Matrix Game Decision Making Process

[komradebob]

Chris:
You've got a bunch of stuff spinning around in this thread. Do you want to split off a topic over in publishing brainstorming how to promote?

You've also started talking about several variations on the core MG mechanic- Do you want to discuss that part, perhaps over in First Thoughts or Endeavor forums?

Also: The Tea and Hummus comment made me deeply home-sick for a little mom'n'pop joint back in the Crescent City. For all the good food out here in SF,CA, I still can't track down good Lebanese/Palestinian stuff.

[Aaron Blain]

Yes, more questions about the core mechanic if you don't mind.

I've been gaming for about seven years, and from reading your site it seems my interests and attitudes are quite similar to yours. Having recently discovered EMG, I am very excited to introduce my local college gaming guild, most of which is hopelessly mired in dysfunctional DnD. I have a few questions and concerns.

Regarding the whimsicality of the strength-rating system, I already have faith that the social dynamic will take care of things, especially in a roving-referee game. My current understanding, although I haven't seen you phrase it such, is that the goal in designing the argument is to CONVINCE the referee, which covers the whole universe of variables (coolness, whim, precedent, bias). I understand and agree with your decision to avoid a formalised strength rubric. What I am curious about is the degree of dialogue you suggest between the arguing player and the referee. That is, instead of dissecting the argument into a string of micro-rolls, might the referee simply interrogate the arguing player?

"Your argument doesn't sound very strong. I don't understand what you imagine Dracula would do when [xyz] occurs."
"Obviously, he would blankety-blank."
"Ah, well that makes more sense, then."

This would not only create a fuller matrix, but a more fully communal one that can therefore be more reliably drawn on for precedent. Otherwise, it seems to me that it might be problematic when a player is disappointed by an earnestly low rating when he has left out details he has taken for granted and less favorable details have been supplied by the referee's imagination.

On the other hand, I could imagine this procedure destroying the game, each player embellishing and contorting until he gets a perfect score every time.

So is it open-ended interrogation/whine-fest, or a heartless statement - > value - > roll with no speech from the referee? Somewhere in between? Any hard rules or advice?

This leads me to two further concerns: first, if the referee does nothing more than stamp a one-time, non-negotiable strength value on an argument, it seems as if playing as a dedicated referee might be dreadfully boring.

If, however, we allow some reasonable elaboration through interrogation to reach a more fully consensual vision of the argument, it seems as if it might be incredibly disheartening to have all that speech be wasted whenever the argument finally fails. Not only that, but if we have invested some time and energy in exploring a hypothesis, it is likely that failed arguments will impress themselves on our memory and become part of the matrix despite failure. "I'm almost positive that the dragon has a trick knee."

Have you considered the idea of a "victory narration", involving either the arguing player, the referee or both to some degree? This would serve two purposes: it would formally "anoint" new matrix material, letting us be more sure about what is stamped in our memory, and it would give the player the chance to be poetic without the fear that his lush descriptions would be wasted. (It seems to me that EMG would tend toward the laconic for this reason.)

Of course, this also opens the door to the victorious player abusing his power, inducting matrix facts the referee would not have sanctioned with his rating. I wonder if the social dynamic could keep this in check, or whether this would the game to escalate into nonsense?

And if I have at all obscured this fact, I want to repeat that I am very eager to get started with EMG. I hope your advice will better enable me to create a new batch of customers.

[MatrixGamer]

Aaron - Thanks for the questions. COOL! I always love meeting a new Matrix Gamer.

The rules to the Engle Matrix Game are intentionally spartan so that anyone can pick it up and play. It is very much meant to be an introduction to the field thing. Something people can then build on to make the game their own.

The rules as written suggest a pretty staccato argument-ruling-roll flow. This is what happens in play by mail and email games but in face to face games there is more interaction.

Typically I ask a player for an argument and they make one. I give a ruling and if it is pretty weak or worse I let them try to rephrase. Sometimes I jump the gun and rule before people are done. When I do this and they want to go on I tell them that the strength will be weaker and let them decide what they want to do. If a player makes an argument about what another player's character does I turn to that player and ask if they like it. If they agree I call it really strong if they don't I call it really weak (in effect the owning player is the referee for that argument rather than me).

Outside of arguments I see the referee acting as a host for the game. They encourage people in making arguments but also encourage people to talk outside of arguments. I encourage people to step away from the table to form teams, do self run impromptu role plays between characters (even if they are not together on the map), and to just banter.

As referee I can aid the flow of play by asking people to make arguments (rather than waiting for them to do so), I can show what I find fun in games by ruling fun arguments stronger, I can add drama by calling for secondary argument rounds, I can speed the game through slow moments by having people all argue about the same point and do a dice rolling competition. And occasionally I can jump in with an argument of my own (picking another player to be my referee).

I like refereeing. It is a lot like running a group therapy meeting. You are sort of in control but really they are. It doesn't take a lot of work to prep for it (unlike being a D+D GM).

We do on line MGs on the MatrixGame2 yahoo group

http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/MatrixGame2/

I also have two full game examples of play up on the two EMGs I have for sale on RPGNow.

http://www.freewebs.com/matrixgamer1/
http://jack-the-ripper-game.wetpaint.com/

Hope that answers your questions!

Chris Engle
Hamster Press = Engle Matrix Games

[Aaron Blain]

Yes, thanks very much for your fast and helpful reply. I have two friends who nearly orgasmed when I described Dar as Salaam to them (a history major and a poli-sci major, of course, one frustrated with DnD, the other frustrated with Axis&Allies), and I'm hoping to start playing soon.

I'm curious about some of EMG's points of divergence. One of the obstacles I foresee in turning people on to MG is that they won't find it "satisfying". When I try to explain it to them (like most other innovative ideas), they tend to say, "Yeah, that could be cool for a one-shot, but you'd need a REAL game for a campaign." I.e. a game which requires a huge amount of money, paperwork, and which is in fact almost never fun to play. I personally consider the publishing industry a parasite on the back of the hard-working gamer, and disapprove of ANY RPG materials more substantial than what you publish. (Eberron, for example, makes me want to vomit).

I had invented something startlingly similar to EMG (although untested), except that it worked in sort of a reverse fashion. That is, the mechanical check was used negatively, to take control away from the current narrator, instead of positively to realize a hypothesis. What I am considering doing now is to play MG, except that after winning a die roll a player gets to keep narrating until he is finished. If someone takes issue with the victory narration, he poses a counter-argument which is rated stronger the further the narrating player has wandered from the argument he had initially won. The game would flow thus (I hope) - A player makes a terse, reasonable (or deliberately bias-pandering!) argument in order to gain control of the narration. As long as no one else minds, he keeps the floor, feeling free to indulge his creativity and invest his emotions. When someone finally takes the floor from him with a successful (again, terse) counter-argument, the usurper will have destroyed only the most recent part of the narration. Controversial situations (i.e. skirmishes) would escalate into rapid ping-pong.

Have you thought or written about the finer points of advanced/extended EMG? About the difference between fixed and roving referees? And about the huge difference this would have on game preparation and in the episodic structure of an extended campaign? Do any of your materials give suggestions about running long-term matrix games? I know a LOT of players would be excited if after a night of DnD they could argue, "The undead are about to invade from the north!", "Actually, the lizardmen are suddenly causing chaos near the swamplands." etc. guiding the course of the overall campaign. My initial reaction is that EMG is not as big as it could be because your average player will tend to write it off as a "Beer and Pretzels" game, when it has the potential to be something hugely engaging.

For example, there could be a standard set of questions to ask at the end of each session that would create the equivalent of a MG supplement for next time, such as choosing the goals that will define the scope of the session (similar to the Final Questions). Do you touch on much of this in the advanced "Narrativist" handbook? Another important one would be, "How did your character grow or change this session?", "Dude, he totally became a master swordsman!" etc., etc. Instead of abstract modifiers like "favored enemy", it would be huge fun to say, "My ranger is at an advantage because he has experienced the dirty fighting of orcs (two sessions ago), and is on the lookout for their characteristic mistakes." For an extended game, it would be necessary to be sensitive to different magnitudes of argument (I.e. "I dodge the javelin!" vs. "The kingdom of Diggedy-Dee becomes suddenly destabilized and begins to decline.") being welcomed at different phases of the session. Also, the setting of ground-rules which would carry through each session (Does controlling someone else's character weaken your argument? When can heroes die?) Not to mention advice for playing a long-term dedicated villain.

Are there any variants of the rules, along these lines, that you use, have seen used successfully, or considered?

Additionally, I adore the enthusiastically platonic character of your matrix supplements.

[MatrixGamer]

Wow! Lots of questions. I'll try to get something short off to you now but I can't do much because my wife wants me home for supper (I only do internet at my day job).

First off - Your idea on continued narration after the die roll is interesting. I've not done it and I think it would count as a new version of Matrix Game. DO IT! And let us know how it works.

For your friends, tell them that Matrix Games have been played for 20 years and that the British and Australian armies use them as planning games. They can be one shots but do not have to be. At various times I've used them to aid role play campaigns I've run laster months and years. I was in a PBM game that went on for five years run by a friend in Sweden. I tend to put out replayable board game like games now but that is because they make good con games which aids marketing.

I've experiemented around with lots of different formats for Matrix Games. Ranging from thick books (that I couldn't afford to print) to think books (that I could) to miniatures games and not to folios. I've written a ton of articles (check out MagWeb for my old stuff). They have not been on the topics you list particularly. I'll go over the list in more detail next week and see what I've got.

One last thing. I love giving players one or two arguments to make before a role play sessions to tell me things they have learned before the game. I work those into the game. After the game I give them three more arguments. One is used to make something totally unrealted to them happen in the world, the next is used to build their social network, the last is used to improve themselves (like your fantastic swordsman line). This is very easy to do and really juices players committment to games up.

Got to go!

Chris Engle

[komradebob]

When I try to explain it to them (like most other innovative ideas), they tend to say, "Yeah, that could be cool for a one-shot, but you'd need a REAL game for a campaign." I.e. a game which requires a huge amount of money, paperwork, and which is in fact almost never fun to play.

I've often gotten a similar response when I've suggested MGs or my variants of them.

Honestly, the only practical answer I can think of is: "Cool. So whaddya say we try a one-off and see if this thing actually has some legs.  Worst case, we try it and find out we don't like it and go back to stuff we know we like."