Ralph commented on my game (Matrix Games) on another Forge forum and suggested I drop by this list. Our games are similar and it would be interesting to compare and contrast them. I offer here a copy of what I posted on the other forum.

Please feel free to comment.

Chris Engle
Hamster Press

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 Matrix Games are not technically role play games because they were originally made to simulate entire countries.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 COUNTRACT

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

http://wiki.trmfineart.com/bin/view/Unigame2/IAmANewPlayer


I read the rules on this link and see some of the difference between Matrix Games and Universalis. Universalis is very focused on individula characters. Matrix Games started out as an attempt to come up with a way to "role play" whole countries. This initial big picture aim broke me away from role play concepts. Also in my games you get an argument a turn no mater what. Player's characters can die and they still get an argument a turn because play is not really tied to character. Matrix Games also started off with a competitive element common in war games that is no so strong in role play games. Player's characters have competing goals right up front so they have to clash.

Aside from the differences in how argument/coin caused actions are resolved Uni and MGs do the same things. This is really cool. I can't say how long I've been waiting for other gamers to do this. Back in 1988 I was all alone in seeing that there was NO reason why game masters couldn't share their power. Now there are several games that do it.

I've seen Once upon a time and Baron Munchausen mentioned as being similar but I don't think they quite work. Once upon a time is too structured by the cards while Muchausen is like an madlib story.

There is a precursor game to all these, and to my work as well. In the mid 60's Paddy Griffin (ex Sandhurst Military Academy professor and long time gamer) came up with the "Mugger game". In this game players would gather around a table with a battle set up and then hold a discussion about what should happen first, second, third, etc. They called it a mugger game because the mainstream gamers who played felt ripped off at the end of the game. "Hey! That wasn't a game at all!!!"

I've also seen Free Kriegspiel mentioned. I used to run a version of this called "Personal Perspective Battles". Players only know what their character knew. This meant they were separated and couldn't talk during the game. While they wree fun for the game master to run (I knew what was going on) they were not so fun to play. They were also a lot of work. Matrix Games were an attempt to have the fog of war in the game while keeping the players around the same table and allowing them to talk.

I'll shut up now and listen.

Chris Engle
Hamster Press

MatrixGamer wrote: Universalis is very focused on individula characters.

get a copy of the rules.

Mike



I'll do this.

Chris Engle
Hamster Press

I'll also mention that I think Ralph or Mike has said before that Nomic was a moderate influence on Universalis.

I agree that TUA is not a great method of understanding Universalis for the reasons might mentioned so getting the book is definately worth it. Also, from TUA you might get a better feel for how the game works by reading the scenes rather than the rules.

best

Trevis

To support Mike's comments, Uni is driven by Components. A Component is any entity that can be defined by a series of Traits, the first (and sometimes only) Trait being its "Role".

A Component can be a character (and often is for obvious reasons) with a Role like "Police Commissioner" and Traits Like "Hard Ass", "Politically Astute", and "Still remembers what its like to walk a beat".

A Component can be a building with a role like "Police Headquarters" and Traits like "Well appointed offices", "Brand new", "Bright and Airy", and "extensive secure holding cells"

A Component could be a country like "Galatopia" with a role like "Land of Milk of Honey" "Ruled by Good King Frederick" "Protected by the High Order of Divine Paladins", and "Facing threat of invasion from Dhakland"

A Component could be an organization like the High Order of Divine Paladins with a role like "Protectors of Galatopia", "Keepers of the Sacred Flame", "Wielder of the Blessed Sword", "Master Horsemen", and "Empowered to deliver the King's Justice"

Components can also be made Master Components over other Sub Components so that a character could have "Paladin of the Divine Order" as his role and this would inherit all of the Traits of that order plus any additional traits like "Eager Novice", "Father is a high ranking senator" etc.

Components can also be ideologies so you can run a religion, or a political faction as a Component and then set them up as Master Components that members can call upon.


So it all depends on where the story is going, what Components you need to tell it and what takes priority. I've seen games where the most used and highest "stated" Component was a space ship.

Much more of a key difference with Matrix from what I can see is that a game of Uni most typically starts with a blank page...no components, no characters, no plot, no geography...nothing. While a Matrix game sounds like there is a book full of background basics and support material. Are those books typically differentiated by genre or are they each individual scenarios / campaigns complete with cast of characters and plot points?

a Matrix game sounds like there is a book full of background basics and support material. Are those books typically differentiated by genre or are they each individual scenarios / campaigns complete with cast of characters and plot points?



Each book comes with two "stories". A story includes a set cast of characters, each with a short written description of them. There is a map and written descriptions of key locations on it. There are three "scenarios" which are starting points for stories using the cast and location. After this are some mood setting essays (for instance "Living in a Police State" for a WWII spy game).

I try to bundle games together that are in the same genre, so there are Cthulhu horror books, Sherlock Holmes murder mysteries, Law and Order like modern mysteries, WWII spy games, war games, Sci Fi action, etc.

That being said - all the stuff in the books are just "suggestions" abut what the player might want to do. They can do whatever they want once the game starts. Generally I've found that gamers like having structure in games also this means that I have lots of room to put out nre product. The rules of Matrix Games are so darned simple they would never fly as a game book.

Woudl you be interested in trading books. I'll send you off a couple of my new books for one of your rules books.

Email me off list.

hamster@io.com

Chris Engle
Hamster Press

Valamir wrote: To support Mike's comments, Uni is driven by Components. A Component is any entity that can be defined by a series of Traits, the first (and sometimes only) Trait being its "Role".



In Matrix Games each bit of information in the scenario are elements of the Matrix (which has nothing to do with the movie - I coined the term in 1988 - I thought is sounded cooler than "Verbal Analysis Wargaming")

Arguments add new information to the matrix. Some information is directly tied to characters, places, things. I call this information "Statuses". A status can be good or bad. If it is bad, players get a trouble argument to try ducking it.

What I'm wondering about Universalis is how does past information in the games influence the outcome of future actions? That is why I use a referee in Matrix Games. The referee listens to arguments and remembers what has happened before. If the new action builds on the past or is good story telling then the player is rewarded with a good roll. If it is tangential then the ref can rule it weak or virtually impossible (roll six sixes in a row). In this way the referee can steer the game towards a solid conclusion. The referee may not control what players argue but they can still play host and assure that the story stays on target.

Chris Engle
Hamster Press

Several ways, but most directly through the Challenge mechanic.

The Challenge is when you say something (make an arguement in Matrix terms) that as a fellow player I don't like. I gather that in the Matrix if I were the GM i'd either veto your statement (if that's allowed) or just give it a low probability. With no GM, any player can decide to Challenge your arguement.

At that point there's a stage of Negotiation where I say "Hey that doesn't make any sense, remember 2 scenes ago when this other thing happened..." (or what have you) and you say something like:

a) "Oh yeah, that's right, I forgot. Ok instead I'll say this other thing" Challenge over, solved through Negotiation.

b) "Yeah, but also think about this and that and the other and see how it makes sense?" at which point I can say "oh, ok that's cool...carry on then" Challenge over, solved through Negotiation. or

c) "Yeah but I like it better this way so that's how I'm doing it, tough noogies" Challenge continues to Bidding.

We then engage in a bidding contest with Coins to see who's version of events takes place. All of the other players have the option to pitch in on either side or start their own side. High bid wins.


Now in addition to that there is the concept of Facts. A Fact is anything that has been established in the game by spending Coins on it. This would include a Trait like "Best Friends" which might be used to establish that "no way would that character betray this other one...they're best friends" or an Event that had previously occured like "he threw the key down the well" which might be used to establish that the character no longer had the key.

In any Challenge where a Fact applies Coins spent defending the Fact are doubled in value for determining the winner of the bidding war. Of course, its also possible to Challenge someone who claims a Fact if you don't think the case is particularly strong that it applies. Of Course, before narrating the betrayal of the friend you can spend Coins to narrate a falling out and cross the "Best Friends" Trait off, so its no longer available to be used as a Fact.

The system is pretty effective. Challenges don't often get out beyond Negotiations because usually other players make clear which side they'd support and point out any advantage of Fact and so some body usually backs down, or modifies their statement before needing to go to bidding. If it does go to bidding, a cash rich player has an advantage but in any game with more than 2-3 players the other players collectively will typically have enough Coin to overturn anything particularly egregious.

Challenges sound like a fun process to do. At least face to face - does that work well on line or does it grind the game to a halt? The challenge/negociation mechanism would really bring the players together into a shared reality.

Matrix Games arguments came from my understanding of Hegel and Marx's dialectic. I make one statement, you make another and they duke it out in the ether to reach a synthysis. I did not go the negociation route so my duking out lead to a winner or a loser. Synthysis happens when players build off what has happened. This has lead MG players to do some amazing judo flip moves. I say I advance, then they use that against me! Players often carry out indirect strategies so they prepare the way for their eventual success by preparation arguments. I can see that people undoubtedly to the same in Universalis.

Since MG arguments have a winner and loser (they either happen or they don't - no partial success) they system works very cleanly in on line play. As a referee/game master I don't have to work very hard. I like this because I used to do play by mail RPGs in the 80's and they burned me out by all the work they required.

When I'm doing a face to face game I will do negociations with players. They make a bad argument and I tell them what they have to roll. If it is real bad I ask them, "Are you sure you want to do that?" If they want to change I let them.

I used to explicitely give the referee a veto on arguments. Later I change the name to "That argument is stupid/impossible." A play had to roll a 7 on a d6 (Which I point out can be done, if the die balances on a corner with the 1,2, and 4 up. My wife did this once by cheating.) More recently I hit on the idea of having them try and roll six sixes in a row (essentially an impossible roll). If they do roll that impossible roll then I feel the dice gods have spoken and they should win! Dice rolls in this way add drama to the game, just like bidding does. Negociations often don't add drama.

BTW I frequently now look at "arguments" as statements about what I want to have happen next. Argument is a term held over from a time when all statements were given in the following format.

Action:
Result:
Three reasons:

They still use this format in England - along with Matrix cards (an idea I dropped in 1995!)

Chris Engle
Hamster Press

Heh, you should see my game Synthesis, Chris. The system is based on Hegelian synthesis, but it's a pretty standard RPG in some ways.

Anyhow, the other way that past stuff comes back, outside of challenges, is for complications. Instead of buying traits for things involved in complications, it's more economical to pick up old components and involve them in complications since activation of traits for dice is free. So people tend to re-incorporate the things that have already been purchased, instead of making new things. This is what prevents the game from wandering aimlessly into new territory constantly (still happens, but less).

Complications, are, of course, how we ensure that conflict will happen in the story. Everybody who participates gets rewards (in theory, sometimes your reward is less than your investment, but it's rare). With conflict comes plot, and with plot, story.

Mike

a) "Oh yeah, that's right, I forgot.
b) "Yeah, but
c) "Yeah but I like it better this way



Early on I recognized that arguments fell into a few logical catagories.

Yes, and...
Yes, but...
No, Actually...

It's all Boolian logic. Later I found that it didn't matter to the game if I kept track of that. The logic of story telling is much more familiar to people than Bool. Players do a great job keeping stories straight. I used to have people write down their arguments now I don't. It makes it easier to play.

Chris Engle
Hamster Press

Mike Holmes wrote: it's more economical to pick up old components and involve them in complications since activation of traits for dice is free.



So this would be like using elements from the "matrix" of the world in arguments. This would keep things coherent.

I'd love to see you synthysis method. Is there an old thread I should read through?

Our two games are interesting in how they come at the same problem from different directions.

Chris Engle
Hamster Press

Here's an older version that's available publicly: http://www.swcp.com/~tquid/synthesis.html

If you want to see the more up to date version, join the Yahoo group in my sig. :-)

BTW, what's your take on Nomic?

Mike

I've corresponded with the guy who came up with Nomic. He's an academic here in Indiana (at Earlum - I'm at IU). He sees Matrix Games as a nomic - I agree.

The trouble with the nomic idea as it is put forward is that it isn't a game. It puts the players in the role of game maker without any goal. At least in Universalis and Matrix Games there is the idea of story telling. That little word "story" immediately calls up a a complicated schema that tells us what to do. Nomic doesn't.

When players have a little information - like the info from a scenario and map - they fill in the blanks to form a complete picture. This gestalt idea is a big part of how I see the "matrix" of Matrix Games working. pushing schema buttons like "story" give people structure to work within. I think they are more creative because of it. It's like poetry.

Nomic has no structure. I wonder if that would promote people to fall into stereotyped behaviors just to make sense out of the world. To my thinking that would be less creative than living inside the schema box.

Chris Engle
Hamster Press

Have you talked with the guys at Hex Games? My brother games with them in Ohio. Their game QAGS (Quick Ass Game System) uses "yum yum" token that allow players to add something to the game. Largely their game plays like a standard RPG (so they have planned adventures and character stats) with this small Universalis like add on. It is different from Universalis but is another game that is running in the same vein as yours and my game.

Chris Engle
Hamster Press

Lots of games have had tolkens that allow players to use director stance power. FATE comes to mind as does the more mainstream Adventure! I can't say where the idea started, however.

I wouldn't go so far as to say that nomic has no structure, but it certainly has minimal structure, and that structure doesn't include any goals other than to create and play some game.

Mike

Peter Suber (that's the guys name!) suggested that the initial "game" that would be amended should be simple and uninteresting so that players would want to amend it out bordom. Now hows that for a game design goal?

Nomic is an interesting idea. Just as Paddy Griffin's Mugger game is interesting but neither have lead to any commercial games. The Mugger game has had 40 years to do so and Nomic has had 25 years. It is like the "Variable Length Bound" idea that George Jeffreys came up with in the mid 80's. That idea was very inspiring but aside from "Science versus Pluck" I can't think of another game it lead to. And how many of you have heard of Science versus Pluck? Or for that matter, how many of you have heard of the variable length bound? It may have only circulated in miniature war game circles.

Chris Engle

Another such "game" was called Evolution.

Then there's the sorta-game "Life." Check this three-D one out. http://www.ibiblio.org/e-notes/Life/Game.htm

There are lots of games that come from the very basic Game Theory school. As it happens I've been playing a lot of Twixt lately, a game invented by John Nash.

But, yes, these games tend all to have sorta limited life to them. I'd include Universalis in that. Not sure why, perhaps it's their pure simplicity of form that makes people abandon them for more "messy" games (while an obsessed few always keep them alive).

Mike

MatrixGamer wrote: Universalis is very focused on individula characters. Matrix Games started out as an attempt to come up with a way to "role play" whole countries.

And I have played in one game where the idea was to play out a future history. In that game, mostly the characters ended up being large organizations. But some individuals did slip in, too. Bill Gates, for example (who I had as a villain causing worldwide technological problems). I think we've heard of one or two other cases where people have done similar thigns with it.

Also, Universalis has been used to do "worldbuilding" to set up a setting before playing another game. It seems to have been supplanted in this role, however, by the game Lexicon, of late (I'm participating in one right now).

Mike

When I run political games I like to personify groups by their leader. The leader "controls" the group. This fits the way politicians talk about over seas enemies. We're after Osama Ben Laden, Saddam Husein, etc. Having worked on local agency coordinating committees I know first hand that the Leader serves the group not the other way around. I chaired the First Step committee when we implemented this Developmental Delay program in Morgan Co. Indiana. Three years we worked to get it in place. As soon as I was out of office they dismantled everything we did. The kicker was that I didn't like the model the committee chose to implement anyway!

I think people like glorifying leaders - even if it is foolish.

Chris Engle
Hamster Press

Interestingly, the War College guys follows the same ideal, Chris, when they run their National Security Decision Making (http://www.nsdmg.org/) events. They put it like this: when you get the position of, say, Secretary of Defense, you aren't just that one individual, but your position represents all of the personnel and resources that they have at their beck and call. They refer to this as the individual's "Cone of Power" as though they were at the top of some pyrimidal heirarchy or something. The individual has more direct control of the few people at the top, but wider resources at the bottom of their cone.

Mike

I've been reading the reviews of Universalis on your web page. All point out that the game starts with no built in focus. I like the pre game game of world building. It gives people time to say waht they want to have happen. I imagine that creative players love this, but doesn't it lose followers?

Matrix Games have a lot of built in scenario information that "suggests" to players what to do. But there is also a mental geography that underlies the game.

I'll explain.

The world is made up of people, places and things. Statuses can be added to anything to modify what it is (you call them traits). But it doesn't end there. There is a boardgame like structure beneath that which shows how things interact.

Let's start with a character. They are surrounded by an "area". They can move anywhere they want to inside that area during free move so players can set up scenes in an instant. They can also move to adjacent areas during the free move (but no more than one). Strategic movement is limited but tactical movement is not.

Within area characters encounter "barriers" to movement. To enter these areas they need to use an argument. The argument triggers a "conflict" round to see if they actually got in. So I can try to break into Fort Knox but I'll fail my conflict argument! There are a variety of types of barrier. Defense barriers are guards, wall, locks, armies guarding boarders, etc. Anonymity barriers are when someone is hiding, in disguise, or my favorit when they are unknown to one another (so if I want to arrest you but I don't know who you are I'm unlikely to get you). "Crossing" this barrier is done by man hunts, investigation etc. Social barriers are where people are barred from certain areas because they don't have a priveledged position. Then there are mental barriers.

Mental barriers start going inside the character's head. Once layer of defense protects us all from the outside. Inside our minds we may have additional layers of mental defense to protect secrets. Interrogators need to breech all barriers to get at what it behind them. In this way information in the mind becomes another character in the game. A person could argue for the secret - driving the character insane with guilt.

I also use a pyramid hierarchy to show social status. One person is on the top (social priveledge) two are on the second tier, three on the third tier, etc. The game can then look at social climbing (as I do in "The Wizard's School")

The geography behind the game gives everyone a shared world and a shared physics. I don't stress it's existence in the rules (that would be boring) but it is a big difference between Matrix Games and Universalis.

Chris Engle
Hamster Press

MatrixGamer wrote: I've been reading the reviews of Universalis on your web page. All point out that the game starts with no built in focus. I like the pre game game of world building. It gives people time to say waht they want to have happen. I imagine that creative players love this, but doesn't it lose followers?

From a business stand point - if the players create their game anew each time they play - then you only have one book to sell. How can you pull a Steve Jackson and put out yet another GURPS book for the Gurps addicts to buy?

I have a fair bit in my books telling people what actions need to happen for certain stories to be told. For instance in a murder mystery, you need a crime, clues need to be found, someone has to be determined to have done and and justice is done. In effect they are little lessons in plot. I don't care if the players deviate from the plot or completely ignore it but they can't say it was a murder mystery without those things happening (or something like them.)

I ran a spy game at a con years ago where a woman made here character murder her lover at the beginning of the game. She then spent the rest of the game slowly driving her character mad so that the character confessed to the crime at the end of the game. It was a wonderful story. She won the game hands down in my oppinion bcause of that. We determin "winning" when it is done at all by having players make one last argument for who won the game. It's a fun way to wrap up a session.


Chris Engle
Hamster Press

PS: I'm not being completely facistious with the business observation. It get into and stay in distribution I've heard you need to put out four new books a year. Have you thought of scenario books?

Conceptually alot of what goes on in Uni will look very similar to Matrix. As Mike points out the key difference is that the elements get created on the fly. It was my intention initially to release "genre books" that would have the key elements predefined so that they would be "plug and play" (I suspect that would look fairly similar to your scenario books) but in practice we discovered it just wasn't necessary. Inventing the Components proved so easy and intuitive to do on the fly that there really wasn't much benefit to predefining them.

But once play gets underway there are definite touch points for the players. The game is organized into scenes, and the first requirement of a scene is to Frame it. This involves selecting a Location, Components (Characters, et.al.) who are present, and establishing the Time (e.g. "later that same day", "2 weeks later")

As these Locations get created and endowed with traits they begin to establish a world geography that characters can move to in a way that I suspect would seem familiar to your "area" treatment.

Barriers, as you describe are handled in a couple of different ways. First they can simply be narrated and they happen: "Jack disarms the guard and knocks him out with a karate chop to the neck. He then disarms the security system and opens the door into the villain's inner sanctum". This would require spending Coins to accomplish. Depending on how these elements were defined in the game there are different ways this might be done. For instance if "Inner Sanctum" was defined as a Component with "Armed Guard at the Door", and "Security System" as Traits, then simply spending 1 Coin apiece to cross those Traits off (just as they cost 1 Coin apiece to add initially) is sufficient to mechanically represent the narration.

Alternatively, the Guard may be established as a Component by itself with Traits like "Security Guard", "Armed", and "Highly Alert" as Traits. The Security System might be a seperate Component with Traits like "Security System" and "High Tech". In this case taking out the Guard would take 3 Coins (3 Traits) and the Security System 2 Coins (2 Traits). So the cost to overcome an obstacle is directly related to the cost someone paid to put it there. The more they spend to beef the obstacle up, the more difficult it is to defeat.

The second way would be to use the Complication mechanic. As the acting player is narrating how Jack manhandles the guard and is preparing to spend his Coins to make it happen, another player might make a Complication out of it thinking that since this is the last guard before the Inner Santum is breached that its a good time for a bit of a "fight scene". The other player Takes Control of the Guard, the acting Player has Control of Jack. The rule for Complications is this: if one player (the acting player) attempts to effect a Component (the guard) Controlled by another player, a Complication ensues. In the Complication each side builds a dice pool using relavant Traits or purchasing additional dice with Coins. Other players can jump in on one side or the other introducing additional elements or using elements already in place that they alread Control themselves. Dice are rolled to determine the winner (in this example most likely Jack or the Guard) and the rolls generate bonus Coins to spend to resolve the situation...Jack's player could then use 3 of the Bonus Coins earned to then narrate the karate chop to the neck that eliminates the Guard.

This resolves the Complication, but some other player could then jump in and Take Control of the security system and repeat the process for getting through the door.

The key difference being that those "barriers" were not positioned on the "map" before play begins (usually). Rather they were populated as part of the process of play itself.

This makes sense. In story telling you use components as the story needs them. You don't have to worry about the rest of the world. It exists to serve the story not the other way around.

I'm interested in simulating processes in the world, though I like a good story.

BTW I know a few people who have used Matrix Games as a creative writing teaching tool. They say it is very helpful. I be Univeraslis would work that way to - if not better give that it is more directed at story.

The mental map/barrier geography behind Matrix Games is really the world view I use in my job as a social worker. If pulls from Kurt Lewin's field theory, some Durkheim, a dash of Freud, and a boat load of cognitive behaviorism. It gives me "parts" that I can then manipulate to set up outcomes I might want to see. In this way you can experiment with it. I've also heard it's been used to facilitate communication between "stalk holders" in organiztional planning (British Army). In the long run I see the nirvahna of Matrix Gaming is to do management training seminars, but not until my soul is completely black...

Do you have any other books in the pipeline? (I mean other than Universalis.)

Chris Engle
Hamster Press

Ralph has Robots & Rapiers in a nearly complete state.

I actually have an idea that relates somewhat to both our ideas, Chris, but it's pretty incohate at this point. But I've thought about it enough that it could explode out onto the page at any point now.

Mike

Sorry to reopen a semi dead thread...

I'm surprised that noone has mentioned the similarity in that both Uni and MG/Pbom have an explicit rule for adding rules during play. I find this one of the most interesting features of both games. It not only allows players to tinker, but allows for the rule set to be very short in page count. Rather than forcing players to learn a tome full of rules for sundry situations, both games presume that players are smart enought to come up with some sort of solution on the spot. The question then becomes not one of "what is the rule", but "is this rule acceptable to the play group?"

Robert

komradebob wrote:
I'm surprised that noone has mentioned the similarity in that both Uni and MG/Pbom have an explicit rule for adding rules during play.

We actually came up with the rule before discovering Nomic, as I recal. Basically the train of thought goes:

1. In most RPGs the GM is in charge of deciding what drifted rules are used.
2. Universalis has no sole GM.
3. Players can take this ability on themselves, subject as usual to other players challenging their ideas.

It's just an inevitable conclusion that one comes to when you assume that no one individual has final say on what the rules of the game are. You pay your player currency to make any changes you see fit, or to prevent bad ones.

Mike

I came up with it before I know of nomic as well. It just flowed from the logic. If people can make arguments about anything, why can't they change the rules?

Chris Engle