The French Revolution is one of those stirring conflicts that begs to be gamed. But the problems of keeping track of all the crazy things that happened is enough to end most game design projects before they even get started. obviously this did not stop my recent project, since this years PBM is already in its second turn. Yet it is not enough of a test to run a game by mail. After all, a creative writer could run a PBM game, with detailed result dispatches, without the benefit of a "game system" at all. He could just make It up. obviously, this would fall appart In a face to face run. 1791 is primarily meant to be a face to face game geared to be run at a game convention. As such, it reaches a satisfying conclusion in about 4 hours. The MG gives players a wide variety of action while still focusing them on the important issues of the day. Clear focus seems to be the problem of any game system that does not specifically tell the players what to do. The very fact that the players can try to do anything, confounds some people. "I don't know what to dot This game is stupid!" No, the game is not stupid, "The fault is not in our stars Horatio, but in ourselves." MGs are wide open to this attack without very clear scenarios. I used to think of the matrix as only being the "matrix cards." But after writing a lot of Matrix Game scenarios, it has become clear that the matrix to much more than Just that. Literally every prop used in the game is really a part of the matrix. Consider the props used in 1791 ... 1. A political matrix deck (obviously part of the matrix) 2. 25mm figures representing the population of France 3. A map of the regions of France and Paris 4. Cards representing the power groups/social classes of France 5. A map that shows political alligence of power groups 6. A political problem track 7. Cards representing different parties political agendas (ie their answers to the political problems) 8. And a chart telling each groups present political power. Many of the above props/game mechanisms are borrowed heavily from other games. Area movement is widely used from Diplomacy to Machiavelli. Political power group cards (with varying numbers of "votes") is used by King Maker, and Junta. Finally, a "map" of political alligiences is very much like D and D's alliance systems. So how can they be part of the matrix? At the end of June a group of us played a face to face game of 1791. Here is what we saw... 1. The matrix cards are laid out on the table next to the game board. This is obviously the Matrix. But it Includes many elements that are directly tied Into other props in the game. "Move" clearly looks at pushing FIGURES from one AREA to another. "Political Agenda" isa direct link to the agenda cards each political party has. "Make friends/enemies" moves power groups around on the political alligience chart. Etc. 2. Miniature figures make a game look good. They beat the hell out of cardboard counters even though they serve the same function. In 1791, figures represent the total man power of the nation. They are divided up between the social classes, so there are lots more peasant figures than noblemen. Each action called for by an argument has to be done by people (i.e. a figure assigned to do it). In a steady state world the peasants are all farmers, the san cullotes are all workers, the merchants all do business, the middle class all run the bureaucracy, the clergy run the church, and the nobility are heads of state. France is far from this steady state. Already the san cullotes are in the army and engaging in political debate, as are the peasants in the south. The merchants are also in the army. While the clergy and nobility are split due to emigration. This is obviously an important part of the matrix since a person can only fight a battle in the area one is in and the upper classes while having a lot of political power do not have the man power to back it up. 3. A map of France. Again, this fits with where figures are placed. Actions happen in certain locations as well as done by certain people. When civil war seems eminent, control of land takes on much greater meaning. 4. Political power group cards are the building blocks of political parties. They are laid out before each player to Indicate which classes or factions support him. This gives him control over these figures should it come to a fight. Other players can make arguments for the figures of other players factions but in such cases the interloper is not In charge of the figures. He is just manipulating them to do something that may actually hurt them. The Jacobins and Cordilliers were terrified of this happening during the revolution. They knew that they did not have complete control over their own people. That is one reason why they started the Terror -- get the Aristos before they get you! obviously this is another piece of the matrix of Information that makes up the scenario. It also gives players a clear understandable objective - control the hearts and minds of the people. (Even if this means filching groups from other peoples parties.) 5. A map or graph showing the political allegiences of power groups. Groups are either Pro Government, Anti Government, Neutral, or Angry. This clearly shows how much political power a government has and how much power is opposed to it. Any political party can be running the government. At the start of the game the liberal aristocrats are in charge. Unfortunately for them though is that they do not have a majority of the power in the game. So, if they called for an election (as their political agenda calls for them to do) they will lose power to the Girondists or some other coalition of parties. Players can make arguments that move political parties and non alligned power groups around on the allegience graph. Lord! In 1989 the communist government of Hungary changed its name to "socialist" and became anti communist (i.e. anti themselves) and managed to get reelected to power. Angry groups are much more likely to joint anti government parties if arguments are made to do this (ie more likely to be a strong argument). While neutral parties more recruitable to government plans. Clearly this is important information to have. Who is angry and who is openly hostile are vital in directing what actions need to be taken next. 6. Political problems are what bring down governments. They also seem to be the prime motivation in forming governments to begin with. Say the problem is famine. If someone does not resolve the problem then people are going to starve. Starving peasants are likely to become impatient and angry with governments that leave them hungry. My ideas on the point are still in a state of flux, but it does make since that with famine and financial crisis the rural poor are hit first followed by the urban poor and on up the line to the King himself. So for each turn a problem remains it causes one power group to become angry with the government. So problems are generators of change. Maybe the Hungarian communists saw the writing on the wall that their financial crisis had caused. Their party members became "angry" with communism, but rather than destroy it (ie themselves) they translated their anger into transforming THEIR party Into something new. (It seems significant to me that they did this so peacefully. Everyone else In Eastern Europe seems to be ready to fall into anarchy - but no one seems interested in civil war In Hungary.) Problems are the most important direction giving force In any scenario. Committee games are wholly driven such problem solving. Battle games are exercises in tactical problem solving. Political MGs give players political problems to play with. Practically all the actions of the game are in some way geared to resolve the problems plaguing the nation. Why the French thought that Radical Democracy would help end a financial crisis I do not know. But they did and it led to the Napoleonic wars that we gamers all love so well. This game mechanism needs more work, but I can see how clear compelling problems like taking control of the government, causing a social revolution, or winning the most prestige could make for good scenarios. Fantasy Adventures fit into this as well, so that a political MG can be used to back up a RPG campaign. 7. Political agenda cards are the part of the "prop matrix" of the game that take the "stupid" out of the scenario. The agendas in the French revolution are clear to us now (just read a few books). The players do not have to "make them up." Each agenda can be acted on by parties individually -- so the Girondists can institute capitalism on their own. But the goverment can only act on the agenda set by the government when it comes into power. Somehow the political agendas are meant to solve the problems of the scenario. One wonders how the Jacobins thought being anti everything would solve anything, but what do I know (after all I voted for Mondale in 84). So agendas are another vital part of the matrix since they tell people how they can/should act. 8. Measuring political power using a number is an old idea. Many times I've poked fun at it by comparing Grok the caveman's 6 combat factor to the starship Enterprise's 3 combat factor. Which one is more powerful? But my logic was always spurrious. Numerical evaluations of relative power are all game specific. So what am I measuring with my number? I'm not really sure. Political power seems to consist of money, talent, education, control of resources, prestige and tradition. This is a hard concept to pin down let alone have a complex formula for determining it. 1791 uses a thumb nail evaluation of relative power. The nobles and clergy had a lot of power but were split by the revolution. The Girondists won the election of 1791, so they must have had a lot of power as well. But not enough to dominate the lower classes or to prevent the Terror. Political power shows how many votes a group has In an election (an action caused by an argument but played out by actually voting since it is more fun that way). It could also be used to tell the ratio of power in whatever other extra game competition the players might want to use (like how many chess pieces a side would get In a chess end game). These numbers are not written in stone, so players can attempt to alter the balance of power during the game by either increases their power or decreasing their enemies power. Fishing for advantages of this type is a favorite activity of gamers anyway so this to gives players direction in what they can do. WHAT HAPPENED IN THE JUNE GAME We played around 18 turns in the space of one afternoon. One of the four players had never played an MG before. one other one had only done a couple. While my brother Ian and I have been doing this type of game for 5 years. Ian took the Royalist, I took the Girondists, Ben took the Cordilliers, and Craig (the neophyte) took the Liberal Aristos. An election was held quite soon in which the Girondists took control of the government. The Liberal Aristos remained pro government and aided the Girondists in instituting capitalism to try and solve the financial crisis. We were able to moderate the crisis, but interferance from the anti government Cordilliers prevented our solving the problem. Meanwhile, the King was hatching neferious plots! Sure he looked like an idiot to most of us. "Look I have a clock in the shape of a dog, whose eyes move back and forth." But he had a plot to be sure. He realised that the people hate the Austrian Bitch, oh! I meant to say the Queen! If Louis could only rid himself of her, the people would love him anew! Finally the Cordilliers rose up in Paris and after a spirited Free Kriegsspiel defense we of the government were forced out of the capital. In all the excitement, the rabble failed to capture Louis, who fled to the Liberal Aristos. For some reason these former supporters of liberty took him out of Paris and fell under his royal spell. Meanwhile the Girondists cut a deal with the radicals to form a coalition government. "I only did it to prevent a civil war" I was heard to mutter. Of course a King on the loose, and a shaky coalition in Paris Is not a good sign for the future. But good politicians that we were, we only fought a few skirmishes out in the provences. At the games end the King had Indeed rehabilitated himself to the people - solving the problem "Down with the King!" The Coalition had in the mean while solved the Financial crisis. There only remained to see who would rule France. My guess is that we would have made a political solution. I would have gladly turn coated on the Cordilliers as I did on my own government earlier in the game. So maybe we would have have a constitutional monarchy - without the Napoleonic Wars! Or we could have started the war in the Vendee to drive out the King. The English Civil War all over again. WHAT I LEARNED I committed myself to running 1791 at Peninsula Campaigns in Michigan for August this year. At the time this game did not exist. By setting the dead line so I was able to motivate myself to open up In a more repeatable way political MGs. If I write another Matrix Game product it will likely be a political campaign in a day. Also I can now see why the Terror was started. The radicals were completely justified in their fear that the conservative royalists were plotting against them. At the same time, the radicals and the moderate nobles had come to their parting of the ways. Once revolution opens the door on violence as a political tool then no government is safe unless it has a monopoly on power. This means killing off or subduing all who might oppose you. It is not as crazy as it sounds. it was telling that we were all moderate americans because we chose to back down rather than fight a civil war. I wonder what French players of the game would have done? Back to Experimental Games Group # 20 Table of Contents Back to Experimental Games Group List of Issues Back to MagWeb Master Magazine List © Copyright 1992 by Chris Engle This article appears in MagWeb.com (Magazine Web) on the Internet World Wide Web. Other articles from military history and related magazines are available at http://www.magweb.com