One of the main applications Matrix Games are now being used for is to allow a group of people to build a world. Each turn players add something new to the world by making arguments. They literally make it up as they go along. This article looks at how people can do this and what can happen next.
WHY BUILD A WORLD WITH A COMMITTEE?
From Childhood on up people love to play construction games. Children build sandcastles and tell stories. Some adolescents begin writing poetry and fiction as well as make games. While adults build the most amazing doll houses and model train lay outs. So there is a clear appeal to building entire worlds.
Role play game scenario designers and fiction writers have for a long time enjoyed the challenges of creating world. But doing it in groups has always been difficult because no one was in charge. That changes with the use of a Matrix Game.
In Matrix Games each player makes one argument a turn to add something to the world. One player is referee, but given how weak MG referees are, he is not in charge of the game. The players effectively share power. If one player does not approve of another players arguments he can use his arguments to counter them. Thus real life conflict gets played out in the game as the dynamic forces of nature clashing with one another.
The end result is a story line that no one person can claim credit for. One person my account for more than another, but if those arguments were influenced by the ideas first put forward by another player (and they always are) then it is a shared creation. This common world can then be used by any of the participants in individual endeavors - short stories, games, etc.
METHODS
It is one thing to say this can be done. It is another to do it. Without clear spelled out guide lines many players can not pull together a game. The following section is a how to and why to piece. Pick and choose from it as you will. Each piece provides ideas on how, when and why to use arguments.
WHERE/WHEN DO YOU WANT YOUR GAME TO START?
Before diving in to play, one should first decide what one wishes to do. The name of the game is world building, but where to start? Do you literally want to start at the beginning (Let there by light! or, And then the big bang happened!) or in a Jurassic world full of dinosaurs, or in the Bronze age, or when Columbus first sets foot in the New World, or when Spaceman Jones first lands on Alpha Prime? The starting point makes a difference!
It is possible to start in a world totally different from our own. Even the laws of physics do not have to work the same! This kind of discussion generally means starting the world at creation. Mine you, unless an argument specifically changes the rules of the world what players generally do is fill in the blanks with what they know about this world (so most games are effectively this world without our doing anything). Players do this due to the human need to impose order on the world we see. We see a few bits of information and our mind fills in the blanks (i.e. makes it up), in other words creates a gestalt. Just like seeing animals in the clouds. There are no animals, our brain creates the gestalt of an animal from the patterns it sees.
A few simple decisions up front, like "The game is set on an alien world where life evolved in very different patterns from Earth." suggests lots of ideas as to what is there and what kind of arguments should be made. Mind you it suggests different things to different people. One person will think of how different plants might evolve (very Arthur C Clark like) another will think of the trials an early settler might face (like a Heinlin novel) while a third might think of a Buck Rogers/Ming the Merciless sci fi world! Each players vision will become clear when the game starts. Their arguments will make them obvious - "The world is ruled by an all powerful Chinese like emperor in really flashy cloths."
DO YOU WANT TO USE A MAP?
Matrix Games do not require a map. But maps are another wonderful source of information to suggest ideas on what should happen in the game. One of my early influences in making Matrix Games was a giant turning globe model on the campus of the university I graduated from. I wanted to have a game I could play on that map!
If a map is not used, then the world becomes a flat, featureless plain. Players will fill in the blanks (in effect writing the map) with their arguments.
One consideration is how much of a plot driven story you want to tell. Games with maps tend to be more plot driven than games without maps. So if you want a game to be just about building a world it may be better to no have a map.
DO YOU WANT TO HAVE A CAST OF CHARACTERS?
A character in a Matrix Game can be an individual, a group of people, an entire tribe or even a nation! World building games may start with a set group of characters or it may be an empty world that needs to be filled up.
Having characters tends to suggest more plot driven stories to players. People naturally want their characters to do something. The less personalized people are the more energy players tend to put into world building.
It is likely impossible to exclude characters from a game. If not included, players will make them up via arguments. Which they can easily do given that it is the players who control the game. They will make with it what they want.
If characters are used, who do you want to describe them? A list of the names of the characters will do, but one can do so much more. As always players will tend to fill in the blanks of character descriptions so it is okay to have less detailed write ups. Which is why the characters I use in other MGs use a brief "sound bite" from the character and leave the details for the players to make up. This is not satisfying to many players. They want numbers and details (since they think that this creates more certainty and more reality).
Lots of numbers and stats are not part of Matrix Games. In fact Matrix Games were made as a rebellion against the proliferation of statistics and rigid rules in games. Players can use them but they will have to make them up. This can be done with arguments. Each turn, the players argue for what new rule they want to add on. This is certainly in keeping with the world building theme but may lose a lot of player's interest. Rules writing is fun for some of us but most people just like to play!
HOW DO YOU WANT TO GO ABOUT RUNNING TURNS?
Clearly each turn includes players making arguments about what they want to have happen next. The basic rules on how to run turns can be found at http://www.io.com/~hamster so there is not need to reinvent the wheel. But what one argues about can vary from game to game. Below are some suggestions on the variety of approaches.
FREE STYLE: TOTALLY OPEN ENDED TURNS
Totally open turns allow players to make arguments about anything they want to. There are absolutely no limits. This method is best used with games starting at the beginning of time. It allows for everything to be done at once.
The open turn approach though has some very definite weaknesses. It demands that the players make up everything! Not just arguments, but also what the story will be, how to tell it, who the characters are, what rules will be needed, etc. This is an awful lot to ask! My impression is that few players really want to do this. The other weakness is that the open approach does nothing to pull the players together to tell a unified story. So many open approach games resemble parallel play or solo games than cooperation games.
TASK DRIVEN TURNS
Another approach is to give the players a task that must be solved. For instance "We need to find out what kind of animals live on this continent." The referee decides what the goal is and tell the players how many arguments they get to come up with an answer. "You get five arguments to settle this issue." The players then begin making arguments.
Because of the task all the players are working towards the same goal. Because it is time limited, a certain tension is created. This approach can be used to run games with many players or for solo games. And since the task drives the arguments, the referee can make a game more or less plot driven.
A plot driven game might use a series of arguments that tell a story. For instance a Arizona settlement game might use the following tasks: 1. Describe how the early settlers arrived, four arguments. 2. Describe their relationship with the Indians, three arguments. 3. What is the impact of cattle on the economy, four arguments. 4. The army sends in troops to protect the settlers, five arguments. 5. The rail road is coming, five arguments. Etc. As you can see this is a world building game but also tells the story of settlement. Within each task players can use characters as the vehicles to make actions happen.
A non plot driven game would use very different task. For instance: 1. Explain the physics of this world, ten arguments. 2. What is the effect of red sun light on kyptonite, five arguments. Etc.
A variation on the task approach is to ask a simple question and give the players only one argument to solve it. In this way players can rapidly answer many questions about situations. This is the method I use to put regular games into high gear, because it rapidly provides answers to the lose ends of a game.
THE CHALLENGE/PROBLEM APPROACH
Each turn, the referee throws a challenge at the players. If they solve it then all is well, but if they don't it carries with it a consequence of failure. It is different from the task approach because failure of a task brings no additional consequence. This approach give the referee a lot of power since he makes up the challenges and consequences. This verges back on role playing in that the referee largely calls the shots. The task approach does not suffer this same weakness because players can ignore the referee's task with impunity. While with the challenge approach the ref has the power of punishment.
A variation on this approach is to ask players to first make an argument about what challenge they will face next turn. All argue, but the referee rules them logically inconsistent, so they roll off and only one happens. They then face that issue.
Making players responsible for making up their own challenges solves the problem of giving the referee too much power. It also reinvolves players in world building since problem making is just as important as problem solving in the creative process.
MATRIX GAMES ARE MORE THAN JUST WORLD BUILDERS
I understand that right now people are very interested in using Matrix Games are world building tools. They certainly can be used for that. But they can also be used for so much more. For years I've been concerned on MGs being pigeon holed as "Just a wargame." I would hate for them now to be seen just as a world building game. They really are much more.
My bias is in favor of plot driven games. Partly because I find they have a much wider appeal amongst mainstream gamers. But also because I just like stories. When I read a book, it is seldom about geology or physics. I may like philosophy and rules writing but I recognize that I am weird. Most people like scenarios with people, action and a good chase. If the game has to be categorized, better to be seen as a popular story teller than as an academic sleep enhancer!
I do not want to poo poo world building games. I used them extensively in 1989-91 to develop the basic matrix of the Matrix Game. If I am not as interested in the genre it is just because I spent some much time experiementing in it so long ago. Old news to me, but new news to everyone else.
So world building has a definite place in the spectrum of Matrix Games. There are certainly more and better approaches to running them than I've written here. I expect that this will be one of the areas that the most creative of Matrix Gamers will thrive in.
Back to Table of Contents -- Matrix Gamer #6A
To Matrix Gamer List of Issues
To MagWeb Master Magazine List
© Copyright 1999 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