A commenter writes: "I think that creating dynasties is an interesting idea. One idea although complex would be to create generations, with characters for each generation, to succeed when one character passes away. You would need many characters to play this game." Sounds a bit like a recipe for "Highlander -- the Matrix Game." "The second and more matrix way of doing this is allow the players to "spawn" offspring, through marriages or trysts with the serving wenches." Clearly matrix games needs to address the desires of possible female gamers (are there any?) -- I'm sure they'd have some opinions about "spawning" and "wenches" at least. "They would then have families and arguments could be made about the offsprings talents, rivalries etc. I wouldn't worry about inter-tribal or clan rivalries not being created. Give each clan or member conflicting, zero-sum goals and you will get loads of conflict. Heck, even without this I bet you get loads of conflict anyway." The key word should be "complexity," not "conflict." You have a simple and proven method for dealing with conflict, but not with complexity. "The key would be to how you developed the character description and goals. This is where good game design shows up." This is where I comment. I'll concede the point that good game design shows up here. But I'll add that more player interaction is what is needed as well. I've noticed a few things in my limited experience at this sort of gaming. First, while there are often lots of characters, there are never enough players. This means action takes place in a limited framework. When I played USSA (great great game, btw) I reacted to this by taking on not one character, but a set. I successfully argued for introducing a set of characters who then worked together but also worked each with a different "opponent" shall we say. So main character General Pershing worked with a set of officers of recognized competence, while each officer engaged with an opponent to provide feedback for Pershing. It felt more like a conversation (or an argument) and less like sending orders into the blue. Second, not only are there never enough players, but character and personality tend to be givens. "Ali Baba, thief -- powerful in certain ways -- 'Wait till their backs are turned, then we can slit their throats without making a sound'" is the way one is described currently. Seen one way, it provides us with a ready-made tool whose abilities and moral outlook are predefined -- a stereotype that works within the game (but nonetheless a stereotype). Seen a different way, the importance of "character" in a game character is actually overlooked, especially when they become stereotypes as above. Unresolved from USSA is whether Pershing would continue to follow orders from his President after black American citizens started being rounded up as subversives. He was a man of honor, and the game plot would put this to the test -- that's why I jumped in as Pershing. Third, the plot turns into a contest between the powerful -- Ceaucescu fights his own secret police with a cadre of loyal men. There are so many layers that remain invisible, where the clan interactions the poster mentioned would take place, that unless some other form of player interaction can be devised the matrix games will stay interactive war games instead of the cultural doorways they can be. I tried to work against this in USSA by introducing a number of random reactions from beyond the scope of the active characters -- suffragette demonstrations in New York, independence movements in Finland, fissures developing outside the scope of the game as argued that would themselves require response and so increase the game's scope (and offer new characters for anyone wanting them). This is how history works. Let me propose a way of dealing with this. First, each player ought to pick several characters from a variety of social backgrounds, and argue for one or for as many as he/she wishes, per turn. This would provide for, say, a village of developed characters which could convincingly represent continuation over decades. Second, each main character (at least) ought to be developed by several players, even if those players are in opposition. This would provide for interesting, multi-faceted characters independent of a single individual's argumentive or creative limits. Everyone can agree that General Haig is an ass; but Marshall Petain should be more complex. Third, on the principle that nothing happens in a vacuum, some events beyond the scope of the action in the game should be provided each turn, and the players must guess if these are innocuous or may require attention now or later. What, for example, will William Randolph Hearst do about the hostage Indiana Jones? And does it matter? All of which probably makes our tasks (or at least yours, game master) more complicated. Back to Table of Contents -- Matrix Gamer #13 To Matrix Gamer List of Issues To MagWeb Master Magazine List © Copyright 2000 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