Matrix Game Decision Making Process

[MatrixGamer]

[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]

[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]

[Valamir]

	Logged

Ralph Mazza
Universalis:  The Game of Unlimited Stories

[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