Convention games seem to command an inordnately large amount of the hobbies energy in comparison to the amount of time spent playing. As any convention referee can tell you, getting an event together requires weeks of time and often a large outlay of money to prepare the figures and props. Is it worth it? Or more basic still - Why run a convention game? It is a fact that the members of our hobby are spread out far and wide. Many are lucky enough to have a local club to play at or a group of local gaming buddies. Some are not so lucky and must be content with solo gaming and PBMs. Isolated thus, few new games would come out. Not because people would not be creating but because they would be unaware of one another. That is the function of conventions. They provide the meeting ground for regions of gamers. A forum for the new and a chance to establish friendships in the greater realm of gaming. Convention games are often the "best" the hobby has. They use the newest rules, display the prettiest figures, and cover the most exciting periods... Why do people do this? It is fun but it causes a lot of head aches. It is a great way to meet new people but so is just playing the game. Maybe the reason is that conventions provide a place to tell the world "This is how I run wargames." At first a new idea stands alone at the convention, but after a few years a few other joint in. Eventually new ideas filter down to the isolated pockets of gaming that is the majority and goes Into general usage. That is my goal with Matrix Games. CONVENTION GAME PARAMETERS Convention games all seem to follow the same parameters. They must be quick easy games that can reach a clear conclusion In 4 hours. Simple, yes? The rules must play quickly because most conventions only slot 4 hours for a game to be run in (excluding 1/2 hour set up and clean up time). Slow rules prohibit finishing a game. The rules must be simple, since it is guaranteed that no one will know the rules. Simple rules are easier to teach and tend to play faster. soon players are able to run the game for themselves without the aid of the referee. Who can then set back and trouble shoot slow spots. Finally, game scenarios must have clear easily obtainable objectives that can be reached in ten turns (which seems to be a normal amount of turns playable in convention afternoon). On the surface such simplifications seem "unrealistic" but as games play out this kind of "funneling" seems to increase the similarity of a game to historical events but the sense of certainty it creates. All the players know what is at stake and what they are required to do to "win". These parameters all seem to say the same thing. Convention games must be planned and be good. Not to worry though, this is more easily done than it looks. What follows are descriptions of the MGs I ran at Little Wars, Nashcon, Gen Con, and Peninsula campaigns, in 1991. The are not perfect games but each conforms to the dictates listed above. Hopefully they will give ideas on how to do a campaign of your own. EXAMPLE ONE: THE SWASHBUCKLERS "The Swashbucklers" is the beginners matrix game that I wrote in 1990. The game is about duels and skirmishes of the 17th century. Each player assumes the role of one gentleman/pirate, but as with all MGs one may make arguments for what other characters do. Physically the game consists of a deck of matrix cards, that are laid out (preferably) on another table. A sheet of green felt, with other pieces of cloth acting as terrain. one six sided die per player to resolve turns, and 25mm figures of 17th century swashbuckling types. Each turn the players make arguments from the matrix. The SW matrix Is geared toward very short term, immediate actions, like cocking a pistol or drawing a sword. All wargamers are familiar with this type of game so play runs smoothly. The matrix also includes elements like "Yell Insults" and "Laugh". Consequently imaginative players can begin to win fights without ever drawing their weapons. Just like in Cyrano, the enemies start out by trading insults ("Sir, you have a large nose!") which puts one side down so that he has to fight to regain his honor! During one run of the game the players did not realize that they could make arguments for the other side. This game turned out a lot like standard skirmishes do. In another run, the King's Musketeers won the game (with one of the Cardinal's Guard dead) without ever drawing their weapons. They caused the Cardinal's men to quarrel amoungst themselves. A four hour game generally gets through one combat. Such is the result of a matrix geared so heavily toward immediate actions. It seems to help if the opponents start within one move of one another. EXAMPLE TWO: SAVE GORDON! "Save Gordon!" is a military campaign game that uses the matrix as this years PBM (see earlier article). The game Is about Sir Garnet Wolsey's 1884 campaign to rescue China Gordon, stuck out In Khartoum. The players take on the roles of the various commanders of that war: Gordon, Wolsey, Osman Digna, and of course the Mahdi. The action of the game centers on moving armies around, trying to gain tactical advantages and fighting battles. Physically the game consists of a strategic map which units move about on. The campaign matrix is laid out on the table next to it. This matrix is much smaller than the SW matrix and is generally easier to use. On another table there are two seperate sheets of tan cloth that represent battle fields. one of these is laid out with the siege of Khartoum. Between the two battle fields sit the military units. Each unit contains four 25mm figures. Each unit has a roster sheet for recording casualties and what not. Also contained on the roster are the rules used to fight out the battles - In this case my own home grown "Stupid Simple Rules". Campaign MG use arguments that are geared toward large scale actions. successful arguments start armies in motion, cause battles to happen, - and describe situations in which the battle rules are modified. As. with the previous game, battle do not have to occur for one side to with the war. The Mahdi can argue that the defenders of Khartoum have a lower morale (as defined in the battle rules) because they are starving. The one important point about campaign MGS is that nothing happens unless an argument says it happens. Armies move one area a turn toward a destination set by an argument (though the destination is often the end of the line). Two enemy armies sitting in the same area only fight when an argument says they do. And Armies only experience supply or morale problems when arguments say they do. The strategic map is set up to cause the players to collide with one another and fight battles. When an argument cause a battle to happen, then the referee sets up a battle field and places the opposing units on it. The players then play out the battle in a mini game much like any other miniatures game. Battles generally take 15 to 30 minutes. Battles are usually small since the number of units each side has is reduced form historical amounts to keep the game simple. The players seem to pick up the "mess with your neighbor" part of MG much quicker in this game than with SW. Player repeatedly commented that they had to think more like a general than like a colonel (which is what seems to happen in most campaign games). There is always potential advantage in postponing battle. You may be able to improve your morale or fire power, or hurt the enemy in a similar way. I've run this game more than any other. Gordon has been both saved and lost. In one game the relief column was literally within sight of the city when Gordon was lost. In that particular game Howard Whitehouse was Gordon. I felt pity for his situation so I started letting him make matrix arguments while the battle was being fought. Each turn the dervishes would drive him a little further into the city where only a matrix argument saved him. Finally Howard conceded that he could not think of any reason why his men would not be massacred. Consequently they were. The interchange between the matrix campaign level and the miniature rules battles is very fun. Many of the players commented on this. Finally I have made a game that really allows the players to play both the strategic and tactical levels at the same time. EXAMPLE THREE: PENINSULA CAMPAIGN This is a campaign MG about the first months of the Peninsula Campaign in 1808. It is run using the same matrix and nearly the same miniatures rules as "Save Gordon" uses. Again, the players take on the-roles of the generals Involved: Napoleon, Wellington, etc. What is different is that I use victory conditions In this game. Both sides get victory points for achieving certain objective, but also each commander has personal victory conditions which may put them at odds with their "friends". The physical lay out of Peninsula Campaign is almost Identical to that of "Save Gordon" except that the battle fields are green, the strategic map is of Spain, and the figures are 20mm plastics rather than 25mm leads. The same type of "Stupid Simple Rules" are used though fire power is a little less. Interestingly, French battles against Spanish Guerillas work out a lot like 1884 British vs Dervishes. As above, the campaign MG causes players to think more like a general. Some times this means players make poor choices. In one game the Guerilla commander "El incognito" concentrated all his men together in one place. Naturally the French attacked. It was a big fight, but the Spanish naturally lost. Other players tried other strategems to win. one commander of Spanish Aristocrates went so far as to ride into French held Madrid and declare for the Emperor to try to capture the city. What is even stranger is that the French player let them in and did NOT shoot or arrest them! The inclusion of victory conditions added an element to this game that was lacking in "Save Gordon". one could never be certain of one's allies, since a British victory was not always the same as a Spanish victory. Victory conditions also tend to give direction and urgency to a game, which 15 useful in a four hour campaign. I expect that I will be able to run many variations on this campaign matrix theme for years to come. Next year I'll be doing the 1745 Jacobite Rebellion. EXAMPLE FOUR: THE ROLE PLAY CAME MATRIX The above examples describe an MG used to run an entire skirmish, and an MG used to run the campaign part of war while miniatures rules resolved battles. In this example the MG takes on a secondary role to a standard Role Play Came. The Game is about a simple fantasy campaign in which the players (the D'Amberly clan) are trying to raise the fortunes of their family and have a good time. The MG is used to play out the events that happen in between the role played adventures. Physically this game is like a standard RPG. The referee sits at one end of the table. There is a map of the world in the middle of the table, with a few fantasy figures spread about. And at the far end of the table is an RPG matrix. The RPG part of the game is run using D+D, with each player running one character. At the start of the game each player chooses one member of the D'Amberly Clan to play. Each character has all the information that is standard, and a set of victory conditions. These conditions consist of plans that that character wants to carry out. Part of these victory conditions includes very overt clues as to where the adventures are. Consequently players have incentive to go into danger. Each adventure is short and pointed, little more than an encounter and a combat. They are meant to only last for at most 45 minutes. Between each of these adventures the MG comes into play. It is a truth about RPGs that they are very slow and boring such events as 1. spell Research, 2. Buying when used to pay provisions, 3. Talking to most normal people, and 4. Handling long term Intimate relations like between a character and his father or spouse. MG arguments are a quick way of handling these matters and many more. Players are allowed to make three or four arguments between adventures to improve themselves and achieve their individual goals. Arguments can gain them, new spells, higher stats, social contacts, business opportunities, and more. It is also possible to use the MG during the adventure if the referee so chooses. This is especially helpful when players are trying to set up intricate time consuming plans. Though my experience is limited in running these kinds of games at conventions, players seem to enjoy them well enough. In fact some players seem to get more into the MG than in the RPG. This application of the MG works better in a club or in an ongoing campaign than at cons but it does seem to be a viable event. Back to Experimental Games Group # 15 Table of Contents Back to Experimental Games Group List of Issues Back to MagWeb Master Magazine List © Copyright 1991 by Chris Engle This article appears in MagWeb (Magazine Web) on the Internet World Wide Web. Other articles from military history and related magazines are available at http://www.magweb.com