My plan for marketing this year is to send out one new product a month to reviewers and offer the product as a PDF on RPGNow and as a paper product from my web page. This is a good start but not enough. To get interest going I will post articles like the following on various web forums. They are red meat topics - short and ment to get people thinking. I'd like to get feedback on what you think of this article and of the idea of using forums in this way.

ENGLE MATRIX GAMES A DIVE INTO FANTASY WORLDS

Who hasn’t played a fantasy role play game? How often do we watch “The Lord of the Rings” or read sword and sorcery stories. What makes us imagine ourselves in the role of the great savior/ring bearer, who alone of all beings can save the world from the dark lord? Hubris? Maybe. Fun? Definitely.

The thing about being a tragic hero is that in the end you have to win. The story isn’t fun if you don’t. If I want realism I’ll read about infantry battles in WWI! No, I want the plucky little guy to win. At the same time I want him to sweat. I want him to face many challenges and fail a few just so he isn’t too perfect. Heck, even James Bond lost his wife. One set of rules that can give this result – every time – is an Engle Matrix Game.

Show the players a map, give them a list of characters. Maybe the characters have a picture and a short written description, maybe a few number statistics. Describe the world in a brief sweeping introduction, then allow the players to imagine it. Have the players pick characters to champion. Now they can imagine themselves in their character’s role making the action happen. It is a painting stuck in a dramatic pose. It needs a game to put it into motion.

An Engle Matrix Games does this by giving each player the chance to say what happens next in the game. It doesn’t automatically happen. They have to pick another character to be referee. The referee decides how much they like it – which sets a “to happen” roll. If the player rolls well the action happens and the story builds from there.

The net effect of EMG rules is that players can make anything happen. They are not limited to what their character does. They make what needs to happen next in the story happen. It may be their own character’s demise. What? Kill your own character? But that would put you out of the game… wouldn’t it? NO!!! In EMGs you are not your character. You champion them. You try to do good by them but in the end the point is to tell a good story.

By separating player from character, players can delve deeper into the inner workings of the game world. They can create people and build up relationships. These are the people they are most committed to. Building their stories up are what keeps players coming back. Imagine an open ended game where players were given five actions/arguments for future events before each session of a traditional role play game. I believe they would use them wisely and over time would re-write the world to tell their story. They would have a stake in everything. Wouldn’t that make them want the hero to win even more? Or make them more adamant about serving the dark lord?

I’ve used Matrix Game arguments in role play games for nearly twenty years. They are very easy to include and interestingly don’t interfere with standard game rules. One can use EMG arguments or regular RPG rules interchangeably. They add a depth of simulation to RPGs by expanding beyond hack and slash into relationships and consequences.

Here is one EMG product. It has a link to Demo.
http://www.RPGNow.com/product_info.php?products_id=21023&src=MySourceCode

Chris Engle 2-6-07

This is a pretty good article, written in an engaging style. I like that you've included a lot of substantial information about the idea contained in your game.  It's a good idea to make your press release contain substantive information, rather than just fluff.  You might want to include more description of the actual product, in terms of what it actually contains.  At the moment it sounds like the idea is almost entirely contained in the press release. 

It is, however, an ad, and as such, is going to be viewed skeptically by most people who read it on a forum.  Don't get me wrong - this is a great press release, but I think it's maybe not appropriate for the more informal "face-to-face" marketing that works well for smaller games, and that forums are really great for.

What I think would work well is a really engaging Actual Play report in an open forum, that shows your product working well, but also highlights areas that might turn people off.  As a consumer I'm more likely to respond well to an ad if I feel its being honest about the limits of the product, and a great way to produce that feeling is to be honest about what your product doesn't do.  Don't tell people you've got the holy grail of roleplaying, because people won't believe you.

Be honest about your intentions when you post.  Say "this is a post intended to drum up interest in my new game - it uses the concept of an Engle Matrix, and I'd like to explain what that means here." This communicates that, while you're posting an ad, your intention is to inform the reader about new ideas, not to spread propaganda.

It's hard not to feel sleazy when promoting a product that will make you money.  Don't be ashamed.  You've worked hard making something that peopel will want to buy.  The people who want to buy it want good information about that product, and you're giving them that.

Good luck!

Thanks Simon. I see you point. When I put this up on RPG.net they moved to add/promotion. I did get 180 reads though so I'm happy with it. Yesterday I posted an actual play bit close to what you described. Here is a copy of it. Does it fit what you were thinking?

ENGLE MATRIX GAME REFEREEING: DRACULA ACTUAL PLAY

Three players, Tom, Bob and Chris are gathered together to play “Dracula: The game before the game” (available on RPGNow from Hamster Press). The game is about whither Mina Harker is saved or destroyed by Dracula. It is set  in Bram Stoker’s classic vampire story – after Dracula has made it to England. Tom champions Dracula, Bob champions Van Helsing and Chris champions the vampire Lucy.

In a Beginner Engle Matrix Game play goes around the table. The acting player picks a question from the game board and answers it. Each question essentially asks “What happens next?” They then pick another player to be their referee. The referee decides how likely the action is to happen. The first player then rolls and it happens or it doesn’t. In this example the players encounter some partisan refereeing.

Tom/Dracula: “I pick “What act of hypnotic seduction does Dracula use next?” My answer is this: “Mina first met me on the promenade and was enchanted by my foreign good looks. My accent pulled her in further. My stories made me even more appealing. Then my eyes sealed her fate. She is under my control! Swell of dramatic music.” I pick Chris/Lucy to be my referee.”

Chris: “My character hates what you’ve done to her. I think I don’t want you to get her friend. I think your argument is really weak. The argument strength table says you need to roll a 6 on 1d6 for it to happen.

Tom rolls a 6. It happens despite Chris’ ruling.

Play goes around the table with each player getting a turn to answer a question. Bob learns/makes up a clue to where Dracula is buried. Chris has Lucy start killing children and pinning the blame on Dracula. She picks Tom to be her referee.

Tom: “Pin it no me will you. I think your argument is really weak. How do you like them apples? Now you need to roll a 6.”

Chris rolls a 5 so his argument fails. What goes around comes around.

Tom/Dracula is up for his second turn: “I pick “How do I bite Mina?” My answer “She comes to me at night. She freely offers herself to me. This is my first bite. Two more and she will be my bride.” Now who to pick as referee. Chris? I think not. I’ll try Bob.”

Bob: “Sounds pretty strong to me. You need to roll a 3 to 6 on 1d6 for it to happen.”

Tom rolls a 3. Mina is bit.

DISCUSSION: Chris pulled a real hardball move on Tom in the first turn of the game. He made it clear that he is going to go after Dracula. This led Tom to not pick Chris to referee his second argument. Chris did pick Tom to be his referee so Tom was able to retaliate on him for giving his argument such a cruddy roll. The players are messing with one another. Messing with one another – pinning crimes on other people, setting people up to be destroyed, partisan refereeing, etc. is part of Beginner EMGs so both players are playing correctly. By doing this though they strengthen Bob/Van Helsing because he is the one they will turn to, to get fair rulings. It could lead to both vampires dying for real. Since it is just a game, it is okay to be partisan. Equilibrium emerges as people play without having to be imposed by rules.

This link is to a full game example of play http://www.freewebs.com/matrixgamer1/

2-7-07 Chris Engle

Did this game actually happen? It reads a bit like an example of play from an RPG book, which is not the right tone.  Think about what you want to read when you read an actual play report.  For me, I want to hear a cool story, well told, and an examination of how the game's rules and the players' actions contributed towards making that story happen. 

Also, I think your explanation of how the game works is a bit unclear.  I see people asking questions, and answering them, and then there's a roll, and I'm not sure of the connection.  You need to make sure that your explanations of play are logical and step-by-step.  Try writing down the decision making process of one player for one turn, in detail. 

By doing this though they strengthen Bob/Van Helsing because he is the one they will turn to, to get fair rulings. It could lead to both vampires dying for real. Since it is just a game, it is okay to be partisan. Equilibrium emerges as people play without having to be imposed by rules.

It is very example of play like isn't it? What it is is a verbatim report of a play session. I'm used to writing process reports (something I do as a social worker) where you just say what happened. I'll need to learn more about the style of actual play reports.

It is interesting that you find the report unclear because it is literally what happens in the game. A person picks a question, answers it (ie makes an argument for what they want to have happen next), picks someone to judge it and rolls. It is mechanically very simple. The player interactions add dynamism to it but the "points of contact" of the game don't require it.

I do most of my actual play of Matrix Games in play by email games - so we have written arguments presented, referee ajudication put into a report, and side emails between players (which one player dubbed "Quibbles") The PBEMs look and play a lot like the example given above with the quibbles boiled down and inserted.

I will read more actual play posts and improve my style. I will especially look of the logic of the decision making steps. Since I just wrote down what people do - to me the logic seemed self evident. I'll need to re-think that.

It is odd, but I've encountered this type of thing for years. I made the game real simple and yet people don't see the flow of play. There must be a meta game going on here. I know that I easily see possibilities when I play and pick questions accordingly. Maybe other people don't.

Chris Engle

One of the things that strikes me about MGs is that, depending on the group and the mood, they can be either very light-hearted and casual or deadly competitive and subtle. A group in the second mind-set would be a bit like having
Prof. Moriarity and Fu Manchu in your pick-up game of Diplomacy.

The thing is, I think people clue to this right away, but aren't quite sure how to react to the "What Goes Around, Comes Around" aspect of it.

This might be bettter a question for an Actual Play Post, but could you maybe tell a bit about your observations in this regard? I'd be particularly interested if you've observed a group tha had an intro game, then played a couple of more games together, so that you could relate any evolution in approach by the same group.

I'd also be interested in how folks dealt with being able to try stuff on different "scales of interest". By that I mean, how do groups react to the ability to say have one person take a turn introducing something with very broad implications, versus someone who suggests something smaller in time/space/impact on their turn?

Good suggestions. I'll look into that in actual play accounts. I do have 19 years of play experience with these games. It will all be memory, and thus not too precise, but it will be something.

Chris Engle

I think a couple of those aspects come up in questions about MGs pretty regularly. I encourage you to post about it.