Now step back away from the rules and look at what is happening in the game. Either method (competing arguments or strongest side argues first) works to create an outcome. In fact both outcomes look the same after the fact. It is only how they are reached that is different. The competing argument method says - everyone has a chance to make stupid unprepared things happen. "I could get lucky!" says the poor player. And he is right! Now I ask you, how often have you seen players do the stupidest things because they had a 1% chance of doing it? That often? Really? Hummm... The Strongest side first method says - You can do anything you want, but if you're not prepared, you won't win! The strongest side gets the real advantage of ending the fight at a stroke. He also gets the real psychological advantage of going first. Now the players do not know who the referee will see as being strongest. So going into battle is always tinged with uncertainty (as I think it should). Players are thus encouraged to make planning arguments. To compete over who is better prepared/positioned rather than just asking the question "Do I feel lucky today?" That is why I opted for the conflict method I eventually did. It allows multisided conflicts with extra argument elements (preparation rewards) that is easier on the referee than having to weigh all the pros and cons of each side in every arguments strength. I think your finding out one of the interesting points of Matrix Gaming. If the referee is ever worried about missing something he need not worry. The players will ALWAYS point out logical inconsistencies! This then challenges the referee's character. Some people get all upset when their judgement is questioned. They can actually melt down (thus ending a game). Other's have no trust in their own judgement and are swayed by all arguments. These referees are soon faced with opposing opinions of players that force them to make a decision. The players thus force him to do his job. Sadly this referee may never run again (unless the players are friendly and display the courtesy of Gentlemen). Some referees want to explain their thinking but in the end have made up their minds. Others make up their minds but do not want to explain themselves. Of all these responses to challenges only the first will destroy the game. The players quibbles help a new or a weak referee run the game. Think how different this is from rules lawyering! 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