Chris Engle Wrote Partly, I am worried that MG's will go down the same path that RPG's did: arising out of the confrontational, top-down model of wargames, will perpetuate this through later incarnations of MG's without addressing whether this is a correct or usefule model for something as fluid as the MG. Dylan Wrote I think this is a product of top down confrontational players, not the game. My character offered to start peace negotiations in Terror Island, and not one player character bit. This is pretty weird given that I got the guns, and horde of followers. I bet if X showed up at Y's house with an armed mob and suggested a negotiation Y would start negotiating. This may come as a surprise to folks but I don't really like knocking people off. As a Sicilian I should, but I don't. However like Ghengis Khan and Attilla the Hun, I often find myself forced by circumstances to do things like this. Chris Wrote I've long worried about MGs being pideon holed too quickly. I knew They could do sooo many things if given the chance. Now I'm a little less worried. For one, MGs growth has been very very verrrrrry slow. So We are unlikely to be notice let alone pidgeon holed. Also, players don't play games they can't understand before they play. My idea is to concentrate on mystery and intrigue games. I think this has the potential to attract new players better than society simulation games. There is a risk inherent in this but not a big one. Dylan wrote If Matrix games were pigeons the hole I'd stuff them in is more like shared story telling, or those adventure books where the reader chooses an action. It's really not an RPG even though the inventor said it was. He's wrong. First Matrix games do not force players to play a role or one character. Second characters abilities are not limited to those of a particular role or action. I think the fact that a die is used hides the point that this is a narrative game, not a RPG. Last point, while Chris says he is focusing on intrigue vs. Gareth's focus on institutions, moieties and clans, I think Chris realizes that the games work better as narratives. One person vs a whole tribe. He focuses on traditional literary devices like a hook, characters, goals and motives. This is not the area that RPG's usually focus on. He even uses these terms in his rules. The device he has for resolving conflicts is rhetoric. The method is a classical forensic (debate) device. While everyone talks about adding structure to the game, with various devices, the point seems to be missed that the game is structured along the lines of fictional narrative. While not wanting to stifle invention, okay I would like to stifle everything but indoor plumbing, I think the emphasis should be put on making stronger narratives, great situations, plots, characters challenges. I like Terror Island, sort of, because we have a classic natives vs. colonialists game going on. The other things like meals and member recruitment are well beside the point. In many ways we have all the same problems that novelists and storytellers have always had how do we tell a damn good tale and get everyone involved. So adding physics to space craft movements, and other ideas bandied about seem beside the point. My little niece has it right when I tell her a story and she asks "...and then what happened." Back to Table of Contents -- Matrix Gamer #20 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