguments in question had been simtaneously
revealed (and run through the resultant conflict
arguments) I think all these problems might have been
avoided.

And, in conclusion, I still want the wall to be blown
up.

Chris Engle

Ah - Scotland the Brave (my 1995 Gen Con game) - I still have that terrain
board molding up in the barn along with all my other terrain - only the
toy soldiers live in the house.

Taking turns making arguments is a recent invention. Mike Underwood did it
at Gen Con around 2003. John Kantor did a game run this way this summer
and I'm trying it out now. I think it is simple for new players to learn
so I'm using it in some of the games I publish but I personally like
simultaneous arguments because it really does stop a lot of logical
conundrums.

Chris Engle (referencing Graham Evans)

" My take (and I admit that the version I play has much more simplistic
arguments) is that once a fact has been established it can't be changed
unless there is a material change to events or new circumstances arise."


This sounds like a good rule (I seem to always say that!) One could run a
game like that or the way we did here. Players could bicker if they wish
but normally they move on to more crucial matters - like blowing up the
wagon bomb. either way in the end the dice gods pick the winners. (I love
passing the buck this way.)

Me things the Brits are in a bad way - they aren't just facing the Zulus
but also the Swedish fifth column!

David & Robin

If we are to allow for all players (and non-players) in a PBEM game to read all the arguments before they have been adjudicated then players must show some restraint in their counter arguments. I don't think it should be a problem to allow for the posting of a counter argument and possibly a rebuttal, but I think at that point players should wait for the adjudication before moving on. I think that if the string of argument-counter argument-rebuttal is allowed to continue for more than three posts it would become a nightmare for the Umpire to adjudicate and for players to keep track of what had and had not been adjudicated. It also would require arguments to be kept on the short side.  Three posts the length of Marcus' excellent description of the British shirking their wall building duties would be a bit much.

Marcus Young

Plenty of games have been run in a PBEM format on this list and have
proved completely successful. I thus cannot see any problem with the
format. It is the rules being adopted that instead need scrutiny.

I know that face-to-face games have their fans, but my personal view is
that PBEM is far superior to the live game. A player in a PBEM game has
got plenty of time to think, to research his Argument, and to properly
compose it. The referee can then give the Argument mature consideration,
can check back through the texts of old Arguments to spot any
contradictions, research any dubious points, and then be in a position
to deliver a properly considered adjudication. This procedure could not
be adopted in a live game without the likelihood of the players all
walking out in boredom at the long delays. In live games everything
needs to be fast and dirty. In such a game one is unlikely even to have
a written record of past Arguments, so any subtleties in Arguments are
likely to be soon forgotten and thus quietly drop out of the Matrix as
players and Referee remember only the grossest of facts.

Marcus Young (referencing Peter Lloyd-Jones)

"I think the problem here is what comes first.

The Brits argued they were building good defenses under RE
supervision.

(INSERT were well built due to RE supervision)"

This would be a valid point if the British Argument had indeed
established that the defenses were either "good" or "well built". As can
be seen from the British Argument in question (reproduced below for
convenience), all that is materially known about the barricades is:

1. That Chard had a good understanding of fortifications;
2. That the construction was supervised by engineers;
3. That the barricades were constructed "between the houses";
4. That the construction materials were grain bags and bicuit
boxes; and
5. That preparations for defense are "well under way".


In the above there is no assertion that the fortifications are in any
way strong or otherwise of superior quality. Indeed it is clear that the
fortifications are nowhere near complete at the time depicted in the
Argument.

It was thus open for me to make an Argument about the slow progress of
the work and the lack of sturdiness of the ultimate product without in
any way contradicting what had been established by the preceding
Argument.

Graham Evans (referencing Marcus Young)

"I know that face-to-face games have their fans, but my personal view
is that PBEM is far superior to the live game."

I couldn't disagree more, - around the table all sort of other factors
come in to play, and you get real tension. I introduced an argument
record sheet into DMB so that the umpire could keep track of what was
being argued, - it helps doing the action/result/3 reasons format which
is a bit punchier than what we see in the PBEM games.

In the UK, - in my experience - arguments are always sequential not
simultaneous, so we've probably had to deal with the contradiction
issue more thoroughly.

John Kantor (referencing Graham Evans)

"My take (and I admit that the version I play has much more simplistic
arguments) is that once a fact has been established it can't be changed
unless there is a material change to events or new circumstances arise."

That's what every argument does: postulate a new set of circumstances. There are
no "immutable" facts in a matrix game.

It is hard enough to have simultaneous turns in an online matrix game. It is
completely impractical to have multiple conflict rounds. And having simultaneous
turns doesn't change anything anyway. Further arguments will always be made that
change the "facts" of previous ones.

A matrix game should consist of rules to create, expand, and modify a matrix of
terms which make up the game "reality." If you don't have that, all you have is
a game where players argue - and then the ref imposes his will based on an
arbitrary strength rating of his own creation. Not a matrix game and not fun.

Graham Evans (referencing John Kantor)

"That's what every argument does: postulate a new set of
circumstances. There are no "immutable" facts in a matrix game."

Well, no. Each argument helps to define the game world, - rather like
filling in a map as you explore a country. I didn't say facts were
immutable. I said there must be a material event to change something
that has succeeded as an argument. eg I argue a battalion of 600 men
marches out and succeed. You can't argue there were only 500, but you
could argue that 100 ran away as soon as the left the fort. If you
wanted to argue the battalion had a smaller size in the first place
you have to get your argument in first. It's all about prioritising
what you do with you limited resources, - ie your one argument per
turn.

"A matrix game should consist of rules to create, expand, and modify
a matrix of terms which make up the game "reality." If you don't have
that, all you have is a game where players argue - and then the ref
imposes his will based on an arbitrary strength rating of his own
creation. Not a matrix game and not fun."

I don't disagree, - I just feel that the matrix game should move
forward. You can't go back and modify the past; you have to mould the
situation to what you want in the future. The umpire has to regulate
the game, and if he's any good you'll understand why he judges your
argument to be stronger or weaker (see my article on use of playing
cards in either Nugget or DMB). It is is a matrix game, and it is
fun. A statement that a form of the game "isn't fun" is just a value
judgement that doesn't help further the argument.

[MatrixGamer]

Chris Engle

Once the debate reaches questions about what is fun or not it is time to drop the debate at get back to the game. I will review the rules as they are written, summarize them and as the referee of the game decide how we will proceed.

I want to thank everyone for their contributions. A lot of interesting things were brought up. We have not reached a consensus on what is right but that is okay. I believe that different takes on Matrix Games will answer this differently.

For now, we know that a wall has bee build, that the squadies were slacking, and that Lt. Chard of the Royal Engineers supervised them.

SUMMMARY OF ENGLE MATRIX GAME RULES

First the simultaneous method – which is featured in Hamster Press MG books.

1.   Players make arguments one at a time going around the table.
2.   The referee rules on argument strengths as the arguments are made.
3.   The referee decides which arguments are in competition. They will be resolved in a dice rolling contest.
4.   Player roll for their own arguments. If they are not in competition then they succeed and fail on one roll. If they are in competition players keep rolling till only one argument is left.
5.   Arguments can trigger conflict or trouble argument rounds.

Round Robin method – which is featured in Hamster Press MG Folios.

1.   Players take turns making arguments.
2.   The referee rules on arguments and the player rolls for them immediately.
3.   The referee can allow players to make counter-arguments to other players arguments. These situations are resolved in a dice rolling competition.
4.   Successful arguments can trigger conflict and trouble rounds.

In addition to this I was using a suggested way of deciding argument strength based on a set of criteria. An argument gains one point for each of the following.

1.   The characters are together.
2.   The argument is logical.
3.    The argument fits the genre.
4.   The argument builds on past successful arguments.
5.   The argument appeals to emotion.
6.   You personally like it.

The criteria does not mention reducing strength if the argument contradicts past arguments, or punish players for doing too much. The old rule on refereeing is that the players make up arguments while the referee makes up argument strength.

HOW COULD I HAVE DONE THINGS DIFFERENTLY?

Based on the rules as they are written I ran the game correctly (which only shows that the letter of the law is foolish). Based on the round robin rules I could have asked players to make counter arguments to any of the three arguments. I didn't do that. I could also have declared any one of them triggering a conflict to slow the game down and moderate the effects of big arguments. Finally I could have granted the British player a trouble argument to say why the Zulu argument wasn't correct.

Interestingly, the arguments as written could be viewed as doing all of the above. For instance...

If I had allowed counter-arguments to the first wall turn then all the arguments would have done a dice rolling competition to see which one happened.

If I had declared the first argument triggering a conflict "can they get the wall built in time?" Then the Zulu argument could have been the first attempt at resolving the race, with the second British argument being their first attempt.

If I had allowed the Zulu argument to go through then the last British argument could have been the British player's trouble argument – which mitigated the effect of the Zulu turn.

Each of these alternatives could have been done within the rules. None would have been wrong. All would have looked different and made for a different dynamic in the game. As it is I took the simplest approach and had each argument roll independently. Obviously this was not the best way to handle this issue. The wall is all important for the game. It deserved using one of these other approaches to give it more gravity.

CONCLUSIONS

If I was a first time Matrix Game referee, I would not see all the options I mentioned above. With practice I would learn them and realize how I could use them to tweak the game the direction I want it to go in. Even with that though, the game is working and could continue working, even with simple minded refereeing like mine.

While there is nothing in the rules that says players can't engage in "He said/She said" arguments, they are pointless since they don't advance anyone's goals. It is a pointless exercise. I trust that players would soon tire of it and move on to other arguments.

So we are left with frustration. Someone is going to win, and someone will lose. In the end the dice gods are to blame because they pick the winners and losers.

Ain't life grant.

Chris Engle

[komradebob]

Hrm.

I like EMGs a lot, but this simultaneous thing sounds like it takes an elegant core concept and complicates the hell out of it. What do you feel the gains are from going with this more complicated concept over the simpler, "Action+Up to three supporting reasons+ outcome Round Robin format"? I can see where that original format might be seen as somewhat bloodless, but it reminds me of the way tension builds in a hand of poker. The simultaneous style reminds me of all of the things I don't like about Diplomacy...

A couple of other observations:
1 Zulu vs. 3 Brits ?!?

I guess I would have a problem if I was the Zulu player also!

My understanding of the general style in multiplayer EMGs was that each player was given somewhat competing goals, even when they were technically allies or even members of the same faction. I suppose this could be somewhat hard to pull off, but would seem like a very important aspect of scenario design.

One of the strengths of EMGs to me seems to be the ability to telescope in and out of scale, for example. Feasibly, a scenario designer could use this to create tension in play. An example in this scenario could be having a player who is playing a very low level British soldier, and another who is playing a British commander. Technically, both are on the same side, but the goal of the trooper is to do as little work as possible, survive the whole encounter and get back to England safely. Right there, we have competing goals and different levels of focus within the scenario.

The modifiers:
EMGs were developed prior to GNS ( if my chronology is accurate) and were not directly influenced by that theory. However, I'd like to jump over to some of that jargon for a second. In play, I see players playing a very Gamist game, while the referee is playing more of a Simulationist game( all personal opinion, of course). The ref basically acts as the keeper of Causality and the Authority on source material. Since that is the case, their primary duty is to assess argument strength based on the source material and the previous outcomes.

So I was a little shocked to see that one of the modifiers was based on how interesting an argument/action was deemed. I don't know, this one just strikes me as completely counter to what I'd imagined an EMG ref did. Comments?

As a side note, In EMG:PbOM, I tend to use 4+ as a default in any unclear situation. A single pip shift in either direction is a big deal. A two pip shift +/- really needs to be justified by some commentary, IMO. That seems like a slightly different approach than you were taking.

On a related note, the two big negative modifiers I tend to give are for contradiction of established events and over-reaching arguments. Considering that I'd gotten those general ideas from reading your writings, I'm somewhat confused by the problems in this AP report. I wouldn't tend to give negative modifiers for clever bypasses ( something that strikes me as being at the heart of EMG strategy), but direct contradiction would strike me as a negative modifier of a high value, and nearly direct certainly worth a -1 pip modifier...

An argument as a valuable resource:
It wasn't clear to me from the reading, but were you using a limited amount of rounds ( all players make arguments= one round)? It would seem like a limited number of rounds would prevent some of the back and forth tug of war between the players over a single issue ( the defensibility of the wall/barricade).

A couple of possible rules variations:
Random initiative per turn-
If play was round robin, starting with adifferent ( or potentially diffferent player) each round could seriously alter play style. There are a ton of possible sub-variations of this ( well, at least two or three anyway).

Uncoupling Player from Faction:
One of the "Big Ideas" that I've mined from your work is the possibility of un-coupling the actual player from the in-game faction. In EMGs ( and in Universalis, another game I see similarities in), play allows for the Actual-IRL-Player to be seperate from a given Faction in the SIS.

So, how to do it with Gamism?
Okay, Bog-standard Gamist situation that could be applied to an EMG scenario. There are two sides, Red and Blue. Each side has two players, R1,R2 and B1, B2. Each player has somewhat competing goals and is faction-coupled, meaning that the B1 player wins if the Blue team wins and B1 completes morwe of their goals than the B2 player. This is basically the same set up as in Axis and Allies if individual wins are sought.

The alternative:
There are a series of goals, perhaps written on cards. Each one  could be attached to any of the factions and sub factions, or possibly related to none specifically. Said goals are each worth one point towards overall victory. Lets say there are 20 goal cards all together: 4 for each sub-faction+four wild cards. The goals are dealt out randomly. There is no faction identification. When, during the course of the scenario, a player succeeds in achieving one of the goals on their card, they gain a victory point. At the end of the game, victory points are totalled and a winner declared. Pretty simple, yes?

However.

Since the goals may actually be conflicting in a single player's hand, you may achieve a decent simulation even while having an overall gamist (competitive) format. Since players are seeking to accomplish their individual point scoring goals, they may, on one turn, argue one side, while on a later turn argue for the success of an entirely different faction! They might even score points for causing their own previous faction to fail!

This idea came to me when I was considering how to make a game out of situations in which The Horribly Outnumbered Good Guys inevitably won.That's sort of a classic set up for all sorts of adventure fiction. With a standard, factionalized set up, it was awfully hard to pull off. With an uncoupling of faction from player, the goal became more simulationist (theoretically) while still appealling to sneaky, clever gamism.

Potential Example, where gamism and simulationism intersect:
Orcs. They're nasty brutal barbarians that charge relentlessly towards the closest enemy and attempt to overwhelm them. Inevitably, after initial losses ( the pain, the pain), the Good Guys Rally and massacre these savages.

Standard Simulation: The Orcs have numbers, but lack quality. They charge, massive calculations are done, end result is an Orc loss overall. The lesson for smart orc players is to go against the simulationist style, and to play more tactically. The verite to the source material is destroyed in the name of the gamist endeavor.

Divorced factionalism+simulation+ gamism: The player temporarily takes control of the orc horde, setting up reasons why they fail. Verite to source material is preserved, as the IRL player gains victory points from the orcs failing after a savage charge, as per a victory condition on a goal card.

The second example, hopefully, points out a way that gamism (  a Strong point of EMGs, IMO) can benefit from a slightly different take on the core rules, whuile still preserving the really great sim supporting nature of EMGs.

Please forgive the overlong post.
Talk to you later,
Robert

[contracycle]

I think that the number of arguments available to a side is crucial and that games will not work with 3 arguments versus 1.  The lone player struggles to control or direct anything at all.

I find it interesting that the wall was always treated as a singular entity; the wall could in fact have been "mostly strong" with a weak spot.  That would have been a feasible resolution of the arguments on the walls nature.

More to the point though, I did feel myself that the order of turns was very important, and that in effect the topic of any argument gave you a great insight into what the othe rplayer was doing, and hence how to frustrate them.  It seems to me that adopting a responsive strategy and allowing others to do the running will always give you an advantage, if not the victory.

Have you considered making the game space and its problems rather more concretised?  For example, if you instituted a points system with which to achieve goals, different arguments could then contribute different amounts of points, giving you a second layer of resolution beyond true/false.  So maybe the wall-building argument made a wall of stregth three and the lazy squaddies argument reduced it to 2.  I know this runs counter to your general idea for EMG's but I think they are hampered at present by what we have referred to as the "tyranny of structurelessness", in this case, having nearly any argument being as potentially good, useful and relevant as any other.

[MatrixGamer]

Arguments are the most important resource in Engle Matrix Games because they are what give you authority to change the shared imagined space. Typically I give players one argument a turn (thought there have been variations on that - multiple arguments per turn, startng the game with a set number of arguments for the whole game). Additional arguments can be made in a given turn if the referee asks for them (counter-arguments in round robin games), conflict rounds (to resolve issues like fights, asking super models for dates, etc.) and trouble (to avoid the consequences of badness.)

On one hand the structure of turns and resolution is clear and simple. On the other, the structure of how this affects the game world though is structureless, which has always been a problem with the system.

Great players can make bad scenarios fun because they impose their will onto the game. This fills in the gaps left by us game designers. Average or poor players, or new to the hobby players can't do this. They need well designed games.

My challenge now is to make games that average and poor players can pick up and run in five minutes. That is why I'm dropping simultaneous arguments as the primary rule. It is a hold over from my miniatures/Diplomacy playing days. I personally like simultaneous arguments for face to face games but to be truthfull there has always been a taking turns part to them. I would have players one by one make their arguments, so players naturally built off of other players arguments. Going around the table arguing and rolling as you go seems like an easier process.

Now about 3 to 1 argument ratios. One way to ensure that one side wins is to give them more arguments per turn. The Zulus will tend to have stronger arguments when they pit numbers versus numbers and be able to stay around longer because they have more people to soak up damage, but having fewer arguments means they will go down. It takes a special player to enjoy playing a losing side. If players were limited to only running one side It might not get many takers. Fortunately players can jump around in perspectives.

"VARMIT HUNT": I played in an Engle Matrix Game run at the local store in which we were a bunch of hicks out hunting "the thing in the woods." As we played I fed one of my characters to the beast for the benifit of the story. I wanted to make the arguments "Bubba Joe! NO!!!!!" After that it shaped up that there were two things going on in the game. I opted to join one side, as it turned out, the losing side. In the end I made the argument that blew my side up - it was going to happen so I at least gave us a good spin. During the game, I played my initial character feeding his son to the beast (to help define what it was), helped define both sides on the conflict. I failed to define the teenage witch as being good, but was able to turn the people in the cabin good. Then I ended up killing the good side so they died well rather than being capture by that EVIL girl. I jumped from perspective to perspective and had a blast.

So the challenge is to give a specific game enough structure so the players don't have to invent the wheel but not be so structured that it stiffles Varmit hunt exceitement. I'm opting for fewer numbers and cards. My hope is that later game designers will come along and develop these ideas to make their own Matrix Games. I'm going to concentrate on the Engle Matrix Game (which is good for story games) and Politics by other means (which is good for battles) and keep them both very simple so that though the will be weaker games for it - they will be more open to new players.

Chris Engle
Hamster Press = Engle Matrix Games

[komradebob]

Chris:
I know PboM works without a set, permanent referee ( generally). Are there variants of the main EMGs that work without a referee as part of the set up?

If so, how have those worked out?

[MatrixGamer]

Engle Matrix Games can always be played without a referee. Just pick one of your opponents to judge your arguments. This works if you are gaming with a good bunch of players. It falls apart when dysfunctional play sets in.

This is where the Big Model is useful - creative agendas clash and play crashes.

My wife played in a HG Wells War of the Worlds game in which she was the Martians. The humans players kept ruling her arguments very weak. This frustrated here so she stopped making arguments and just blasted them with he death rays. They were playing a very gamist game and forced her to play it as well. Had they hooked her into a story game she would likely have helped them defeat her. As it was they were stomped.

Chris Engle
Hamster Press = Engle Matrix Games

[komradebob]

Engle Matrix Games can always be played without a referee. Just pick one of your opponents to judge your arguments. This works if you are gaming with a good bunch of players. It falls apart when dysfunctional play sets in.

This is where the Big Model is useful - creative agendas clash and play crashes.

My wife played in a HG Wells War of the Worlds game in which she was the Martians. The humans players kept ruling her arguments very weak. This frustrated here so she stopped making arguments and just blasted them with he death rays. They were playing a very gamist game and forced her to play it as well. Had they hooked her into a story game she would likely have helped them defeat her. As it was they were stomped.

Chris Engle
Hamster Press = Engle Matrix Games

Hmm. I ran into a similar problem with PboM the first time I played.

I think EMGs work really well as Gamist/competitive games. I'm wondering if there is a way to tweak the gamism a bit.

Would it be possible to do something like having a deck of cards with plot points/events/results=victory points?

Instead of having those victory conditions be attached to a faction which is attached to a player, the plot points are randomly dealt out. If the plot point comes to pass, the player shows the card and gains a victory point.

When the game ends, players total up victory points and an individual winner is declared.

By defactionalizing the plot points, it opens up the play to bluffing. In your War of the Worlds example, it might not be clear to the other players whether your wife had a strong Martians hand, or whether her hand involved a mixed set of plotpoints. Perhaps those plotpoint cards have victory points for the Martians failing, and the Missus is playing a reverse psychology game?

The reason I suggest this is because I've been toying with two related ideas:
1)The idea of playing with using competitive mechanics to produce a simulationist result.  This is sort of the reverse of EMGs, where simulationist mechanics are used to achieve a gamist result.( At least in the older EMGs I've examined).

2) Uncoupling the idea of player identification with a faction to achieve a "win". I'm trying to figure out how to create a situation in which the individual Player can win, regardless of whether a given faction "wins". This would be very useful if the game was themed for a situation where the outcome was a given- for example, the beleagured good guys will win in the end. Which makes a situation where either being the bad guy sucks (you will lose) or horrible non-genre results could happen ( What, Sauron won?! This blows!) because possible wins by any player are written in.

[MatrixGamer]

You can stick just about anything on to a Matrix Game and it will work. It hybridizes well.

I had never considered divorcing the players from characters but on reading you post it sounds like it could be real cool.

Say I'm playing a Civil War game. My victory conditions are 1. Lee must behave heroically, 2. The South must loss, 3. British need to intrigue to prolong the war.

They are not mutually exclusive but they don't suggest that I am playing one faction. Could be an interesting gamist game.

Chris Engle
Hamster Press = Engle Matrix Games

[komradebob]

It could also be interesting if either:
a) Some victory conditions were repeated, so that more than one player might be shooting for them. This would work well in the situation that a player needed to ask another player to rate the strength of their argument. Depending upon whether that player had the same or a similar victory condition, you might get different strengths.

b)Players could rate the value of a particular victory condition ( say 1, 2, or 3 vps) prior to the start of the game, perhaps by markingt  the goal card with a permanent marker. This brings up the possibility that a tricky player could bait their opponents into letting something minor succeed, only for the opponent to discover that they've just allowed the asking player to grab a big vp coup.

And, yes, EMGs are excellent at hybridization!