Matrix Game Decision Making Process

[MatrixGamer]

MATRIX GAME DECISION MAKING PROCESS

I have always found that solo games are useful for understanding thought processes.
Thought experiments like this hark back to the first generation of psychologists in the 19th century. Recently I was asked to review the thought process a player goes through when doing a turn of a Matrix Game. Here goes...

First I pull the game from the shelf. It is plastic and colorful. In this case it is "Dracula: The game you play before the game." The word "Dracula" is spelled out in red over a picture of a very worried woman. It makes me remember reading Dracula in high school, of watching Bella Lugosi and all who followed him in the movies. I recall watching the TV show "Dark Shadows" after school in 1969. Then I remember the Frank Langella and George Hamilton Draculas, the Winona Ryder Dracula, "Fearless Vampire Hunters", the Vampire RPG and the Ann Rice stuff. I have an image in my brain about what vampire stories are all about. To me they are blood sucking fiends that need to be destroyed. More thoughts come to mind: the silent classic Nosferatu, Klaus Kinski, "Shadow of the Vampire" and on into hundreds of other movies. I remember History Channel shows on vampire lore. I have a mental matrix of a world.

What the cover has done is activate my awareness of a mental map of what I know about Vampires. I'm interested enough to look further.

The back of the game has a short blurb that says the game is set in the Bram Stoker setting and that it is all about whither Mina lives or dies. This makes me remember the characters from that story. Mina (in my mind looking like Winona Ryder – good actress – and pretty – loved her in Beetlejuice), Van Helsing (looking like Lawrence Olivier) Dracula (Frank Langella/Bella Lugosi) Renfield (no actor in particular) Lucy, Jonathan Harker (Gads! Keanue Reeves!) My mental matrix of the game is now a little more refined.

I open the game up. The rules fall out. They are on the front and back of a single sheet. The game is a folded up sheet so there is an inside fold with an example of play. I skip it and the rules and open the game all the way up. On one side is a picture of a ruined abbey with questions printed over it. "How will Dracula bite Mina?" pops into view first. Perhaps I was primed to look for it? The image of Dracula biting Mina is central to my mental map. On the other side are six pictures with short descriptions by them. Above the characters is a large type paragraph that starts "Once long ago Dracula committed a great sin... Blah blah blah."

For the moment I will set aside that I wrote the game and have played games like this for 20 years. As I stare at it I have a mental image but I don't know how this is a game. At the bottom of the question page is a small table with words like "Can't miss, roll 6-1's to fail. Really strong, roll 2, 3, 4, 5 or 6. Etc." This reminds me of a combat result table.

"Combat result table" triggers another flood of ideas. I remember playing Avalon Hill's game "King Maker" at Christmas 1976. I remember playing D+D a few days later. I remember playing other board games like "Third Reich" "Ancient Conquest" and "Squad Leader". In all these games (D+D included) you roll dice to see if you actions happen. There is a board and dice and action – it's a game. I recall playing Monopoly, Sorry, Parcheesi and more. Players take turns doing things. The game rules tell you what to do.

The board does not look like other board games. There is no map. There is no track to move counters along. There are just characters and questions. I don't see how to play but I take it on faith that it is a game. Time to break down and look at the rules.

I glance at the rules and read the paragraph headers: Pick a character, Making things happen, Does an argument happen?, Argument Strength Table (what I saw before), Successful arguments happen, That didn't happen! Counter-arguments, Resolving counter-arguments, Stories build to a climax, Climax arguments, Aftermath arguments, Optional rule: Set referee.

"Pick a character." Okay, that is simple. I pick Dracula. At this point I flip back to the board and read the description by him. It tells me he needs to bite Mina three times and get her to drink his blood to turn her into a vampire. Since this is a solo game I will pick a second character as well. Harker will do. His write up says he will go to any length to save Mina.

"Making things happen." The first line says "Players take turns making things happen..." Good, we take turns. This fits my knowledge of board games right back to Candy Land. I read on "The active player places a token for their character on one of the "Questions" that form the map. This tells the player what type of thing they will try to make happen."

I look back at the map and set a Dracula figure on "How does Dracula bite Mina?"

At this point I need to step further back from my past knowledge of the game and question myself very closely. Picking a question is the critical mental step of Matrix Gaming. I made this step long ago so I really need to be critical and erase all my habits and assumptions.

The next thing the rules say is "Players make things happen by making up an "Argument" for what occurs next... Pick interesting questions and make fun answers and the game will work well."

How do I know which question to pick? What is a "fun" answer? This absolutely does not flow from my knowledge of previous games. If I actually was a new gamer, I would feel like I was standing on the edge of a cliff being asked to jump off. Where am I jumping to? Do I want to put myself out like this? 

One of my experiences running convention Matrix Games (Gen Con every year since 1991 and other conventions before that) is that trying to explain why MGs work doesn't help people make this leap. Doing it though, even blindly and mindlessly, on the other hand works perfectly. After one turn everyone "gets it" and the game goes on without a hitch. So what I would ask of myself as a new player is to stop thinking so much and just do what the rule says. Pick a question and make up an answer.

I think to myself, "If this was a role play game I would make up what I did next. Just pretend it's an RPG."

"Okay" I say to myself. "How does Mina get bit? Dracula comes to her window and calls to her. She opens it up and his cape drapes around her. She gets the bite."

There! I've done it... but what have I done? The next section says "Does an argument happen?" The player picks another player to be their referee. The referee decides how much they "like" my argument. This sets a "to happen" roll. The argument strength table has really strong (happens on a 2-6) down to really weak (happens on a 6). I guess that the stronger I rate arguments, the better chance they have to happen. Obviously I have to pick myself as referee (it is after all a solo game).

Back rush in a flood of questions. As referee how do I decide how strong an argument is? The rules say I should look at its "fun." This is highly subjective! Again it goes against my board game experience. I'm just making it up rather than referring to some objective rules. The board gamer in me rebels. The RPG GM in me, on the other hand, has no problem with this. I've made up stuff in games for years.

Okay, I need to step even further back. I've GMed RPGs since 1977. I'm a pretty good GM, I've won some awards. Many role play gamers are not GMs. They may feel pretty uncomfortable deciding an argument's strength. They may accept that it can be done (as opposed to rebelling against the very idea, which a board gamer might) but they don't feel qualified to do it. Again I'm back to the point – just do it once and don't think too much about it and it will work!

"Okay – I trust myself. I'll give it a try." I then close my eyes and randomly point my finger at the table. When I open up and look I see that I've rated my argument pretty strong. The rules say "The player rolls one six-sided die to see if their argument happens." The table says I need to roll 3, 4, 5 or 6.

I roll a 4. It happens! If I had rolled a 1 or 2 it wouldn't have happened.

The rules say "Successful arguments happen." The section goes on to say that successful events become part of the story and that future events build from here. It also suggests writing down successful arguments.

I don't know what to do next. I'm done, right? What next? Here is where knowledge of previous games really comes in. I'm an old war gamer so the first thought that comes to my mind is "It's the next player's turn." The thought is that they will do what I just did. The rules say "Players take turns making things happen" so it makes sense to me that next Harker will get to answer a question.

Here I need to step back from board gaming and miniatures and consider role play perspectives. In the original D+D rules it said that there is a "referee" (the DM/GM title came along later) who describes the setting and a "caller" (one player who says what the adventurers do). The rules never say how the players should share out the caller role. Players always make their own die rolls and presumably say what their characters do, but it is never spelled out. I expect it is done differently in every local. More recent developments in role playing have shared the GM's power to make things up with the players. Games inspired by "The Pool" RPG (Google it – it is a free one sheet set of rules) share out power differently. One player wins the right to narrate a scene. They describe the opening moves of a scene, other players jump in with their two cents and eventually a roll is made to see who gets to tell how the scene resolves itself. I have to wonder how these procedures would make MG procedure look?

Old D+D players often took turns. For them, going around the table might seem pretty normal. "Pool" inspired players on the other hand might find conforming to a turn sequence very constricting. I can imagine an excited creative gamer chomping at the bit wanting to jump in with suggestions.

If I flip to the second page of the rules I see "That didn't happen! Counter-arguments." "If a player doesn't like the argument just made they can step up and do a counter-argument." The rules describe this as a competition between two or more arguments. This is different from the "Pool" approach but only in order. Instead of making up the scene ending after the roll, the players make up the ending before the roll. The roll settles which one happened. It is a competitive method rather than a cooperative one. My impression of "Pool" inspired games is that they cooperation and collaboration are prime virtues.

Back to the game, Harker is now up. If I again don't think myself into a corner and instead just pick a question the game proceeds. I pick "What clue leads you closer to Dracula's lair?" My answer "Harker knows Dracula. He knows what kind of place he likes. He sold him the abbey after all (information from Stoker's book). He searches the Abbey and finds the vault." I again pick myself as referee but this time I keep my eyes open and look at the argument strength table. Does it seem strong? Weak? Can't miss? Impossible? I decide it seems a little weak. Sure Harker sold him the abbey but surely the crypt must be harder to find than that? I'll call it pretty weak. It will happen on a 5 or 6. I roll a 3. It fails.

After doing a round of arguments once, players know the mechanical procedure of play. If they think no deeper than that they can play the game but even unthinking they are playing differently from older games.

It is time for me to step back into my role as the game designer and long time player. My belief is that the players have let go of the idea that the rules should tell them what to do. Instead they are deciding for themselves what to do. There is no build in optimal strategy. The players are free to do anything. I think of this as looking for possibilities rather than calculating probabilities.

While I can imagine rules like this being used to run a narrativist game that is not what they were made to do. What I really wanted to do was simulate the world using words rather than numbers. I wanted a fun game but my definition of what that is remains tied up in board games, miniatures games and old style role play games. Dracula and other Matrix Games give players goals to compete over, ways to mess with one another and mechanisms that facilitate dreaming about possibilities rather than diving into emotional drama.

What this thought experiment shows is that playing Matrix Games is simple if you just do what the rules say. After a single game, making things up seems normal. Future games are then easy to play. Without learning a wit of philosophy one is looking at imagination in a different way. There is no need to leave behind all the old reasons why we play – all that is needed is to expand one's world view a little. A little shift leads to a great change.


Chris Engle
2-14-07

[Simon C]

I'm a bit confused.  I still can't really see the decision making process.  What I was interested in was the reasons that players choose to rate an argument as strong or weak or whatever.  From your example, you used a pretty much random process.  Your game seems to offer very little support (and also very little restriction) in this area.  To use GNS terms, it seems to me that a player can use any and all of three criteria to make decisions in your game:

1) Narrativist: What's cool? What makes this a better story? Will this get us closer to the premise?

2) Simulationist: What's realistic? How would what we already know about the world and the story affect this?

3) Gamist: What's best for my character? Will this get me what I want?

The game text seems to support a narrativist choice, you say "go with what's cool." On the other hand, the "arguments" you phrase in the above example mostly referr to what's "realistic." It seems implausable that people would make any decisions entirely without reference to what's best for their character.  In itself, that's not a problem, so long as the whole group's on the same page.  I can see this game falling apart a bit (like most games) if the group has differing grounds for making decisions.  What really troubles me though is the relationship between the decision making process and the dice roll.  If something's cool, and you want cool things to happen, why roll to see if they do? Does a straight d6 roll capture enough detail for people who are concerned about realism?  For Gamist players, you'll never see anything other than 1's and 6's. 

Sorry if I seem to be bagging on your system.  You've obviously had a lot of positive experiences with this system, but I'm struggling to see how those games worked. 

On a related note, what are you hoping to get out of this thread?

[MatrixGamer]

Simon

Getting your response is all I wanted from the thread. Hearing your comments and the questions you ask is what I most need.

Probably the most common responses I've got from people over the years who are new to Matrix Games are just what you're saying - essentially - How can this work?

At first I found such feedback disheartening. I met Steve Jackson at a convention in 1989 and he said that it wasn't marketable and that players would have to have PhDs in philosophy to play. He was right about the marketability (at least in the version he saw then) but I already knew he was wrong on the second part because I had had a mentally retarded person play a month or so before then. I think he thought "argument" required people to be deep and effective thinkers to play - in fact all that is needed is for a person to make up something to happen next. Many years of play since then show that anyone can play.

Your questions though get more at the role of the referee and dice rolling.

Why stop something if it's cool? I answer with a question "Cool from whose perspective?" Matrix Games are about players competing over who controls the flow of events in the world and what those events mean. In this regard they are inherently competitive. It is not just about telling a cool story but imposing your own mark on that story - hopefully making your character win. If you characters is hopelessly screwed - then you can abandon them and put your mark on the game in another way. I've played games where I destroyed my own character to set up a situation where I could make cool things happen and pick who I wanted to win. It's significant that the first game I played was "King Maker".

The rules of Engle Matrix Games can serve any creative agenda. They are VERY simple so your observation about groups needing to be in agreement over agenda is true. Of course groups really need to be in agreement over agenda regardless of what they are playing unless they want to be dysfunctional. Just saying "Lets play a Matrix Game" doesn't settle the issue like saying "Lets play Dogs in the Vinyard" might. A lot depends on the players.

You might not have seen an argument strength table before - here is a d6 version of it.

Can't miss - roll 6 - 1's in a row to fail.
Really strong - roll 2-3-4-5-6 to succeed
Pretty strong - roll 3-4-5-6 to succeed
Okay - roll 4-5-6 to succeed
Pretty weak - roll 5-6 to succeed
Really weak - roll 6 to succeed
Impossible - roll 6 - 6's in a row to succeed

So it ranges from a defacto "It happens automatically" to a defacto "Veto!" Still I like to leave it up to the dice gods to sort it all out. Die rolling adds in a "game" element which people seem to find fun but it also allows logically inconsistent/imcompatible arguments to compete with one another. The winner of the competition happens, the other doesn't. This is done like a dance marathon. Each round the player rolls for their own argument, a success allows them to roll again. Rolling continues till only one argument is left standing or they all roll out. It quickly and cleanly settles matters.

As to players ruling all arguments impossible. There is nothing in the rules that says they can't do that. I have seen it happen once. Interestingly the person who tried it was crushed in the game. It is resoundingly bad sportsmanship which usually calls down retribution from the other players. If players insist on playing that way they are really agreeing not to play a game at all. Given that gamers like to play (and many like good sportsmanship) this doesn't come up much. Say they did keep playing and ruled all arguments really weak. All this does is prolong the game. Events would still happen and when they did it wouldn't look any different from a game where events happened more often. Personally I'd get bored with a game like this. It gives too much power to the dice gods but who am I to tell people how to play?

It is not surprising that Matrix Games don't conform to GNS modes. They reached 2/3ths of their present form in 1988 - long before GNS discussions began. I wasn't aware of the Prince Valiant game so I wasn't even in on those early GNS developments. MGs were a wargame. Over time though I realized they it could also be used to run stories.

Did this make it any clearer? I'm not trying to convert you or anything but helping you understand helps me be better at selling it to others.

Chris Engle

[komradebob]

Actually Chris, Simon's question does strike me as important: What do you want to get out of this ( and the related) threads?

The thing that has struck me about EMGs isn't that they don't work ( My exp. is that in practice they work just fine as is and are easily tinkerable to work in other variations as well), but that marketing them is a bit of a barricade that you're having a hard time crossing.

Is this, at the end of the day, what you really want to get at?

[Valamir]

Perhaps its my experience with Universalis but I really don't have any problem grasping the model that's at work here.  One player says they want something to happen, another player says "no I like this other thing better".  Uni provides two different ways of getting to the answer:  Challenges are the way that mechanically most resembles the EMG mechanic in that players are making a specific argument for which version they want to come to pass before using the resolution system to see who wins (in Uni its a bidding mechanic, in EMG its a d6 roll).  Complications are the way that more resemble in spirit the process of rating an argument and setting a "difficulty" for that argument to happen.

I think that difference is where the focus of questions around your argument table lie...not in a direct mechanical comparison to Universalis, but in recognizing that there seems to be a piece missing (emphasis on the "seems to", I'm certainly not saying that there is).

What I mean is that in Universalis the process of getting from the moment of conflict (an EMG argument) to resolution is done is several increments.  I'm essentially searching through the games history to find elements that back up my argument and make it "stronger" (in EMG terms) and you are doing the same.  In Uni terms we're drawing on Traits to build our dice pools.  Each Trait does have a level of pure subjectivity...
"Does that Trait apply in this situation?".  So just like in EMG their could be players that always try to say "no" while others always say "sure".

The difference is 1) the moments of subjectivity are in much smaller bits...there might be half a dozen or a dozen individual Traits called on before the dice are rolled.  Thus the final roll is the accumulation of many small subjective decisions made by many people averaged over the course of the Complication rather than the EMG method of one single subjective decision over the whole enchilada.  2) the Challenge mechanic provides a game mechanic enforced "court of appeals" if someone is disatisfied with the subjectivity of someone else's decision.


So I'd be interested in whether you've done any experiments with any of the following for your games:

1) Breaking up the arguement into smaller arguements
2) Providing any sort of list of "factors that make my arguement stronger" that a player making an arguement can assemble vs. "factors that make the arguement weaker" that the referee can assemble...and then let the weight of those factors decide where on the scale the die roll winds up.

As an example of what I mean lets use your arguement "How does Mina get bit? Dracula comes to her window and calls to her. She opens it up and his cape drapes around her. She gets the bite."

Embedded in your arguement are actually a series of smaller questions, like:
How does Dracula come to her window without being seen and intercepted?
How does Dracula know Mina is there in the room when he calls?
Why does Mina open the window?
Does or How does she resist when he tries to bite her?
Is the cape just dramatic flair or did he use it in some way?


So a list of factors in Dracula's favor then might include:
1) We know Dracula has the ability to transform into smoke and so this enables him to come to her window unnoticed.
2) We know Mina has been entranced by Dracula's hypnotic gaze earlier in the evening so this makes it likely she would open the window
3) etc.

A list of factors against Dracula's might include:
1) We've established that Harker is aware of Dracula's powers and would have taken precautions against him...perhaps barring the window so Mina couldn't open it
2) We know that Harker cares for her and since she had swooned in the earlier scene its less likely that he'd leave her alone.

From here one could have other smaller arguements over each of these elements.  Instead of just rolling for the bite (did he or didn't he) we could roll to see if Dracula could, in fact, get to Mina undetected while Harker was out of the room.  We could roll to see if Harker's precautions were or weren't effective.  If we hadn't earlier established that Harker was aware of Dracula's powers we could now make the arguement whether he was or wasn't and see how that comes to pass.


I'm going to guess here that describing some mental process that looks in someway like the above is what Simon had in mind when he said "What I was interested in was the reasons that players choose to rate an argument as strong or weak or whatever."

I'm sure you must have one...while it could be down ranomly with a close your eyes and point, or just having a vague gut feel...I suspect that veteran players do have some sort of mental checklist they run down to "grade" an arguement.  So the core of my question is whether you've tried to encode that grading system in the game mechanics at some point, and if so, what caused you to discard it?

[komradebob]

Valamir:
Have you had an opportunity to see the older form of EMGs, the ones that used the more formal Action + 3 Supporting arguments+ desired outcome format? It also had a list of terms you worked into that format. Mind you, this was the older EMGs which were mostly a form of campaign wargame.

Chris: Can you post about that? It sounds a bit like what Ralph ( Valamir) is getting at and might answer Simon's questions also.

How I work this stuff, personally:

I start with any argument as Fail ( 1,2,3) /Succeed ( 4,5,6). It's a straight 50/50 shot. I can always default to this if I have no strong feelings about an argument, am unsure about the thing, or whatever. This is where I'm beginning, even before I hear what the other person says.

Shifting up or down one pip: I actually don't feel that the person rating the argument strength needs much justification to the player or the rest of the group for this. It's a fairly simple judgement if the argument is stronger ( succeed 3+) or weaker (5,6) than normal. I judge it looking at this stuff:

Precedence: This could be source material/background or earlier in game events. things running directly counter to this are going to tend to be weaker, while stuff that seems to be following in a line of cause and effect are more likely. Also taken into effect could be earlier judges' calls on this stuff or results of previous rolls. For example, a player repeatedly trying an action that has already repeatedly failed is likely to have this rated as weaker than normal unless they've shown some change of approach, a way that resistance has weakened, or a way which repeated efforts should finally pay off.

Increments vs. Over-reaching: I tend to favor incremental arguments, and disfavor what I think are over-recahing arguments, which is somewhat like what Ralph was discussing as well as what was noted about Tom's playstyle in the example. Likewise, I tend to favor background type arguments that could come into play later but don't necessarily have a direct impact.

Added Rules: This tends to come up in the minis variant more ( especially regarding saving throw arguments). If it has already been established that a target hit by weapon type x under circumstances z gets a save of 4+, I'll likely follow suit.

Okay, so there are my personal basics:
Strong argument: 3,4,5,6
Average: 4,5,6
Weak: 5,6

For the next level of strong ( succeed 2+) or weak arguments (succeed 6), I really feel that the judging player needs to make some sort of comment to the group. The 2+ argument is a bit easier: Usually there is some sort of background chain of causality or the event just seems very apparent to succeed because it is so ncremental

Judging it to be much weaker ( 6) is hairy, and I think a player deserves a chance to rethink or even rephrase once the judge's comment is made. To me this is almost always a case of over-reaching by the player. In the end though, I'd leave it up to them to roll. At the succeed only on a 6 level, I'd also be tempted to throw in a Who Dares, Wins! variant I was playing with which bumps up the strength by a pip or two, but the judge gets to name a cost if they fail ( the judge may consult the group and player).

I personally don't use the almost perfect or no real chance levels with the multiple rolls required.

[MatrixGamer]

First Bob -

It is clearly about marketing. As systems go, Engle Matrix Games are complete. I've written different versions but the core of play has been consistent for the last ten years. Now I have a series of products that are market worthy (oooo, it's so shiny!) spreading the word and building an on line presence are important for marketing. I have to assume that most people don't know about the system or the games for sale so I have to inform and entertain with my postings. What I get from Simon though is an insight into how people are not getting it. His feedback is then VERY helpful. You "get" MGs. I'm not surprised that Ralph gets them as well (Uni and MGs walk down parallel paths). Simon provides a fresh perspective.

And now for Ralph

Thank you for your post. Like I said above, I'm not surprised that you get MGs. We are both using words and dialogue to run worlds. I'm probably doing a seminar at Origins on "Simulation Words versus Numbers" in which I'll cite Uni.

Your question was about why MGs do one all or nothing roll rather than a series of little rolls. Also you asked about different lists of judgement criteria. They are tied up together.

The first Matrix Game involved an explicitly written verbal matrix of a world. I had a grid of squares that had short pithy descriptions of some feature of a stone age society. The game was about developing that society. Each turn a challenge was thrown out by a player. The other player then cited a matrix element and said how they used that to solve the problem. This might change a matrix element or add one. There was no dice roll.

I added in dice rolls because I had complaints that the game was too arbitrary. A creative player could warp any matrix element into supporting their position. The first die roll system was "You get one point per matrix element you cite. Roll that number or less." The result in play was that people cited every element of the matrix. Remember, a creative player could warp them any way they wanted. My next step was to make a matrix of key phrases. These were written on a deck of cards and laid out on a table. Players picked cards to form the ACTION RESULT and THREE REASONS. of an argument. I then judged the arguments as a free kriegspiel referee judges action. I allowed referees to veto arguments to prevent "unrealistic" arguments from having a roll. First the die rolls were 50/50 for a fully formed argument. Later I added in strong and weak (referee judgements) to move the chance up or down by one pip and later still very strong, very weak, moved it one pip more.

This gets us to 1991. The above version of the game is what is still run in England but I moved on.

What I noticed is that I could take whatever dregs of cards were left over after all the other players had gone and still make pretty much any argument I wanted out of them. That made me think that the need for the cards was not so great. Also I had started putting in wild cards that could be anything. I saw players make stuff up which started me thinking - what if all the cards were wild cards? We wouldn't need the cards at all! Pretty soon I dropped them. Over time I dropped giving reasons from the matrix as well because they were pretty much implicit in the argument.

All along it was up to the referee to decide how strong arguments were but up to the players to decide what the arguments were. So players made bigger rather than smaller moves. When I tried breaking down arguments into smaller rolls I found I was taking more power than I wanted to as a referee. It was almost as if I was running their characters rather than the players because I was breaking it down into tasks (task resolution in a way). I decided to get out of that business and leave it to the players to decide what to do. An all or nothing roll kept the referee from meddling. As a player, I appreciate this. I've played in games where they did partial success. Every time the referee's "gift" of partial success was a defeat for the story I was trying to tell. They picked what they thought was important (which often enough was not what I was after).

Criteria for judging arguments is a weird thing. Coming from a background in free kriegspiel I never had a problem with looking at a situation and making a judgement. I tried making lists of criteria early on but found that they were lacking. I tend to value my gut more than lists. The list that I think does get at it best though is this...

"The referee can just make up the strength like the players made up their arguments or they can use the following table to judge strength.

LIST OF CRITERIA
Impossible 0
Really weak 1
Pretty weak 2
Okay 3
Pretty strong 4
Really strong 5
Can't miss 6

You get one point for each of the following:

The characters mentioned are together on the map.
The argument is logical.
The argument fits the genre.
The argument builds on past successful arguments.
The argument appeals to your emotions.
You personally like it.

Argument strength creates drama by weeding out foolish or unreasonable arguments and rewarding dramatic ones."

We've used this in PBEMs on the MatrixGame2 yahoo group for over a year. The older gamers says it works but doesn't really help. They tend to fall back on their judgement rather than the list. What can be said is that it produces argument strength rulings. But if it is ignored, I question how useful it is. In a way a completely random ruling works to. What is more important is that the players feel the referee has listened to them and given them a fair shake.

I can imagine a Matrix Game that tries to break arguments down into tasks that could be rolled on separately. If would ask a lot of a referee. They would have to be very good at teasing out the logic of player arguments. I've not done that because I wanted anyone to be able to run a game. When someone does this it will be a new variant of Matrix Gaming. I love seeing things like this happen. It fits with my outlook to not control things. I do what I do and trust other people to do what they do.

Chris Engle

[Valamir]

Criteria for judging arguments is a weird thing. Coming from a background in free kriegspiel I never had a problem with looking at a situation and making a judgement. I tried making lists of criteria early on but found that they were lacking. I tend to value my gut more than lists. The list that I think does get at it best though is this...

"The referee can just make up the strength like the players made up their arguments or they can use the following table to judge strength.

LIST OF CRITERIA
Impossible 0
Really weak 1
Pretty weak 2
Okay 3
Pretty strong 4
Really strong 5
Can't miss 6

You get one point for each of the following:

The characters mentioned are together on the map.
The argument is logical.
The argument fits the genre.
The argument builds on past successful arguments.
The argument appeals to your emotions.
You personally like it.

I'm familiar with the free Kriegspiel ideal.  I've witness a couple of time civil war and Napoleonic minis battles that were adjudicated from start to finish...men moved, casualties taken, units routed, entirely on the basis of the players joint understanding of the period and battle with narry a die or table in sight.  Clearly its something that works (and works well...and in fact forms a foundational case for my position that "good simulation" in an RPG doesn't need to equate to "rules crunchy"...and in fact "rules lite" RPGs can provide just as good (or better) of a simulation).

Given your goal is marketing, however, is there a large enough base of Kriegspiel comfortable wargamers who are interested in RPGs or Free Form RPGers who would enjoy a more structured game to market to?

In other words, how much of your marketing effort will be to identify such people who are already in tune with this ideal and simply announce "here I am and here's why you'll like my game"...and how much of the effort will be to convince skeptics.  Having many years of successful play to point to is a good start, but how much of an uphill battle do you envision having on this issue?  Is it one you've encountered and had problems with or has it been a non issue?  Or have you not had much experience in that direction to tell yet?

[komradebob]

Is it even possible to convince skeptics? I mean, isn't that the same battle that a lot of the "experimental" games makers around here have with folks used to trad rpgs?

Side thought: "Beer'n'Pretzels". I think this term has more market value than I'd previously appreciated when it comes to games ( I'm still trying to figure out similar terms. I'm liking "Milk'n'Cookies" as the family-friendly term). Anyway, something to consider.

[MatrixGamer]

I've been wacking my head against this wall for over a decade. I gave up on marketing to miniatures wargamers early on. They spend money on figures not rules. Over the last several years I've been doing games that looked like RPGs, these books have not really sold either. Now I'm doing laminated maps which fold up into folios, all very board game like. The intermediate level games (Dracula is a beginners game) include wooden counters. This is what my convention games have consisted of for six years or so. Interestingly this is a similar format to the first convention MGs I ran in 1989. Who knows if it will work? I'm hopeful but realistic - I don't mass print anything! It is a pay as you go model.

Uni has had the good fortune to be seen as part of the narrativist RPG movement. People understand it because of that. Matrix Games have never had that. It really is a curse to do something that really is unique. I can't say how happy I am that you guys here at the Forge are doing much more inovative work than me. I'm ready to let go of being avant garde.

I really think that once enough people make the mental shift to playing MGs that they will sell well. For that to happen I need to be a popularizer instead of an inventor. I've got colorful shiny products. They are simple and focused on popular topics. I've got all my business fundamentals down. It is now a job of marketing. I'm in pursuit of critical mass. Once that is reached the work will be a lot easier. I hope to pass on the work to hirelings at that point.

Chris Engle

Bob: Or the Islamic version "Tea and Humus".

[Valamir]

Right, that actually was kind of the question I was asking.

I understood your goal to be as a popularizer.  So my query (and this is just that...a question, I don't know that I have any real answers to offer) is:  who are you looking to popularize to...and will that group be comfortable with (or even notice) a core mechanic that is essentially referee fiat meets totally random fate.

I can think of alot of people who would totally turned off by that as a resolution system.  I can think of alot of people who wouldn't even notice it as something to wonder about let alone care about (like alot of folks who would give you a blank stare if you referred to a "resolution system" in daily conversation).

You've got a pretty unique situation in that you're packaging a game in a very boardgame like fashion, but then your game mechanics are about as unboardgame like as you can get.  Sometimes crossover ideas are really big hits...like...lets cross an RPG with Rummy and call it Magic the Gathering...or lets cross a CCG with a miniatures wargame and call it Mage Knight. 

On the other hand I wonder if it wouldn't be worthwhile as a thought experiment if nothing else to consider ways to make the resolution more board-gamey as well so that there's a clearer avenue of appeal.  Since, as I understand it, each of your products is more or less a stand alone individual "thing" you could perhaps try it and see.

[MatrixGamer]

I've thought about audience - a lot. I've always thought that role players would like MGs once they tried them. They are used to making things up and the resolution mechanic is no more fiat than most mainstream RPGs are. At the same time I've always wanted to be able to have a game that middle aged women would play. This is the traditional (non wargame) boardgame market. I've had plenty of such women play over the years and they seem to like it better than crunchy rules games.

I certainly have tried to make the rules more boardgame like but in the end the argument system is the game. To go more structured risks tearing the soul out of the game. That said I do have some wargame ideas in that direction. I may be testing them at the Seven Years War Association convention in South Bend Indiana next month. We will see.

Chris Engle

[komradebob]

Maybe you should sell the miniatures and give the games away.

[MatrixGamer]

There is another way of judging on arguments that I personally use but which is not in the rules.

On the first couple of turns of the game I rule practically all arguments pretty strong. My logic here is "Why not?" I don't know anything about the world so why shouldn't X be happening. This starts two or three story lines.

As the game goes on I rate strength based on whither an argument develops an existing story or not. Tangential arguments get weaker as the game goes on till they become practically impossible. This means arguments move the story along and the game ends. Otherwise people can string out a game like we do real life (never quite finishing anything.)

As a referee I don't care what story the players tell. I really have no control over that since a referee only sets argument strength (and a few other small tasks). What I'm concerned about is the flow of the event over all. I want players to be hooked early. Winning arguments does this. I want action to happen in the game. Calling for counter-arguments, trouble arguments and conflict arguments does this. Lastly I want the game to end before peopel become bored with it.

chris engle

[MatrixGamer]

My computer went wonky there so I wasn't able to do a proof read and corrections on the last post.

This approach to judging arguments leaves aside "realism" logic. Instead of trying to be a simulation it is trying to structure a game session to produce a fun experience. I find telling a complete story start to finish in a single session to be fun. As a referee I can make that happen.

I wonder if this is a form of rail roading? The referee is not saying what happens but is rewarding actions that build and discouraging actions that divide. I'm pretty comfortable with that - that's why I include a plot track with intermediate games. I wonder how much that might piss off players?

Chris Engle