John leads off The biggest problem that I think we've seen so far with matrix games is when the game goes off in a direction that some of the original players never foresaw or desired - and aren't interested in continuing. With a traditional game, of course, alternate possibilities are built in to the system and are (we hope) play tested ahead of time to ensure balance. With a matrix game, there are a couple of ways to help ensure that the game stays on track. First is through well-designed goals and victory conditions. Second is through a well-defined scenario - and a strong referee who keeps the arguments within those bounds. Third is through any formal systems that hinder or help certain strategies. Chris Replies You asked what matrix I used with my solo Matrix Game. Sadly I did not use a formal matrix. It was all based on my understanding of wargames. Here are the inputs... 25 years wargaming experience 20 years rules writing experience Keegan's "The Face of Battle" Swinton's "The Defense of Duffers Drift" First had accounts and good historical accounts of WW1 actions A terrain field complete with trees, village and 15mm toy soldiers. Having grown up watching the Vietnam War on TV every night from birth till age 12. This is a complete matrix but not a matrix that I can readily share with anyone else. Recently (due to my use of these same rules as a social skill training game) I've become aware of how important an easily shared matrix is. It is all nice and fine to play a game with people who already know a world matrix (even if it is not exactly like your own). It is quite another to play with a novice. They do not even know the basics! They need an easy to look at matrix to show them the parameters of what they are dealing with. This exists for social skills - they call them social scripts. They have them for all kinds of things (washing hands, saying hello, even masturbating for God's sake!) They use them to train mentally retarded people. I do not know a comparable set of scripts for military events. Maybe we need to build them ourselves. We can start with simple ideas a refine them from there. Dylan Adds I think Chris is making a good point about Matrix and expert knowledge it is often not easy to put into words, because it is both conscious and unconscious cognitive maps along with behavior. I think people who play miniature battles have a pretty good idea of what constitutes a battle matrix. Obviously in a civil war game people do not have the ability to grow wings and fly. I don't see the point although for the purists go ahead, of working out allowed commands and actions. This is called a rulebook, and there are quite a few of them. Somewhere on magweb I think you can dig up the late Jack Scruby's list of Army traits, such a predictability, morale, training and a bunch of other traits. This would be a starting point. You could also go to the Wargamers Design site, and pick out the original combat matrixes words. My game has a list of suggested actions, but I think by the time you refined all the actions and allowed arguments, you would wind up with a rulebook. I don't see Matrix games as being all that conducive to DBA type legalism and contests between two non- cooperative players, it's just the wrong format. John Replies As you point out, there is always a matrix - either implicit or explicit. In a traditional rules-based game, the matrix is both explicit and completely defined (not open to being extended). Problems arise in traditional games when situations occur which aren't covered by the rules/matrix or when the rules can be interpreted in multiple ways. In a matrix game, if the matrix - or part of the matrix - is implicit, then you are relying on the player's sharing both a common understanding and a common purpose in resolving unusual situations. While common understanding is close to achievable with small groups that know each other well, common purpose is not the case in any competitive game. That's why I've been saying that an implicit matrix is more suitable to storytelling or RPG-like games. The strength of an explicit matrix game isn't the fact that "anything goes"; it's the fact that the starting matrix can be extended in a "logical" manner - with what being defined as logical depending on the scenario and its boundaries. It is, of course, the referee's responsibility to ensure that the scenario boundaries of what is logical, possible, and believable - in the context of that specific game and matrix - are adhered to. However, the better-defined the matrix at the start, the easier it is for the players to extend it without wandering too far afield. In the same way, the use of formal systems (for combat, etc.) provides structures that can limit the way the matrix might be abused, encourage its extension in certain directions, and ensure play balance. (That's a short recap of what I said long ago.) Chris (the editor) gives himself the self serving last word!!! I think it is worth creating a war matrix for games. I'm not sold on the idea of an outside system resolving what happens. Be it a combat results table, rolling for each bullet fired or some other wargamey method, the results are no different that what I have in the Vietnam game. The difference was in how fast my solo game went as opposed to a game using a more mainstream approach. I'm reminded of a philosophical argument. Can we trust our sensory input? Since there is ample debate on this point I feel free to grant that senses are fallible. That they can mislead. That sometimes we impose what we want to see on the world. Having said that - do we have any other choice but to trust our senses?!? Science as a method relies on senses - measurement. Repeated measurement gives us information with which to spot patterns in. Theory helps describe pattern. Science favors mathematical models as theories despite the clearly seen fact that it is hard to find the mathematical underpinnings of most phenomena. When we believe there is a mathematical (highly measurable, consistent) principle we are sitting at the dinner table with Pythagoras. Mystical belief in numbers may cloud more than it reveals. Phenomena are chaotic. Difficult to predict, nearly impossible to control. Making lists of patterns might be the best we can do. It is at least a pragmatic approach if not the most scientific. Back to Table of Contents -- Matrix Gamer #25 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