On my 1 1/4 hour commute each day, I have been thinking about matrix games quite a lot (when not suppressing the homicidal impulses the other drivers often engender). One thing I've noticed from playing Blood Island is that matrix game arguments fall into one of two different types: arguments that expand the boundaries of the matrix in some way (usually giving everyone more opportunities) or, conversely, arguments that "fill-in" the matrix, thereby restricting opportunities. In general, the former type of arguments would be more common at the beginning of the game, while the latter would be more common near the end. A good example of the second kind of argument, would, of course, restrict your opponents possibilities while enhancing your own. The great thing is that the next argument could "trump" the current one and, in effect, reverse the effects. It seems to me that that Trumping ability is what makes matrix games so interesting to play - and is something that a good scenario should encourage. (Interestingly, that trumping ability is also very similar to the way Magic works. In fact, Magic is in a lot of ways quite similar to matrix games, with the matrix of possibilities built up by the design and interaction of the player's decks.) That's one reason why I think a good starting structure is so important. Without such a structure to influence its growth, the matrix would be just as likely to grow - "like Topsy" - in one or more random directions that, first of all, all players might not be happy with and therefore lose interest (as I think we've seen happen), or second, grow in so many directions that it becomes impossible to fill (and therefore reach a resolution) in in any meaningful way (losing focus). It seems to me that one good indicator of a well-designed matrix game is that it doesn't need an arbitrary number of turns to either ensure a decent length or a conclusion. It should naturally tend to reach a resolution in an appropriate amount of time. I'm also particularly intrigued by using quite simple and familiar games as bases for Matrix games. Clue, I think, would be an ideal pattern for a murder-mystery game since it has a well-defined Universe and a clear goal and resolution. I'd like to try a version of it where the object would not be to "win" (by finding out who "really" did it) so much as to not allow yourself to lose by being inextricably implicated by the other players. 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