(Engle Matrix Game) Chaos on Campus - with the family

[MatrixGamer]

My sister in law and two of my nephews were over for the Holidays and in between washing dishes we played a Matrix Games.

We played "Chaos on Campus" a 1920's Cthulhian game in which students at Miskatonic University battle (or aid) evil. This game is just now being offered to the distribution system so who knows, it may appear in a store near you soon.

The players...

Me - The game designer (so naturally I have to lose - or it wouldn't be fair).
Terri - My wife (the eternal newbie despite having been a play tester on the first Star Trek game and the FASA Doctor Who game)
Lucy - Terri's older sister, 48, oldest son and husband over in the Middle East in the army. Not a terribly experienced gamer but is a author of Romance Novels (Check out "The Rogues Revenge")
Wolf - My 19 year old nephew. He is enamored of Anime and slacking off.
Christopher - My 13 year old nephew who got "Erie Indiana" DVDs so he was in the mood for horror.

I took on the roll of "referee" but since I also had a character all the other players got to be referee at various times.

The characters...

The Zombie Louis Bentley - Me.
Tom Post the Joker - Terri
Helen Peters debate team member - Lucy
Sheriff Engle - Wolf
Dick Mathers the Reporter - Christopher

I picked the scenario "Rasing the Dead" and read the two or three paragraph scenario openner. This told about a guest lecture given by Dr Herbert West (see Lovecraft's "Reanimator") and that two freshly burried corpses (that the player's character's knew) were missing.

The game consisted of a 20x30 laminated map/character sheet. Half of the board was a color map of the campus, the other half included character pictures and short written description of the PC and NPCs. The scenario openers and a rules gloss were also present. There were cardboard counters with the character pictures as well to show where people were on the map.

The turn started with the players placing their people on the map. Depending on who started where and with who different potential scenes were created.

Terri and I started so the others would see how to play. I made the argument that "Two corpses are seen laying on a slab. There are many scientific instruments and a person moving around them. You can't see his face. It's a scene right out of Frankenstein." Terri was my referee and had to decide if my statement sounded impossible, really weak, pretty weak, okay, pretty strong, really strong or can't miss. She is a hard referee and said it was okay. I had to roll 4, 5, or 6 on a d6. I rolled a 3 so my action did not happen.

Terri argued next. She started in the "Curiosity Shop" and argued to find an interesting puzzle box. She did not define it further. I rated it a strong argument (why not it was the beginning of the game - why not have a puzzle box appear?). She rolled a 4 and succeeded.

This showed the others essentially how to play. Each turn make up a statement about what happens next. The boys had a little difficulty on the first turn. They had played D+D like RPGs and were not used to having so much power. Christopher picked it up quicker than Wolf. He was soon guiding the story in a way he liked. Naturally it involved his character finding important clues - like a hunk of half eaten flesh from one of the corpses. Wolf just established that he had a gun.

Lucy was timid but made good arguments that lead the game in a romantic direction.

I established that the Zombie looked alive if not looked at too closely and then attacked Christopher's reporter to steal the meat. The Sheriff was present so when I succeeded I decided that it triggered a conflict.

Conflict is resolved by arguments just like other actions. As referee I decided who was in the "strongest" position. I said out loud. "Who is stronger? The zombie or the guy with the gun? I wonder..." The boys voiced that the gun was stronger and I went along with them. Wolf argued to shoot me but didn't say what happened to me. I view this as being hold over thinking from D+D. He has been trained to not feel he has power over defining the outcomes of fights. As it was I decided to trigger a trouble argument. I had to make an argument saying why the shots didn't hurt me. "I'm already dead, What more can he do?" This succeeded so I survived. The conflict was not resolved so we moved to the next strongest player. "Let me see...zombie or reporter? Zombie I think." The boys accepted this so I argued that the Zombie ran off. The arguement succeeded so the fight was over.

As the game progressed we pulled in other characters. The twisted graduate student, Professor Armitage, an unhappy ghost at the library. Arguments established that the grad student was the zombies cousin (btw the zombie had died during WWI). I had the zombie spy on Lulu the party girl from afar and the Lucy argued for him to be secretly in love with her. Playing up to Lucy's romaticism I had the zombie plead with the grad student for help. "Stop me from doing the horrible things I do!!!"

Chritopher, Wolf, Lucy and I built up this story. Meanwhile Terri ignored our story and build on her puzzle box thread. It turned out to be a box that sucked and blew. She later told me she was making a tool that could destroy the zombie and wrap up the game.

In the end, Lucy argued for Helen to become freightened of the grad student and be chased by him across campus. Everyone - Terri included - converged in the center of campus for this scene. We did a variety of conflicts and trouble arguments the end result of which was everyone hauled off to jail. The next few arguments settled what people said in jail - and ended with the grad student being arrested. At this point the remaining players were released.

They took the box and found the zombie and with a blaze of bullets and a magical wiz bang he was toast.

The only remaining loose end was the grad student's trial. Lucy was the procecutor. She said that the grad student has disturbed the peace, assaulted Helen, and some weird stuff about him making zombies. Naturally I pointed out that zombies were not real and that since Bentley was walking around he was clearly alive. I also pointed out that the grad student was locked up when they killed Bentley. Of course rationality lost and my second choice character went down just as hard as the first.

OBSERVATIONS

This game worked like Matrix Games usually do. It was fun. Players got more energized as the game went on and in the space of three hours we did a complete story.

I was pretty tired (I'm the dish washer) so I was happy to not have to do any prep work to run the game. It was also pretty easy for me to run the game since I didn't have to worry about making up most of the events of the game I just had to make up how "strong" the arguments were. I triggered conflict and trouble rounds to build up tension and allowed players to make counter-arguments when they vocally disagreed with any player's regular argument.

Lucy is part of the demographic that I most want to appeal to with Matrix Games, middle aged non-gamer women.  Because she just had to make up story fragments and not worry about many rules, she was able to play and have a good time. Christopher is a bright lad and also enjoyed making things up. Wolf kept his arguments very short and focused on his character so he did not put much of a stamp on the game. He did do the shooting but never really set up the fights. I think he stayed in a D+D mindset. Terri did well - as she always does. She has a strong will and will build whatever story she wants.

GNS

How was the game gamist? Wolf and Christopher used arguments to get guns - which they later used to blast my zombie. Terri created an even better weapon in the sucking box. These moves for power (so they would be declared strongest in conflicts) seem pretty gamist.

Narrativist? The players were given a premise. Bodies are missing, zombies are real, find out what is going on. They did this by creating clues that lead the story in various ways. Their arguments narrowed the focus of the game and eventually lead to a couple of what I think could be seen as "story now" moments. The coed being chased across campus cluster fuck, the scenes in the jail, the confrontation with the zombie, and the trial of the grad student. The plot track included with the game certainly suggested that conflicts like this would arrise but didn't dictate when, where, who would be involved, or even why these things would happen. It was up to the players - building off one another's arguments - to make this happen.

Simulationist? I think Lucy was doing the most of this. She is a romantic and seemed to enjoy both making romantic arguments and being my referee when I made romantic arguments. I was feeding her these kinds of arguments so she would rule them strong or very strong (how gamist of me!) She on the other hand seemed to want things to work out in a way consistent with her Rogues Revenge world view. I think this was sim but she would have to say so for certain.

The styles of play interacted well in this game - as they frequently do in Matrix Games. Play did not get too dysfunctional. The closest dysfunction to arrise were Wolf's limited arguments. This didn't stop the rest of us and he seemed happy enough to make them so I think this hybrid style game worked.

COMPONENT DURABILITY

The map held up well to play. Drinks or greesy fingers didn't damage the plastic covered map. Earlier in the day I had Terri do a product test for me. I gave here a game and asked her to destroy it. She had done so in about ten seconds. This is not a record for her! Then I game her another game and asked her to use it roughly but to not deliberately tear it up. This lead to a minute worth of twisting and folding, all very rough, till a first tear happened (in the weak point she had earlier attacked.) The lamination did not peal and the tear did not render the game unplayable. All in all very durable.

I've noticed that people can destroy just about anything if they want to. If a game can be torn, that means nothing. On the other hand if it immediately falls apart with normal use (as perfect bound books can) that is unacceptable. These laminated maps seem to be okay.

Chris Engle
Hamster Press = Engle Matrix Games

[komradebob]

I'm curioyus about something-
How exactly does the map get used in the game? Is it primarily a prop, or does it play some part in movement? Or is there another use also?

[MatrixGamer]

The map sits colorfully in the middle of the table. I think it serves a variety of functions.

1. It is colorful and looks like a game. This puts people in a game playing mindset. They allow themselves to get excited more easily and suspend disbelief.

2. It is part of the Matrix of the game. The way the map is draw (or created by toy props - hint hint) suggests ideas on what might happen. For instance, in Chaos on Campus there is a Library and a Science Building. These locals suggest to me - moldy books of evil magic and mad scientist laboratories. The rest of the matrix is made up of the character write ups and pictures, the scenario openers, the plot track,  and the knowledge players bring to the table about horror stories.

3. At the start of the turn players get a free move. They can place themselves anywhere they want to on the map - unless there is a barrier that blocks them (like being locked out of the restricted book section.) Players can create new barriers as the game is played (I had the zombie have a disguise so he was anonymous, and then to have a secret room in the lab.) Since players can go anywhere - what they are really doing is putting characters together. This suggests a scene will happen at that local. They make that happen with their arguments.

4. The map shows where people are when conflict and trouble rounds start up. If a room is filled with poison gas - but you aren't there - then you don't need to make a trouble argument to not die BUT if a fight starts there then you are not going to be involved in it. So the map show temporary information - a dynamic part of the world matrix.

I personally don't view the map as restricting action very much. If our two characters are not together you can still make an argument about a scene that happens between our two fellows - it's just a little weaker. If the dice gods smile though - it happens.

[komradebob]

The map sits colorfully in the middle of the table. I think it serves a variety of functions.

1. It is colorful and looks like a game. This puts people in a game playing mindset. They allow themselves to get excited more easily and suspend disbelief.

Okay, easy sell on this point, especially the bolded part.

2. It is part of the Matrix of the game. The way the map is draw (or created by toy props - hint hint) suggests ideas on what might happen. For instance, in Chaos on Campus there is a Library and a Science Building. These locals suggest to me - moldy books of evil magic and mad scientist laboratories. The rest of the matrix is made up of the character write ups and pictures, the scenario openers, the plot track,  and the knowledge players bring to the table about horror stories.

Got it.

3. At the start of the turn players get a free move. They can place themselves anywhere they want to on the map - unless there is a barrier that blocks them (like being locked out of the restricted book section.) Players can create new barriers as the game is played (I had the zombie have a disguise so he was anonymous, and then to have a secret room in the lab.) Since players can go anywhere - what they are really doing is putting characters together. This suggests a scene will happen at that local. They make that happen with their arguments.

Okay. So, can one player make an argument about scene set up? Does that count as their whole turn? For example, can I say: "The next scene takes place at the library and involves the researcher and the zombie", or do I need to make an argument for that? Or, does that only occur if the researcher and zombie are both already at the library?

Another quick question: Other than the blocks you mentioned, are there any sort of other limitations on positioning your piece on the map? I'm thinking about paths or terrain requirements. For example, do you have to stop on area b, to go from area a to area c if b physically seperates the two on the map? ( I'm imagining the Arkham Horror map, btw).

4. The map shows where people are when conflict and trouble rounds start up. If a room is filled with poison gas - but you aren't there - then you don't need to make a trouble argument to not die BUT if a fight starts there then you are not going to be involved in it. So the map show temporary information - a dynamic part of the world matrix.

I personally don't view the map as restricting action very much. If our two characters are not together you can still make an argument about a scene that happens between our two fellows - it's just a little weaker. If the dice gods smile though - it happens.

I always thought the fact that you could make arguments about events that your pawn was not present for was one of the great strengths of MGs. Is having a negative modifier for not having a pawn present a standard part of the rules now?

[Sydney Freedberg]

Interesting. The "pick-up-and-play" aspect is appealing -- sounds like you didn't have to spend a lot of time before you got to the good stuff.

Narrativist? The players were given a premise. Bodies are missing, zombies are real, find out what is going on

This is a "premise" in the normal English sense of the word, but not quite in the Big Model Theory/Egri dramatics use of "premise" as a specialized term. "Premise" there means, usually, a morally significant question, like "do you try to use Forbidden Knowledge for power or do you destroy it?," rather than a practical question like, "figure out what's going on and try not to die."

Or were there big moral decisions by the characters (and players) in play that I'm not seeing?

I made the argument that "Two corpses are seen laying on a slab. There are many scientific instruments and a person moving around them. You can't see his face. It's a scene right out of Frankenstein." Terri was my referee and had to decide if my statement sounded impossible, really weak, pretty weak, okay, pretty strong, really strong or can't miss. She is a hard referee and said it was okay. I had to roll 4, 5, or 6 on a d6. I rolled a 3 so my action did not happen.

This is the part I don't get. Some questions:
Given that you'd put a bunch of effort into describing this cool set-up, were you frustrated at all when Terri's call plus the die roll told you "no, sorry, that never happened, bye"?
What guidelines did Terri have to evaluate this statement as being impossible/weak/strong/certain, besides gut feeling?
How could you have improved your chances of getting this idea into play? From what little I know of Matrix Games, I'd guess that you'd need to build it up one sub-statement at a time, e.g.
Player: "There are two corpses on a slab."
Referee: "This is a horror game, that makes sense. Really Strong!"
Player: "3 -- just barely made it! Okay, there are lots of scientific instruments around the bodies."
Referee: "Like dissection tools? That's plausible, too; Strong..."
and so on. Do I have this strategy about right?

[komradebob]

Terri was my referee and had to decide if my statement sounded impossible, really weak, pretty weak, okay, pretty strong, really strong or can't miss. She is a hard referee and said it was okay. I had to roll 4, 5, or 6 on a d6. I rolled a 3 so my action did not happen.

Oh yeah, I wanted to ask about this part, too. Does this mean that you've incorporated PbOM style "choose another player as referee for rating the strength of your argument" into current MG designs, rather than going with a permanent, non-player referee? When I tried out PbOM with my daughter, this resulting in some interesting interactions due to the conflicts between winning and player relations at the SC level.

[MatrixGamer]

You know I've always done the bit of picking other players to be my referee. I think your right that it is not in the rules though. I do it to teach other people how to referee a game. At the end of the game I can truly say - you can do this yourself - infact you already did!

As to the social contract level - That's real. Terri is much harder a referee than I am. She is also more competitive in Matrix Games than I am. I'm used to taking a losing position or seeing myself as the helper of the players rather than as their opponent. I think Terri's toughness when it come to gaming is her high level of expectation. When she was in high school/college she dated Guy McLimore who wrote a number of games in the late 70's early 80's (and runs Microtatix where you got your fold up buildings!) Guy is a great GM. Terri was very spoiled (or at least taught not to tolerate less than greatness) so she doesn't care for average games. Dysfunctional play gallops in, so I give her a great game or we don't play at all. Marital peace is more important than gaming.

With your daughter there is another power relationship. On the one hand you have the power but if you over use it - so she loses - you lose because she will not want to play any more.

As you've noted before - Engle Matrix Games are a vehicle players can ride. The rules don't dictate how players behave on the trip.

BTW I'm likely going to burn another pile of brownie points today. I found a guillotine paper cutter for a good price. I've been wanting one with a 26 inch cutting blade. Another thousand pounds of cast iron later - viola, toasted brownies!

Chris Engle
Hamster Press = Engle Matrix Games

[komradebob]

With your daughter there is another power relationship. On the one hand you have the power but if you over use it - so she loses - you lose because she will not want to play any more.

Ironically, it was Threnody rather than myself in this particular case who had to make a decision between aiding her own side ( by making one of my trooper's save very hard) or encouraging posittive interplayer dynamics. When I was playing around with a little touch up of PbOM, one of the big things I was working on was emphasizing that a player should default rate an argument as average ( 4,5,6) unless there was a really good reason to make it harder or easier.

You know I've always done the bit of picking other players to be my referee. I think your right that it is not in the rules though. I do it to teach other people how to referee a game. At the end of the game I can truly say - you can do this yourself - infact you already did!

I admit to having something of an anti-permanent GM bias these days. I think you should definitely include it as a key rule, especially for the MGs that you've got in distribution. Or not-different strokes and all that...

[neelk]

You know I've always done the bit of picking other players to be my referee. I think your right that it is not in the rules though. I do it to teach other people how to referee a game. At the end of the game I can truly say - you can do this yourself - infact you already did!

Just as an aside: I reread the Lone Wolf book last night, and this option was in there as an option. I don't remember an exact page ref, though.

[MatrixGamer]

Interesting. The "pick-up-and-play" aspect is appealing -- sounds like you didn't have to spend a lot of time before you got to the good stuff.

This was really nice. The only prep I did was to lay out the map and read the scenario opener. Then we started playing. As the main referee I didn't have to do more than judge arguments as they came up. I did act as a good host (helping out and encouraging the new players) but largely I didn't do much more than the other players. This was a god sent because I was tired (between cleaning at home and a hugh chart audit at work I was busy.)

Okay. So, can one player make an argument about scene set up? Does that count as their whole turn? For example, can I say: "The next scene takes place at the library and involves the researcher and the zombie", or do I need to make an argument for that? Or, does that only occur if the researcher and zombie are both already at the library?

Another quick question: Other than the blocks you mentioned, are there any sort of other limitations on positioning your piece on the map? I'm thinking about paths or terrain requirements. For example, do you have to stop on area b, to go from area a to area c if b physically seperates the two on the map? ( I'm imagining the Arkham Horror map, btw).

The placement of characters on the map doesn't "set up the scene" in a Forge meaning of the phrase. It may suggest it but the scene happens because a player describes it in an argument or the players spontaneously role play it between their characters.

As to terrain barriers, there are several types. Defensive barriers are soldiers, walls, mine fields etc. Geographic barriers are rivers, mountains, different geographic regions (like the Midwest - where I live.) Anonymity barriers are things like hiding, disguises or simply not being know by the other guy (this is why spotting terrorists is so hard - they don't wear name badges.) Then there are mental barriers. The thoughts in my head are protected by one barrier (my skin) but inside my mind I may have other barriers like the unconscious, or torture resistance training or Zephod Beblebrock's brain surgury in Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy. In the absence of a barrier people can move anywhere they want so I can put my character next to a hidden character but I don't know he is there till my argument says I know.

There is no incremental movement as in Arkham Horror. You can move anywhere you want in the area you are in. In military campaign games there are lots of geographic barriers but I give a one area free move in these so movement is not dependent on arguments.

Narrativist? The players were given a premise. Bodies are missing, zombies are real, find out what is going on

This is a "premise" in the normal English sense of the word, but not quite in the Big Model Theory/Egri dramatics use of "premise" as a specialized term. "Premise" there means, usually, a morally significant question, like "do you try to use Forbidden Knowledge for power or do you destroy it?," rather than a practical question like, "figure out what's going on and try not to die."

Or were there big moral decisions by the characters (and players) in play that I'm not seeing?

I'm afraid I tend to default back to English so I was using premise as a "this is an outline of the plot" way. I think there was the tension of "What is the evil? Do I want to stop it or help it?" there. Being the Zombie I did want to do evil things but the players didn't have to stop me. In this way they had way more choice than story now - which mitigates against this game being seen as narrativist per se. I tend to let that emerge on its own. If the  players want to put that on the game they can if they don't they don't have to. When it came out that the monster loved Lulu that could have lead to more moral delimas but instead the players made her a two timimg tramp. I thought I might get to pull her into the grave with me but they gunned me down before I could get her.

This is the part I don't get. Some questions:
Given that you'd put a bunch of effort into describing this cool set-up, were you frustrated at all when Terri's call plus the die roll told you "no, sorry, that never happened, bye"?
What guidelines did Terri have to evaluate this statement as being impossible/weak/strong/certain, besides gut feeling?
How could you have improved your chances of getting this idea into play? From what little I know of Matrix Games, I'd guess that you'd need to build it up one sub-statement at a time, e.g.
Player: "There are two corpses on a slab."
Referee: "This is a horror game, that makes sense. Really Strong!"
Player: "3 -- just barely made it! Okay, there are lots of scientific instruments around the bodies."
Referee: "Like dissection tools? That's plausible, too; Strong..."
and so on. Do I have this strategy about right?

Here are the guidelines that are in the Folio games. Players get one point for each of the following...

1. The characters mentioned are together (which rewards players who set up scenes on the map)
2. The argument is logical.
3. The argument fits the genre.
4. The argument builds on past successful arguments.
5. The argument appeals to your emotions.
6. You personally like it.

This is followed by "The referee can ignore all this and make up the strength, lower an argument's strength if it trys to do too much (a subjective judgement call) or does not give enough detail. The referee can also rule unsportsman like arguments "impossible" in their role as host. Bad arguments spoil the fun for all."

We used this set of criteria on my argument and it didn't uses characters that were together on the map, it was logical, it did fit the genre, it did not build on past successful arguments, it did not appeal to her emotions nor did she like it so my argument was pretty weak. I had to roll a 5 or 6. I missed - the dice gods spoke. I wasn't very frustrated. I didn't have a lot of time or energy in the argument so who cares. Now I would have called it strong because at the beginning of the game I have no reason to disbelieve anything.

The list of criteria is for newbies. It will yield average and strong rulings most of the time - when means things happen.

The game does strongly reward making short incremental arguments. One literally builds the probability of a course of action happening by the preparation arguments they make. This leads to play that is pretty different from narrativist games discussed here, where players do pretty free wheeling narration with no checks on them. EMG arguments are more like gambits that if successful move the story in your way. I'll start another thread on whither this is task or conflict resolution. BTW the arguments you made above are more like what Wolf did. "There is a lab." "There are bodies in the lab." "I have disection tools." I would instead prepare for a lab by saying "Professor Glatz is a well known researcher who brings in a lot of money." This opens a lot more possibilities - which is more fun because other players will use it to tell their story.

Just as an aside: I reread the Lone Wolf book last night, and this option was in there as an option. I don't remember an exact page ref, though

Good I'm glad that was in there. My mind has been full of printing and book binding lately.

[komradebob]

Hey Chris, I hope you'll tolerate the incessant questions, but...

1) Could you relate an actual play case where a player was rated as having a very strong argument (say 2 or better to succeed) which failed, and then a following player immediately built off of that failure on their turn? I've been curious about this situation for a long time.

2) My impression of your wife's style of play is that she is pretty competitive. Can you speak a bit on how that affects the overall playstyle of other players at the table. Particularly, I'm interested inhow this may affect their assessments of her arguments and also each other's arguments in terms of strength. Also, have you observed any group of players where the opposite tended to be true- that they tended to rate one another's arguments perhaps a bit stronger than your family would in one of your home games?

3) Have you ever considered using dice other than d6, and do you feel it would have a different impact? For example, d3 could crunch down a lot of the guesswork/estimation into three broad categories of likelihood, where d8 or d10 might give a possibility of simply giving a base number +/- 1 for each of yor named criteria.

4) You also mentioned that you and Wolf have different approaches to making arguments. For example, your broader argument about the scientist versus his more methodical approach to building arguments about the lab. My question: Over the course of a game, how often do players reach a certain acceptable equilibrium/consensus about what an argument can reasonably cover? Do you find it can take a couple of games with a single group of players for this to occur, or is it something that happens rapidly regardless of player familiarity with one another and the system?

5) More generally, can you tell me about the plot-track? Is it a simple record of total game turns, or does it have some other in game impact?

Thanks,
Robert

[MatrixGamer]

Hey Chris, I hope you'll tolerate the incessant questions, but...

Questions are good. They help everyone understand what I'm talking about.

1) Could you relate an actual play case where a player was rated as having a very strong argument (say 2 or better to succeed) which failed, and then a following player immediately built off of that failure on their turn? I've been curious about this situation for a long time.

I've always believed that arguments that fail just didn't happen, no more punishment needed. That being said, making an argument that fails can give you opponent's good/bad ideas. Here is an example from a game I ran at GenCon in 1996. Mary Queen of Scots husband has just died (his house was blown up which he survived but was knifed in the garden - which is historically what happened) who did it?

The players initially started making arguments that suggested it was either the British or some great lord. Several turns into the game the Queen Mary player made an unsuccessful argument to establish an alibi. It was something like "I was with Riccio when it happened." (Riccio being the Spanish Papal spy in Scotland at the time.) Immediately attention shifted to the queen. People started making argument that suggested she was complicit with the crime. By the end of the game the Queen was in real trouble and on her way to being deposed.

"Me thinks the lady doth protest too much..."

I think even if her alibi argument had worked it still wouldn't have helped. She brought attention to her - which pulled it away from other suspects. It also reminded players running her political opponents (like John Knox) that they could use this to bring her down.

2) My impression of your wife's style of play is that she is pretty competitive. Can you speak a bit on how that affects the overall playstyle of other players at the table. Particularly, I'm interested in how this may affect their assessments of her arguments and also each others arguments in terms of strength. Also, have you observed any group of players where the opposite tended to be true- that they tended to rate one another's arguments perhaps a bit stronger than your family would in one of your home games?

Terri was in a War of the Worlds game I ran in Nashville TN in the late 90's. The other players rather partisanly ruled all her arguments very weak. This annoyed her so she quit making arguments and just blasted the humans with her Martian war machines. Partisan play like this just pushes the Matrix Game out of the game. Players can do it but why? In a wargame like that there was a back up set of rules. In a story telling game it forces the other player to be equally partisan which only slows down the game (due to making more arguments fail) but doesn't effect the end outcome at all.

Cooperative play is much more the norm though. I've seen plenty of games where pretty well all the arguments were rated strong or very strong. In these games the players are building off one another's arguments - in other words true collective story telling.

3) Have you ever considered using dice other than d6, and do you feel it would have a different impact? For example, d3 could crunch down a lot of the guesswork/estimation into three broad categories of likelihood, where d8 or d10 might give a possibility of simply giving a base number +/- 1 for each of yor named criteria.

I've used the flip of a coin, d6, 2d6, d10, d20, and d100 to run games. They all work. I've stuck with d6 for the Engle Matrix Game because they are so widely available. Using different dice or dice rolling schemes is one way I think other people can make their own Matrix Games. I'm all for that. My job has always been to make the Model T of Matrix Games. I fully expect other game designers to supersede me. As I am successful in building up this part of the hobby other people will want to use it. Just like people here at the Forge write RPGs - a hobby arena created by people in the 70's.

4) You also mentioned that you and Wolf have different approaches to making arguments. For example, your broader argument about the scientist versus his more methodical approach to building arguments about the lab. My question: Over the course of a game, how often do players reach a certain acceptable equilibrium/consensus about what an argument can reasonably cover? Do you find it can take a couple of games with a single group of players for this to occur, or is it something that happens rapidly regardless of player familiarity with one another and the system?

There is no right length to arguments. Wolf's arguments were short but fine. The rest of us felt more comfortable making longer arguments. My rule of thumb is that an argument is about one paragraph long. If it goes over three paragraphs then it is doing too much. Groups seem to reach consensus about this after only a few turns of play. Of course people tend to follow the example of the first people who argue.

As to Wolf's arguments - it is worth noting that his arguments succeeded and many of mine didn't. Methodical is a good strategy - I just like being more flamboyant.

5) More generally, can you tell me about the plot-track? Is it a simple record of total game turns, or does it have some other in game impact?

The plot track is just a list of words in a row of boxes. For instance, in Chaos on Campus it says something like...

Something weird has happened that should be investigated.
Find clues (who, what, where, why, when, how, what next?)
Uncover the plot.
Help it happen or stop it

This gives players ideas on what kind of actions might be done in a horror game. It also shows their sequence, but it is only suggestive. It is up to the players to make things happen in the arguments they make.

Say a narrativist game said - find and confront moral delimas and grapple with the consequences of choices. That suggests a plot track. Find problems, make choices, deal with consequences. All very similar to EMGs but the goal of the game is different. Narrativist gamers what games to be story now - feeling the moral delimas/angst. I like a little of this but since I deal with emotional crisis at work I don't want it in my games. EMGs can be played in a more detached way. My flamboyant/campy arguments distance me from angst. You bring what you want to to the game.

I don't really take issue with the "system matters" position but I've been more interesting in making a versatile system rather than a one game style specific one. The Engle Matrix Game system does a good job simulating highly fluid events (politics, mystery, intrigue) one can read story now into it but it is not set up to automatically create that.

Chris Engle
Hamster Press = Engle Matrix Games