So am I advocating using matrix arguments everywhere. Sure why not, but what I am thinking is that Matrix Games are a bit too predictable, not chaotic enough. We put a great deal of faith in the strength of arguments and rating them. I have a sneaky suspicion that we put too much faith in these rating, except John, who puts little faith in these rating. (Good for you John!). We typically judge arguments by their logical consequences, like a lawyer or judge would but I suggest a slightly different criteria.
Typical Vs. Causation
Causation argues that one event must or is likely to kick off another chain of events. We all grew up with this model so I won't go into it. However in life or at least my life, I find very little causation A gives me B, perhaps in trivial situations but not much else.
I met my wife because I liked the internet and had an interest in Romanian History and modern poetry and I was not interested in getting married. My wife posted a nice poem at a site I wrote to her and now I'm married. Nice story, but what I would suggest is that in life we have what is typical, things go together. That I liked Romanian History, (not just Vlad stuff either) and poetry would put me in a position to correspond with a Romanian who liked computers and poetry. Typical for me and for her. The result is pretty obvious, even if the details are not and the chain of events was pretty random.
In matrix games we put way too much faith on the ruling of the referee. We wind up with arugments, quibbles and minute probings of judgements searching for that illusory causation. Instead what I will suggest is that ratings can pretty much be eliminated, and arguments can be allowed or disallowed using a criteria of typical, does this action fit the character, plot or situation if it does give it a pass roll, say a five, toss in a parry argument and you wind up with alot of conflicts, always good, makes for excitement.
I came to this conclusion from my solitaire play where it didn't make a whole lot of difference between a simple rule of any argument wins on a throw of 3 or better, versus rating my own arguments. (I didn't trust the referee and it keeps the guy honest.) If some argument is truly out in left field, throw it out. You still get preparation arguments, bringing the right ingredients together takes time, which is typical of success, but not necessarily guaranteed, like success.
With this simple criteria and loose criteria you will get more wild swings, chaos, in a game, but that's a good thing, like life. Perfect linear analysis, leading from point a to b is the path of totalitarianism and terrorism.
Back to Table of Contents -- Matrix Gamer #28a
To Matrix Gamer List of Issues
To MagWeb Master Magazine List
© Copyright 2002 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