Matrix Games: Gamist, Narrativist, and Sim

[MatrixGamer]

I've never posted a topic before but here goes.

Since 1988 I've been working on Matrix Games. The basic rules mechanism is VERY simple. Each turn players say what they want to have happen next in the game. They can make anything happen - they are not bound by their character's limits. A referee decides how "strong" and "argument" is and the player rolls. It either happens or it doesn't. There are a few more rules but not much. (see complete rules at http://www.io.com/~hamster )

Okay, it is gamist because it allows people to act. They can play the referee, negociate with the other players, etc. It is heavily narrativist because since the players can do anything they need structure for there to be a game at all. It is simulationist because teh British Army has used it as a planning game since 1995 and the Australian Army picked it up in 2002.

When I started working on this verbal approach to gaming there were no games like it. Steve Jackson told me the players would have to have philosophy degrees to play (which I knew was wrong then because I had already had children play it). Now I'm glad to see lots of game be open to this idea of GM sharing power with players.

So here is a question. How much does this game mechanism bug you?

Just so you know, I have 13 Matrix Game books written and I have a booth at Gen Con and Origins. By years end I expect to have 20 books done. So I'm a serious game maker/printer.

Chris Engle
Hamster Press

[Shreyas Sampat]

Hi, Chris. Nice to see you posting here. (No, I don't know you, I just think the matrix game is neat.)

So here is a question. How much does this game mechanism bug you?

I'm not sure that an opinion poll like this is really appropriate for this forum, though. Is there something you'd like to get a discussion going on?

[MatrixGamer]

Good point I wasn't really wanting to do a poll.

Try this out.

How would you use this kind of freedom of action in your games?


Chris Engle
Hamster Press

[Ron Edwards]

Hi Chris,

I'm going to turn this topic around a little. What I'd like is for you to describe playing an actual session of a Matrix game in terms of the Big Model.

All you have to do is use the Core terms described in the very first part of the Forge Glossary article. There aren't that many. Also note that the terms Gamism, Simulationism, and Narrativism are not in that section, so don't use them.

Once you do that, right here in this thread, I can explain to you anything and everything you want to know about GNS and your game, without using any special jargon at all.

Best,
Ron

[MatrixGamer]

I'm game. I've printed out the glossery - 21 pages - hummm a lot of words. Forgive me if I mess up terms some of these are neologisms.

If my clients no show tomorrow I should be able to post the analysis. For now it is off to dinner with the wife and then a thrilling evening doing book design (ah the gay life of game making!)

Chris Engle
Hamster Press

[Ron Edwards]

Hi Chris,

Don't use all the Glossary! Just those key terms in the beginning. There aren't more than 10 of them, and using the diagram, it should be very easy.

Best,
Ron

[contracycle]

Hi Chris.  You may or may not remember me, I was on one of your lists a little while ago.

Your games have been discussed several times here, although pretty much only in outline.  I'd be more than happy to assist if you want to touch base about the Forge's documentation and how concepts can best be translated from your games to RPG conventions and vice versa.

Also, I think some discussion of your therapeutic work would be very illuminating; certainly this helped me understand how the matrix game principle operated.  In some ways that aspect is more like RPG than the game-as-entertainment stuff.

[MatrixGamer]

Your games have been discussed several times here, although pretty much only in outline.



Thanks for the offer of help. I'm interested to frame Matrix Games in Forge terms. Translation can be fun (The spirit is will but the flesh is weak = The vodka is good but the meat is rottern).

I'm afraid I don't know which list your were on. That is the problem with online names. Associations get blurry fast.

I'm interested that Matrix Games have come up before. They are popping up in lots of places now. The Society of Ancients (British miniatures players) put out a nice game called De Matrica Bellae (to run campaigns to go with DBA) and included a version of Matrix Game miniatures I use (Politics by other means - translated into Ancients by other means) Good fun...and I didn't have to print it!

I'm looking over the diagram and glossery now but my clients are coming in today so I may not get it done today. Soon...

Chris Engle
Hamster Press

[MatrixGamer]

THE BIG MODEL ANALYSIS OF MATRIX GAMES 4-12-05

Okay, here goes. First off, I'm stepping one box back beyond the model to what I'll call "Design Goal". Matrix Games are not technically role play games because they were originally made to simulate entire countries.

DESIGN GOAL

I started the Matrix Game project in 1988 with a basic question. "How can a game be run using words rather than numbers to store and manipulate information?" The core of Matrix Game rules were done by the end of that year. I spent the next 16 years doing foundation building so people would believe that it can be done.

SOCIAL CONTRACT

Matrix Games can be played in a variety of setting: solo gaming, play by email/live journal, and face to face (my favorite approach and the one I will describe here).

The "Referee" of the game acts as host. The host provides a place to play, the game (which comes in one of the handy dandy books I sell – blatant self promotion), and any props needed to run the game with (dice, maps (other than those in the book), figures, cardboard counters etc.) Players are encouraged to talk, both in and out of character, during the game. Players can talk even if their characters are not physically together on the map. The point is to tell a good story and enjoy one another's company rather than play a "fog of war" war game.

EXPLORATION

The referee opens the game by reading a story introduction to the players. This is a short mood setting piece that suggests what type of story is going to be told (murder mystery, horror, spy, fantasy quest, etc. Matrix Games are highly flexible – using the same rules for many different genres). The referee shows the players a map of the locations, a list of characters, and location descriptions. Next the reads a scenario opening that presents a "hook" that pulls the characters into the story. The players then pick characters from a preset list. They are now ready to play the game.

All of the above forms a "Matrix" of information that created a shared imagined space in which the game will take place. A matrix in this way of thinking is like a metal casting mold (not surprisingly called a "Matrix"). It shows outside parameters of the shape of the game without forcing the players to do any one thing. As the game is played new information is added to the matrix of the world that changes the "shape" of the outside possibilities.

The players control what happens in the game. Unlike in most role play games, the referee does not make up/tell the story to the players, they tell it to the referee. Each turn players make a statement about what they want to have happen next. The referee decides how likely it is to happen (i.e. what the player has to roll). The player rolls and it happens or it doesn't.

At the start of each turn players are allowed to move their characters anywhere they want to on the map, thus setting up scenes. At the same time they can talk, do team building, plan, conduct unmoderated role plays, go to the bath room, etc. The rules do not require people to follow any particular style of play. They make those decision for themselves and work out with other players what they want to do.

TECHNIQUES

Turns start with a free move. Characters can go anywhere inside an area. Matrix Games are not about movement but instead are about critical events. Movement is blocked by "barriers": defenses (walls, guards, locks), geography, anonymity (i.e. hiding, in disguise, or just being unknown), and mental (information inside my head for instance). During movement, players talk freely. Referee's often encourage people to talk to get the social juices flowing. After about five minutes the game shifts of making things happen.

On the first turn of the game the referee asks each player in turn the following question. "If this were any other game, you were your characters, and this was the situation, what would you want to have happen first?" Whatever the player says becomes their first argument. After one turn of seeing people make things up, players see how to play and soon see the possibilities of the game. Unlike in role play games where players are largely restricted to saying only what their character does, in Matrix Games they can say what anyone does so they can do what the story needs done rather than just serve their own character.

Players make up arguments, the referee makes up how strong arguments are (i.e. what the player has to roll for it to happen.) The referee also decides which "argument compete" logically (You say I'm dead and I say I'm not.) This is settled in a dice rolling contest. Some arguments make drastic statements (You say I'm dead) that feel too abrupt if allowed to happen that fast. The referee can declare that an argument starts a fight which triggers a second round of "conflict arguments". If a player's character is hurt by an argument the referee can give the player a "trouble argument" The player gets to say why they are not hurt.

Arguments either happen or they don't. The referee effectively has a veto on which argument happen (roll six sixes) but does not have a say over what arguments are submitted. Power is thus balanced between referee and player unlike the unbalanced power differential found in Game Master based games. Players can add new characters, new locations, or even change the rules of the game as it is being played in arguments, though this seldom happens in practice. Players who realize this power are effectively on the same level as the game maker/scenario writer.

The referee acts as more of an editor in the game than a game master. At first almost all arguments are strong. Why not – there is no reason to say something is unlikely. As a story emerges, arguments that develop that tale and move it towards a conclusion are rated as stronger while tangential arguments are rated progressively weaker. In this way a game can reach a solid conclusion in two to four hours.

The referee can wrap up lose ends by asking all the players to argue on the same point (what happens when the cavalry arrive?) A competing argument dice rolling contest is then done and the point is settled. In short  order complicated events are tied down.

Though it is never said, the only real currency in Matrix Games are arguments. At the end of the game, the referee awards players a certain number of between game arguments to develop their characters lives. My experience has been that this greatly increases player commitment to role play games I've run where the Matrix Game system was the reward method.

EPHEMERA

The following is a verbatim example of how a Matrix Game is played.

REF: Free move! Move you characters and talk. (The referee uses this moment to go to the bathroom.)

Tom and Jane do an impromptu role play of their characters arguing. "You're a cad!" "Yes but you love me none the less."

When the referee returns the move/role play period ends.

REF: Who wants to go first?

TOM: I do. Jane's character goes out on a date with my character and falls for him in a big way.

REF: (Looking at Jane) Do you want to do that? (Jane nods her head NO!) Very Weak. You will need to roll a six on a six-sided die for it to happen.

JANE: I go on a date with the cad but I don't fall in love with him, he falls in love with me!

REF: (Looking at Tom) What do you say to that? (Tom nods his head yes as his mouth waters) Okay, Very Strong. You will need to roll anything but a one. These two arguments are in competition so we will do a dice rolling contest.

DICK: I recruit Stinky Pete as my goffer.

REF: Strong. I see no reason why he wouldn't want to work for you. This will give you control of the character so I want to do a conflict round to see if you actually convince him.

REF: Okay, first we'll do the dice rolling contest. You two roll for your own arguments. We will keep going till there is only one left or both roll out.

Tom rolls a 6 and Jane rolls a 2. They do a second round of rolling. Tom rolls a 5 and Jane rolls a 3. Jane is still in and Tom is out. Tom's character goes on the date and falls in love.

REF: I'm going to give Tom a trouble argument to say why he is not effected by this love.

TOM: You heard her, I'm a cad. My love means nothing!

REF: I like that, Strong. Roll right now, you need a three or better for it to happen.

Tom rolls a 2. He is in love – poor fool!

REF: Okay Dick now you roll.

Dick rolls a 4, he gets to try to recruit Pete.

REF: I have to decide who has the advantage in this conflict. How resistant is Pete to being recruited? Not very I think so Dick will get to make the first argument to resolve the conflict. If he fails I'll have another player argue for what really happens.

DICK: I'm nice to Stinky. So few people are that he becomes my life long friend. I will be able to use and abuse him to my hearts content.

REF: Cynical much? Average, roll a four or better.

Dick rolls a 3 and fails.

REF: Jane tell me what really happened.

JANE: Pete sees through Dick in an instant and blows him off.

REF: Also average.

Jane rolls a 6 so Pete is not recruited.

The game goes on from here...

CONCLUSION

The example I gave was of players who were using some role playing, some bigger picture actions, and some game play. They could just as easily have written whole scenes, dialog and all, as their arguments. It is up to the taste of the players. Different game groups can put their own style onto the system.

Matrix Games are highly versatile. I've run the following type of games with them: Murder mystery, horror/mysterious encounters, sci fi action, fantasy quests, true crime, harlequin romance, comedy games, psychotherapy games (for alcohol, anger, and social skills training – I'm a Social Worker in my day job) military campaigns, political campaigns, political intrigue, super hero action, business skills training, social policy planning, hard boiled detective, and probably a few more types I can't recall now. Anyway it is versatile.

I've written a bunch of game books that have two stories (three or more scenarios each) in them. The books have everything you need to play (save dice) in the book. They will be at Gen Con and Origins in my booth. They are around 100 pages, hardback with glossy color covers. Retail $14.95. I do all my own printing and bindery because I don't have a life.

So there you have it. Kind of long but it uses Forge terms.

What do you think?

Chris Engle LCSW
Hamster Press

[Valamir]

Interesting.  I'd love to have you pop down to the Universalis forum and compare and contrast it with Matrix.  On some levels they're very similiar and on others very different.  One thing we did with Uni that is quite different is remove the subjectivity of the GM setting target numbers that you've illustrated for the Matrix.  Reading the Tom and Jane exchange the first thing that occured to me was that in Uni it would be handled either by Challenge, or even better by Complication.  Either way the outcome would be decided primarily by how much Tom and Jane each wanted their own interpretation to win out.

[contracycle]

Chris, I think it was the matrixgamer list, and I played as Japan in the Unification of Korea game which you may recall.
--
I agree with Valamir there are likely to be some strong similarities with Universalis.

The social contract  as used at the Forge makes a big deal out of the CREDIBILITY to make declarative statements about the content of the Shared Imaginary Space (for which, read "game" in Matrix terms).  In the Matrix game structure, the refree holds a specific kind of credibility, which is essentially the capacity to veto a statement by another player.  

An interesting distinction here is that the default state is that players DO have the credibility to make definite statements in principle, but in practice this is mediated by the referees assesment of the strength of the argument; which is to say, roughly speaking, the plausibility of the proposal.  Quite a lot of this is like the "free kriegspiel" that is sometimes discussed in reviews of RPG history and development.  

But there is not statement to this effect; that is it would be quite possible to judge the strength of a proposition on the basis of its contribution to "story", for example.  That would be quite within the remit of the Matrix ref.

Matrix games have very few formal rules beyond the argument assesment system.  The most prevalent are barriers, and things like the anonymity that Chris discussed.  Barriers operate by requiring an argument - which is to say, for most purposes, a player action - to overcome or move beyond.  This dows endow the game space - in this case represented by a map - with a certain explicit, rather than implicit, geography in terms of the game rules.

In this sense I think of matrix games as a kind of meta game.  In deciding the map, and whether and where to place barriers and similar, you are in fact creating a specific game.  The general case rule set is specified down to a a particular set of relationships.

But there I disagree with Chris slightly when he says the only real currency is arguments.  This is because, in a game which has armies say, these armies are inevitably the subject of a sizable number of arguments.  As such they tend to be limits to action, and thus in games that feature them, things like armies are themselves a form of limited currency.  On the other hand, there is no requirement for such a currency in matrix games per se.  It is definitely true that the game space becomes steadily more defined as more arguments are made, and this does restrict opportunity for future action, which is only to say, that causality and consequence are preserved.

[MatrixGamer]

I'd love to have you pop down to the Universalis forum and compare and contrast it with Matrix.



I am aware of Universalis and have your web page on my favorites list. They are definitely similar. I think both games answer my initial design question about running games with words rather than numbers. I've always felt that there were many ways to run a "Matrix Game" my game is simple - basic really. I hope that others will develop ideas that leave me in the dust. That's the beauty of a meme.

One reason for he differences between MGs and Universalis is likely what they started off trying to do. I initially wanted a campaign war game. It was only later that I brought the rules back to role play like story telling. Now I seldom do war games. Right now I'm running a Cthulhu story game on the MatrixGame2 yahoo group.

I will go to the Universalis page and join the conversation.

Chris Engle
Hamster Press

[MatrixGamer]

Chris, I think it was the matrixgamer list, and I played as Japan in the Unification of Korea game


Hwa Rang Do! Mark Kinney ran it on the MatrixGamer yahoo group before the porn spammers shut it down. I was wiped out in that game as I recall. It was a glorious, but well deserved death because I shook things up on the first turn by invading a neighbor.  Mark ran it at a convention in Louisville Kentucky (my home town) tht I played in. That time I ended up as Prime Minister of a Unified Korea. I want Mark to get the files together so I can publish it.



I disagree with Chris slightly when he says the only real currency is arguments.  


Point well taken. Armies, treasures, land, political or social offices, relationships, etc. are all important. They are what define victory. Arguments are how one makes use of what one has. Without them, some other sneaky player will take all your goodies away.


Chris Engle
Hamster Press

[Ron Edwards]

Hi Chris,

Many thanks for taking the time to do this at my request. It's very, very helpful.

I won't spend much time repeating the observation others have made, that Matrix Games have more than a passing similarity to the recent game Universalis, as well as to the much simpler games Soap and The Pool. Noting this similarity is not a criticism, either - the general approach represented by all these games is stunningly obvious, once you encounter it, and the real mystery is why it's not the default method of role-playing design and play.

Another game to discuss if we want to develop our comparisons is The Window, in which the term "story" is central to the design and presentation of the game. However, given that The Window does not include the same participatory power for non-GMs as the Matrix and Universalis do, the story outcomes tend to be simply fed to the players by the GM, as improvised by him. You have taken a few steps to try to avoid this issue, although not perhaps as far as Universalis goes.

I'll stick to the topic of the thread and focus on the issue of Creative Agenda. Put most bluntly, Creative Agenda is the observed point of being there, for the people who were there, most especially when this point is enjoyed and reinforced among them as they play. Simple, huh? No jargon. Just "the point," and usually tremendously obvious once you get over the idea that we can talk about it in the first place. (Gamer culture practices an enormous amount of denial that any such point exists, then spends a lot of time tussling over what it is.)

Think of the Big Model for the game-instance you've described as a set of spheres, the smaller ones inside the bigger ones, with Social Contract being the biggest and outermost one. That works, right? We're only talking about your instance, not anyone else's. The Exploration has to be connected to the Social Contract, right? And the Techniques, how things "happen" in the Exploration, are embedded within, expressing the Exploration, right?

The techniques in a Matrix game resolve the arguments (your term, I call them "imagined conflicts") that crop up during play. The neat thing is that the arguments start out wide-open, really "proposals" because there isn't any reason to not accept them, and then become an ongoing negotiation about given what has happened,, what should or would best happen now. Ultimately we'll all be happy if they turn out in a way which means something.

Think of Creative Agenda as nailing or glueing the layers in your Big Model together. Or perhaps as a set of gears which keep its layers connected and moving relative to one another.

So far so good? We're not done yet, but I hope that sounds reasonable to you. It's not hard, I think, to acknowledge that there has to be some shared notion among everyone about what they want to get out of this experience, at the aesthetic level, and that they enthusiastically reinforce it among one another. I mean, that's what I call "fun," and what most people call "fun" in a non-abusive context.

What's the point in a Matrix game, or specifically, the one you describe?

The only sticking point at the moment is this: looking at your example of Dick and Jane, I'm not seeing any particular reason for any of the conflicts/arguments to be taking place. I'm seeing resolution, but effectively, not of anything. Now, I suggest that such a reason or "thing" is definitely there in your games. But without getting a better idea of what it might be, identifying the Creative Agenda isn't going to be possible.

However, I can narrow it down a little. Despite the focus on the possibility of player disagreement, and the use of dice, there isn't a shred of Gamism in what you're describing. One could play a Matrix game to "win" about "what happens," but I think you'd agree that such a desire to win would have to be subordinated to other goals in order to be effective. If it's the only thing happening, then the game degenerates into a very boring exercise into "I say X," roll, "I say Y," without any strategy or meat to it making it worthwhile. Even the card game War is more interesting than that. No, the Matrix games are clearly about agreeing about what happens, and making sure that everyone has contributed.

Now what about Simulationist vs. Narrativist? Well, this becomes a very fascinating issue, in this case, but not a difficult one. You'll have to give me a bit more information, using these two examples. In each case, the Matrix is a dark, rainy, scary cyberpunky setting, and our rockerboys and razorgirls are trying to hold onto their humanity and any sense of honor through a series of escapades, perhaps conflicts with smooth and suave corporate bastards. Also, in each case, let's say Dick and Jane are playing characters who are directly opposed. Now the shit has totally hit the fan, and the two of them have come down to absolute conflict - it could be a fight, it could be the outcome of their long-term schemes, whatever. It's the climax. Now, which of the two statements, as you see it, is the most important?

1. The point in this example is to make sure that the game celebrates cyberpunk. It should "fit" Gibson's Neuromancer and the R. Talsorian role-playing game, as well as the film Blade Runner. Whatever happens, we should know that every one of us really "gets" this genre and appreciates it. The conflict outcome is exciting primarily because it expresses the visuals well and really emulates (reminds us of) the source material.

2. The point in this example, by contrast, only uses cyberpunk as a convenient and exciting medium for something else: to say, plain and simple, whether humanity is worth a god damn thing - or whether it's just another weakness that can be sacrificed for ego and profit. Note that these points don't necessarily stack up 1:1 with either character winning the conflict. So even the conflict outcome is itself a means to this end, not its final determinant.

Now, can both #1 and #2 apply? No - not as first priorities, they can't. You might see some elements of #1 helping #2, maybe. But one of them has to be the top dog. (By the way, if you see #1 and #2 as synonymous, then take my word for it - you're a #2 type o'guy.) #1 is Sim, or at least the branch of it which the Matrix approach might best support, and #2 is Narr, or again, at least the branch of it which makes most sense here.

In your case, deciding which of these two applies best is going to take some reflection on your part on your various experiences. As a number of people have pointed out, the Referee plays a really big role in this experience. He's going to be setting difficulties very much in tune with whether he prefers #1 or #2 above! And the other players will accept his difficulties very much based on whether they agree with that preference.

All of which goes to say that in many cases, the Matrix gaming experience will be Simulationist ... if the Referee and other players are into that "celebratory" approach. And in many other cases, the experience will be Narrativist ... if instead they all are into that "make our point, without pre-setting it" approach. And I'm betting that you, personally, prefer one or the other, perhaps without ever having thought much about it, and that you tend to play with folks who share that preference. I'd like to make it extremely clear that a given instance of play will not be both, but rather one or the other ... or, unfortunately, a painful compromise among people who don't agree about it.

Chris, am I making any sense with any of this? Does the GNS-stuff seem a little more focused? Let me know.

Best,
Ron

[MatrixGamer]

Thanks for the reply. I know that I'm personally very narrativist. The story opening for me is just the opening. After that I want to tell a good story. I don't care if my character dies (so much for gamism) as long as the social event flows well.

I can't say that I totally follow all your points, I'll have to read the post more closely. I know I'm coming into this discussion years late. For years I didn't mess with the Internet because that wasn't where game design was happening. Now this is where it's at.

It is interesting how design communities don't intersect. I'm a long time role player (since 1976) but my design work has always been more in the historical miniatures/war game world.

Chris Engle
Hamster Press