Gareth started the following topic on the Matrix Gamer group. Yet more ideas about how to use MG's. This is sort of the logical extension of the sequence game - tell me what you think. A chain game is a matrix game that defines the game space with a number of chains instead of a game board. Each chain describes an unresolved conflict that exists in the game space and which the players of the game aim to influence through means of matrix game arguments. For example, a chain might describe the process of becoming emperor, or defeating a hostile army. Chains provide the motivations of characters in the game and lend supporting information about other aspects of the game space. A set of chains describing a macro-level conflict is referred to as a Context. Conflicts A conflict is any condition or state of the game space which an actor or entity in the context seeks to change, destroy or otherwise alter in any way. A conflict describes an ambition or a process that animates the game space. Chains A chain is a series of conditions that describe the progress of the resolution of a conflict. Conflicts usually arise from the Context, and describe the conflicting goals of characters within the game. For example, rival dukes may quarrel over possession of a fief, or Hannibal may strive to cross the Alps. The conflict (starting point) and resolution (end point) of a chain are defined, and several conditions imposed in order to describe relative difficulty. The more intractable the problem, or the more ambitious the goal, the more nodes will appear between the Conflict and the Resolution. There are several different types of chains, and they appear in a summary list below. Contexts A Context is composed of a number of chains that illustrate a historical epoch, military struggle or an imaginary society. The GM usually defines these chains before play begins. They provide the players with the narrative of the game, and allow them to make a decision about which faction to take the part of. Potentially, each player may also submit a chain, or perhaps chains may be generated by argument within a context during play. A context also defines any victory conditions, which may exist. Resolving Conflicts During play, players submit arguments to the GM for adjudication. These arguments may cite any fulfilled node in a conflict or other prevailing condition that pertains in the Context. The GM assigns a rating to these arguments and they are diced off as normal. Arguments may be specifically aimed at changing conditions such that one or more condition is fulfilled or frustrated, and the changes are recorded in the Context. For example, one of the rival dukes might argue that a military assault deprives the enemy of a valued fortress, taking control of a section of the disputed territory. Should this argument succeed, one of the nodes on the chain representing control of the fief may become fulfilled for them. Types of Chains There are a variety of chain types in Matrix Chain games, describing the various relationships that may occur within the game. Chains are composed of nodes, as mentioned above, but the rules that govern how a node on a chain may be addressed (i.e. referred to by argument). SO far, I have thought of these types of chains: Clock Chains Changes condition each turn cycle, e.g. years. Usually used as the turn meter. Nodes may have pre-specified conditions that come into effect when that Clock node is reached. Cycle Chains Goes through cycle over a number of turns, e.g. seasons. At the end of the cycle it starts again without interruption. Gravity Chains Has a tendency to resolve itself in one direction each turn, but may be pushed back by argument. May not be pushed beyond the starting node. Mesh Chains Any node may be addressed from a neighbouring node. Each player can add one node to a mesh chain at start of play? Sequence Chain Must be resolved in order, nodes only addressable from prior node. Marcus Young commented: I think the "chain" concept would be quite useful as a game mechanism within an MG to regulate one or more important aspects of the game, but I don't think you could have an MG that is nothing but chains. Chains are a means of simplifying and quantising an aspect of the game by reducing it to a linear sequence of points. This would be more appropriate for some things more than others, as some aspects of a game ore more one-dimensional than others. Passage of time, progress along a single invasion route, amount of money in treasury are one-dimensional and amenable to this treatment. Matters of politics, diplomacy, and military movement where troops are not confined to only one or two axes are, however, complex- although they could be simplified and reduced to a chain, this would have the effect of losing much of their rich tapestry of detail. By way of example, just say the level of internal support of a government is reduced to an "unrest chain" that moves from "enthusiastic populous" up to "open rebellion". This treatment would neglect the fact that different sections of the community could have different perspectives. The government might be tribally-based, and government decisions might simultaneously please the dominant tribe but greatly displease the minority tribes. Or the nobles might be behind the government, but not the peasants. The clergy might be on side except for a breakaway group of rabble-rousing prophets. One could, of course, have a separate chain for the approval of each sectional interest, but that such a system would likely prove too cumbersome. One instance that I think the chain method would be of advantage is if you had a "countdown to midnight" scenario in which most players were battling against the clock to do something before a time limit expires. Just say a nuke was hidden in New York and most players represented various law enforcement groups trying to track it down before the preset timer detonated it at, say, midnight. The clock would be advanced whenever the terrorist player made a successful Argument to that effect, and once advanced could never be turned back... Gareth replied back Thanks for the comment. Yeah, there are definitely issues to be worked out, and I'll tinker for a bit. I'd like to give it a try sometime, though, and see how they work. Some thoughts on the issues you raised: The general idea here was to try to rationalize the way MG's interact with maps and arguments, and to draw principles from that. The spaces that games occupy are necessarily reductions of the real-world circumstance they are trying to model. Maps have edges, but the world does not. Thus when one is defining a game, or drawing a map, we are necessarily trying to model only a subset of all the particular actions and interactions that can, have and may occur. The idea of chains aims at formalizing this process, or at least some tools with which to think about and approach the problem. I think that non-MG games include implicit chains within their structure, such as a fixed number of territories to control. But my experience with MG's is that when confronted with a new game, I am paralyzed by indecision - the ability to do anything means I cannot evaluate options meaningfully. So by making the chains part of the information available to the players, they can formulate clear strategic goals. I expect that a game might compose more than one context, and certainly more than one chain. I don’t think the chains should be seen as describing all the world; they are meant to represent trends. One way to deal with exclusivity problems is to give chains markers if they are shared by a number of groups - so the "unrest chain" might range from "loved by the public" to "figure of open hatred". Factions like churches, governments or individuals could be given markers to indicate where they are on that chain. Thus a game with several chains and factions might look a bit like snakes and ladders, as players argue for their own climb up a chain and the fall of the others - preferably in the same argument. The chains are not meant to take away the primacy of argument in MG's; merely to provide clear goals and victory conditions which are mutually comprehensible. Back to Table of Contents -- Matrix Gamer #23 To Matrix Gamer List of Issues To MagWeb Master Magazine List © Copyright 2001 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