One of the difficulties with Trouble and Conflict Arguments are the variety of different ways that refs implement the rules- and I am limiting myself to interpretations of the Classic MG here and disregarding major departures like Thrust and Parry. There are some rules- like making an Argument succeed in its basic roll before it can precipitate a Conflict or Trouble- that are more or less universally adopted, and others where every ref has a different take.
Sometimes the rules being applied are pretty obvious and reasonably consistently followed. Sometimes the ref makes it clear that he will simply declare Conflicts/Trouble whenever he sees fit as a sort of "artistic control" over a game, not binding himself to any particular rules. Often the ref just announces his decisions without explaining whether they are derived from the application of some principle, or merely created out of narrative whim.
In those games in which there is some obvious method to the rulings, one of several systems might be adopted.
System 1 (The Classic or similar)
Conflicts are declared when successful Arguments posit contradictory results, or when a "battle" occurs between forces of two or more sides. Conflicts may be resolved either by rating players in order of strength and rolling for Conflict Arguments in order until one is successful, or by simultaneous rolling (I have seen both versions). "Trouble" occurs when a player is directly affected over a certain minumum threshhold, and is resolved by the affected player (only) submitting a Trouble Argument. If the Trouble Argument fails then the original Argument succeeds in its unaltered state. "Trouble" is like giving the affected player a "saving throw" and the player making the original Argument does not need to submit another Argument.
As a matter of tactics, Arguments precipitating Trouble or Conflict are best avoided if there is a viable alternative, as such Arguments have 2 chances to fail and so the "average" Argument will ultimately have only a 25% chance of success, rather than the usual 50% chance.
System 2 (Laissez Faire)
There is no distinction between Conflict and Trouble. If the ref thinks the affected player would be miffed if he was not permitted some sort of response, then a Conflict will be declared and all concerned players submit fresh Arguments. Inconsistent Arguments are similarly dealt with. The ref may also initiate "issues" that he thinks arise from the turn and ask for Conflict Arguments on those matters too.
Similar problems to the Classic system, except less consistent.
System 3 (Pac War)
There are no Trouble Arguments. Arguments may seek to precipitate a battle or similar contest, These Arguments initially are rated according to how difficult it would be to precipitate a battle, and then if successful a Conflict Round will take place. In the Conflict, Arguments dice off simultaneously according to the plausibility of battle outcomes (generally submitted in fresh Arguments, but sometimes included in the original Argument). This means that Arguments are not merely rolling twice at the same strength, but quite different matters are being judged in the standard turn and the Conflict Round. Inconsistent Arguments also dealt with by Conflict Round. This lessens the sense that an Argument has "2 chances to fail". On the downside, it can be difficult separating out the "strategic" factors to look at for the first Strength rating, and the "tactical" to focus on on the second.
System 4 (No Conflict Rounds)
Dispense with conflict rounds altogether. Inconsistent Arguments both succeed except to the extent of the inconsistency, and this inconsistency is resolved immediately by dice roll without further Arguments being submitted. Battles are treated no differently from any other Argument- unless one adopts a SCRUD or combat table of some description to roll on.
This approach speeds up the game (half the turns being eliminated), but some players get upset at not being able to respond to Arguments that affect them.
PBEM games would need to be run differently from face-to-face. I must admit I have never played a face-to-face game and don’t like the idea as much as a PBEM, but they would have the advantage of being able to get through more turns in a much shorter time. They would, however, have a number of significant disadvantages over the PBEM, which is what has put me off trying one.
In particular:
- 1. Face-to-face games would have to be kept moving at a rapid pace to
sustain interest- in a PBEM one is not anxiously sitting by the computer
doing nothing whilst waiting for the next results to come in- life is
going on in between turns. In face-to-face gaming, however, players are
doing nothing but play the game, so if it slows up they get bored. This
means that Arguments must be kept relatively short and simple, and there
is little if any ability to consult reference materials in the available
time. This must surely “dumb down” the face-to-face game to some extent.
2.Unlike the PBEM, there is no permanent record of the Arguments that have been made or the rulings thereon. There may be some physical indicia of game status such as figures positioned on a map or table, or counters on a track, but these indicia will only contain a small fraction of the total matrix. Thus the detail of complex Arguments is likely to be forgotten (or remembered differently by players). Once again, this favours simplistic arguments of only a sentence or two as there is less detail to forget.
Together, the above mean that the face-to-face game is better for the more light-hearted beer-and-pretzels type of MG, whilst the PBEM works well with a subject that requires careful thought and research.
I agree with John that players in PBEMs tend to put a great deal of work into their Arguments, and so wish them to have some positive impact on the game. One thus needs a low “Wastage Rate” of Arguments- a low percentage of Arguments that fail to have any effect on the Matrix whatsoever.
In the original “Yes But” style of MG- such as used in Chris’ old Viking game, a “Presenting Argument” was put by one player, and then all the other players would attempt to modify it. The Presenting Argument would always have an impact on the final Argument, and would very likely be modified by one (and only one) of the responses. Assuming one had a typical game with 6 players, the likely result is that 2 out of 6 Arguments would affect the Matrix. Thus one would have a Wastage Rate of 2/3 or 66.7%. I imagine that this was a major reason that “Yes But” was abandoned as an MG form.
Then one has the Classic MG, with Conflict/Trouble rounds. Let us assume that on average an Argument is rated Average, as the name implies. Thus 50% of original Arguments will succeed on average per turn. A reasonable assumption is that 50% of successful Arguments raise a Conflict. Ignoring 3-way Conflicts for convenience, only 1 out of the 2 Conflict Arguments can succeed, and so again half the Arguments have no effect on the matrix. Thus overall the Classic MG has a 1/2 or 50% Wastage Rate.
In an attempt to reduce the Wastage Rate, Chris has promoted the idea of not rating the average Argument as Average, but rather as Strong. This, of course, has the unfortunate effect of limiting the Ref’s ability to judge an Argument according to its merits, as he is striving constantly to keep the Wastage Rate down. Thus poor or overly ambitious Arguments that would otherwise be rated Weak are likely to receive an Average rating instead, whilst an excellent Argument that would normally have the unusual distinction of a Very Strong rating, will now find itself sharing that rating with any Argument that is better than the average. Even with the making of such sacrifices, however, the Wastage Rate is still high. 2/3 of Original Arguments will now succeed, but with more successful Arguments in the initial round, Conflicts will make up a larger percentage of Arguments overall (now a full quarter of Arguments), and the Wastage Rate in Conflict Arguments will remain at ½. Thus the overall Wastage Rate in what might be called the “Skewed Classic MG” is still 3/8 or 37.5%.
In the Thrust and Parry system, it is reasonable to assume that about ½ of the Thrusts will be subject to a Parry attempt. Thus 2/3 of the total number of Arguments will be Thrusts, and all Thrusts have an effect on the Matrix (except in the unusual instance of “Chained Thrusts” which are likely to arise but seldom). Of the Parries, ½ on average will be successful and influence the matrix, and ½ will fail and have no effect at all. Thus the overall Wastage Rate is only 1/6 or 16.7%- less than half the figure of the Skewed Classic and without the problems inherent in deliberately skewing the distribution of Strength ratings.
One could, in theory, have a system with a zero Wastage Rate by using a “partial success/partial failure” system in which every Argument has some effect on the matrix even if it “fails”. So far, every such system advanced has suffered from the difficulty that there is a high degree of arbitrariness in how the Ref determines what the “partial success” is, and the system has never been universally applied but only to such failed Arguments that a Ref likes for some reason. Still, it is possible that a viable system might be invented at some time in the future.
ANOTHER VIEW
Say I'm beseiging a city. I out number them but they have thick walls and good artillery. If I decide to argue to launch an immediate assault then I'm likely going to lose - unprepared assaults on strongly help positions historically tend to fail.
But I'm dumb!
"My men assault the walls and take the city by storm!!!"
The referee rules on the argument's strength. Should he consider whither the assualt is going to work (which it isn't) or if it would even be launched? It all depends if the referee wants to do a second round of arguments. If he wants to do one roll and have done with it - then rule it very weak or even stupid. BUT if the ref wants to do a second round of arguments to settle the matter then rule on how likely the assault would be ordered. In this case it might be a strong or very strong argument. History is full of foolish moves by generals.
Say the referee decided to do a second round of arguments. So the first argument is very strong. The player rolls a 2 so his men charge the wall.
If the referee wants to handle it like competeing arguments (one side saying he wins and the other side saying he loses) then this is fine. I don't do it this way myself but I'm always okay with a ref deciding to do things their own way. The Classical Matrix Game rule though says the referee decides which side is stronger and they get to argue first. Only if they fail does the next strongest argue. Since conflicts can include MANY more than two sides, the person who launches a poorly planned assault risks surviving two or more enemy arguments to defeat him before he even gets to the other sides men. (Imagine British Soldiers on the Somme - most never got close to the Germans).
So the referee turns to the defender and says "So, tell me what happens?"
The defender then says "They are driven off in a bloody repulse!"
"Very Strong!" The defender rolls a 2 and the attack is ended!
But if the defender rolls a 1 the attacker gets to try to make his assault work.
"We take the city by storm. They just weren't expecting this!!!"
Now the referee has to look at how likely the assault is to work. It is very weak at best. So the attacker needs to roll a 6. If he fails then the defender gets to have another go at wiping him out.
So the matter is eventually resolved.
Back to Table of Contents -- Matrix Gamer #29
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