Letter from Paddy Griffith, June 2nd 1989 Dear Chris, Many thanks for your letter. I was surprised to read In the last NUGGET that you hadn't received any feed-back on the Matrix Game since it went down brilliantly well at last year's COW- and then again at the Society of Ancients' conferance six months ago. maybe the problem was simply that Chris Kemp/Dormouse wasn't very well organised about the way he presented It (That was my impression on both occasions). He certainly got the message through to a lot of people very effectively- but he didn't tell YOU what was going on. Rest assured, at least, that the game was a great success and stimulated a large number of 'good people'. It prompted me to run off the enclosed variant, which I had meant to send to you a few months ago- but, er, maybe I forgot to do that, too! A 'Muggergame' is simply a game that is run by a discussion between the 'players' rather than by a set of rules. All it needs is a suspension of the competitive principle: all the players stand above the action as 'Impartial historians' rather than as actors engaged personally In the drama. All players co- operate with each other to agree on what would be a reasonable outcome In the situation being postulated: hence it is opposite of many other types of wargame, where players try to think themselves into the shoes' of particular people in history (whether that means generals or individual Wild West gunslingers etc). In 1962 [Editors Note: a year before I was born. Sorry for the Interruption.] I dubbed it a 'Mugger' game, since mainstream wargamers who wandered into it hoping for a competitive match would feel they had been mugged! (Certainly It 15 too radical to catch on with many people and maybe the Matrix Game has the same problem. But fox my money It is one of the most Civilized ways to play wargames). Anyway, I am delighted that you have pushed forward the Matrix concept by leaps and bounds since the version I saw at COW88 (incidentally, I am sure that there IS a market for a booklet which explains the basic principles of the Matrix, and offers at least one Immediately-playable example. Maybe one day, if WD (Wargames Developement) gets seriously involved in rule booklet marketing ... ? There are a few moves afoot for this just at present). I agree with many of your comments on 'Fun' In wargaming. A set of rules may be technically perfect- but If the people who come to play it are treated to two hours' setting up the tabletop, the two hours' playing the first 10% of the battle, and get into an argument, and finally have to go home, then the 'host' has clearly failed in his role. It's just a shame that 50 few wargamers even get to glimpse that it WAS their role! YOU say YOU see a trap if megagames (A game which fifteen or more people) get 'too realistic' - but I think I can reassure you that I have never seen a wargame that has involved even 2% of the true terror of a real battle - or even of a ride on a middleranking roller coaster! (Maybe the games should be PLAYED on roller coasters--Now THERE'S a thought!). Conversely, I suspect that the sheer grinding boredom of real combat staffwork is better portrayed by what you call a 'hyper-complex roleplay game with a table for everything and a blue million die rolls', than it is by any megagame that I have ever seen. The real trap, in fact, may be when people come to a megagame expecting a riot - a carnival of hilarity - but find only a moderately fast moving, and quite sober/serious, operational game. The 'Committee Game', on the other hand, has sometimes been criticised as being just as bad a bureaucratic nightmare as the real bureaucratic nightmares that real armies contain (Which is sometimes precisely the aim of the game designer, in any case!) I would agree with you that Megagames, Committee Games and Cardboard Simulators may all be played in a serious/boring/realistic way - which from one point of view is their main strength. On the other hand I must energetically protest that each of then CAN also be played in a slapstick, knockanout, hilarious, thespian way - which I am sure you would find to your taste. Personally, I like both styles and derive satisfaction from each (Maybe I should add that the least satisfactory ones are perhaps those that fall between the two, without being strongly Identified with either). You will be delighted, anyway, to hear that in the Middle Ages the Theatre was apparently called 'The Game'. Today that word has been corrupted to mean 'Prostitution' (just as the word 'Actress' is today synonymous with 'Whore') - which may be one reason why many modern wargamers are more Interested in hard-face accountancy (or private, obsessive vice) than In thespian talents and social 'Fun'!! Please don't, however confuse 'Megagames' with 'Cardboard Simulators'. From your letter I wasn't entirely clear that you had made that distinction (= The MG is all about masses of people, regarless of the game system used, whereas the CS can be played by one individual - but does demand an attempt to create some sort of 1:1 physical representation of the real environment being modelled. See the latest MWAN [Midwest Wargamers Association Newsletter] for my latest thoughts on each of these two art forms! However, I suppose It is nevertheless perfectly fair to say that Megagames, Committee Games and Cardboard Simulators are all, ultimately, concerned to illuminate the military reality as it impacts upon the Individual - ie the player must Imagine himself 'in the shoes of' the historical warrior; not as some detached historian looking down from the outside. I turn now from your personal letter to the daunting mass of articles that you have landed on me! "Words vs Numbers" (publication pending In the Midwest Wargamers Association Newsletter] My feeling on this is that YES I agree that we must take the face-to face/thespian approach more seriously than we do - and the numbers less. Right on! (But note we at WD have tried to produce an alternative!) [Editor: Tried and succeeded I might add.) Omega [the name of the senario used as an example) seems to rely heavily on a very detailed scenario briefing - which is where I find weaknesses with the original Matrix. I have to say that I am unclear in my mind about just how much of this the players aye allowed to invent (as opposed to restricting them to exploiting the logical possibilities inherent within the senario they have been landed with). Nor am I especially happy at the Idle roll' means of settling disputes - unless the die roll is administered by an umpire. [Editor: A good point.] Did I get it right that you have no umpire? [Yes] I hope my own formulation of the original MATRIX will give you some hint of how I would hope that you have formulated the rules. I guess my trouble is that so far I have only seen magazine articles describing the game - I have not seen a rigidly-'exportable set of rules telling all comers how to set up a game of their own). [Editor: I am presently working on this.] Since I haven't played this game, Of COUr5e, I can't really say much more than that. Nelson's Defeat [publication pending In the Lone Warrior) My first reaction is - Can you play a Matrix game solo? [Editor: Actually, yes. They work quite well, providing you have a die roll settle arguments.] Surely the whole point is to Dialogue??!! Sorry - but this is a problem that I find very hard to resolve (except Insofar as a solo game makes it easier to decide who wins each argument!). Love the scenario - not one often stressed by British naval historians However I feel the reader may be confused when you seem to cite senariol background - but call It Matrices'. Ain't that just playing words? In any case, purely mathematically-based games may have plenty of scenario uncertainty built into them in the same sort of place as your example of the 8pm move (The Spanish soldier in the citadel hear the drunken sailors getting In the boats. I agree that many wargamers are discredited because the players are allowed to decide too much of what happens - but there are plenty of ways to avoid this, even with rigidly number-based rules. (IE I think you need to tighten up your sales pitch, on this particular point!) Finally, In a related vein, I think this article would benefit from a more clear visual presentation of/ example of what a Matrix actually IS. Once again, this 15 a matter of setting out clear, 'exportable rules', rather than Just chatting about the game ... In fact that is precisely where YOU start your next article - Ie: "Lord protect Us From the Fury of the Northmen" [publication pending in the Lone Warrior] If 4 hours is a 'ultra quickie,' then we are living in quite different temporal dimensions, oh planetary wanderer. For me a quickie lasts 2 minutes (eg my multiple-choise, twelve turn, open-the-next-envelope, WW`2 desert tank battle designed to advertise WD at conventions:- 300+ people can play it In 8 hours!). The IDEAL waxgame lasts half an hour and is hilarious - but the AVERAGE is probably between 2 and 3 hours. 4 hours is getting long, while anything more than that (unless It is a megagame - when obviously the aim is to pack In the maximum play In a day, because getting so many players people together is such a hassle) is really boresville. [Editor: I agree, and actually Lord Protect Us usually runs 3 hour, but I am faced with a local gaming community who believes in 8 hour + endurance games (ie no food and don't even think about the rest room). Sounds like the Bataan Death March eh?] Secondly - I'm afraid that the way it is explained here leaves me little wiser about how the game is actually played. Eg How Many Players? I fell the reader would be clearer in his mind if you started something like "Two players sit down around a table with a matrix on It (Then explain what that Is), and a map of Lindisfarne. Fred then argues for what he wants the Vikings to do, as follows: then Joe replies for the Saxons, as follows:-..." [Editor: You are right. Lord protect Us is like an arcane technical piece. Thanks for the Idea on how to write a more understandable article. I will have one ready In the next EGG.] "A Different Drummer" (printed In the June 89 PW Review] My feeling on this is that your stress on 'the old magic' is right on the nail! (So long as It doesn't degenerate into merely the mindless worship of 'old style figures wargamers'). But see my comments above on Nelson's Defeat' ... Once again, I afraid that the average reader, coming to this from the cold, would not really get the idea of precisely how It is set up and played-As THIS reader, who has been brought up on Muggergamest still has grave doubts about a 'non-number-based' game having to resolve its arguments by die rolls! (Sorry - but there it is. Please believe me that I really DO appreciate the Matrix game - but I believe you should think hard about Just how your readers will receive your words about It. We need a concrete 'recipe' as well as a- general discussion'). Sorry - that's all: Must Dash Best Wishes, Paddy Griffith (Editors Note: Now that's what I call feedback! Four pages of clear thoughts. Complete with both opinions and suggestions. And I for one am not deaf to the need for a 'concrete recipe'. I need to get working on one. Thanks Paddy for the excellent letter. But there's more) Paddy Griffith's Personalised version of Chris Engle's MATRIX GAME (Sorry Paddy, but my PC lacks graphics) There are five players (or playing teams) and one adjudicator. They all sit around a central master map, with each player having his Matrix board on public display in front of him at all times. EACH OF THE FIVE PLAYERS STARTS WITH: a) A pencil, an indiarubber and a 'Matrix' board. The Matrix board consists of 5 x 5 empty boxes, each separated Into a top half and a bottom half. b) One of the five Named Territories (ie Northfield, Eastbourne, Southsea, Westerham, Erehwon) - each of which has a mixture of terrain (= steppe, mountain, forest, lakes, alluvial plain, coastline). The five territories are laid out as shown on the game map (But note that many of the territories shown on the game map are at first occupied by none of the players). c) A basic prehistoric/neolithic Society, which at the start of the game is defined for each player by the same five Institutions: Human Organisation = Small Family Units Worldview = Everything has a Spirit (that can be placated) Relations with Other Groups = Deadly Hostility Food Production Hunting/Gat Goods ProductionIndividual Craftsmen In stone/wood/ bone/leather These 5 Institutions are written out (in pencil) in the top halves of the first five boxes of each players Matrix - leaving the bottom halves empty (for challenges). THE AIM OF THE GAME is for each player to push his society forward, through progressive institutions and/or conquests. The final ranking of each player In order of merit (as assessed by the adjudicator) will be according to the perceived vitality and prosperity of each player's society. PLAY PROCEEDS as follows: a) Each player in turn claims one 'Advance' or 'Progressive Development' he wishes to make In his society. This may be either a modification of an existing Institution (eg 'hunting/gathering' might advance to 'farming'; or 'Everything has a Spirit' might advance to 'only the spirits of Sun, Moon, and Stars are important') - or It may be the creation of some completely new institution/resource (eg 'Discovery of Hallucinegenic Mushrooms'; or 'The Compass'). The player may claim absolutly ANY advance his Imagination suggests - bar none - Provided that he declares It audibly for all the other players, and provided it can be written In a short, pithy phrase. b)After announcing his claimed 'Advance', the player WRITE IT DOWN (in pencil) In the top half of the next empty box in his Matrix. c) Every other player now has the right, If he so wishes, to make ONE (and no more than one) CHALLENGE against the claimed advance - OR against any other Institution that currently features on the claiming player's Matrix (apart from the original five 'starting points'). A challenge consists of any appropriate "short, pithy phrase" which would effectively negate the original claimed advance (eg hunting/gathering advances to farming might be challenged on the grounds that 'whoa! That's far too fast!' or 'There's no fences to keep In the domesticated cattle', or 'Locusts eat Everything'). d) The Adjudicator must now make a snap decision on whether the challenge may proceed. in the above example 'whoa! That's far too fast' might well fail because it is too general/based on too little argument. on the other hand 'There's no fences to keep in the domesticated cattle* or 'Locusts eat everything' might well go through, because they seem to be reasonable objections. The player who originally claimed an 'Advance' now writes down all the allowed challenges In the bottom half of the appropriate box on his Matrix. e) The challenged player attempts to argue his way out of the challenges (eg 'There's no fences to keep in the domesticated cattle' might be denied on the grounds that 'With Juvenile shepherds on 24 hour duty, there's no need for fences' or 'Locusts eat Everything' might be denied by 'The Locusts come only once every 20 years'). f) The Adjudicator (in consultation with all the nonchallenged players) decides which challenges succeed, and which have been successfully denied. (Eg 'With Juvenile shepherds on 24 hour duty, there is no need for fences' might be agreed as reasonable, but 'The locusts come only once every 20 years' might be seen as an Inadequate defence against the total ruination that follows even one attack by locusts). The challenged player rubs out all his claims or institutions that have been successfully challenged, and all challenges that have failed. When all the 25 top-half boxes in any player's Matrix have been filled, the player may superimpose any new institutions upon any old one that he chooses (thereby annihilating the earlier institution) - le no more than 25 boxes may be filled at any time. (Editors Note: An Interesting variant, it is different in some very key way from my original game., My idea was that challenges became part of the Matrix, to act as a kind of counter growth. I also had the idea that players could make administrative arguments to do things on a map. It was this idea of administrative arguments that lead me to my present views on arguments and counter arguments.) Back to Experimental Games Group # 1 Table of Contents Back to Experimental Games Group List of Issues Back to MagWeb Master Magazine List © Copyright 1989 by Chris Engle This article appears in MagWeb (Magazine Web) on the Internet World Wide Web. Other military history articles and gaming articles are available at http://www.magweb.com