We share an interest. We play wargames. More specifically, we play historical miniatures wargames. It is a wonderful hobby that I have pursued since 1976 In that time there have been many battles fought, all manner of periods covered, and much fellowship had. One thing though stands out In my mind about it all. I remember the campaigns best. Campaigns are hard to run. I know from my own campaigns that it is easy to get overloaded with information. Most referees experience this at least once. There are many ways out of this trap. One way to avoid having too many rules or too much record keeping or to do "Free Kriegspiel" games. For years I went that route, but now I use a Matrix Game (MG for short). Consider the following examples of how campaigns work... 1. The referee decides to run a campaign. He rounds up the figures, rules, and players needed to play. The rules are simple. They cover movement rates, and a few supply rules. The players then build armies and start negotiating. Soon orders are turned in and a battle results. Since it's a campaign, players act more conservatively. Often times, it's not a very interesting battle. On the next turn, some players send in no orders while others send in 30 pages of orders. The referee soon becomes alternately bored and overloaded. It soon becomes rare that all the players are ever present for a battle (even when their own country is at stake). The campaign often dies by turn 3. 2. In this case, the campaign Is just the same as above except that the referee lets it be known that he plans to be a little looser with the rules. Players begin to ask the referee if their men can do x or y. They are fishing for advantages. If the referee is 'Firm' this approach can make for a fun playable game. If the referee is not good at saying no, then the same overload problem arises. 3. In this case a referee says he plans to run a "Campaign in a day" game. This means a game about a campaign and the battles it generates that is played out in the space of one day. "Science vs Pluck" falls into this group of games. They often involve very loose "Free Kriegspiel'' rules. They are brief and focused but very dependent on the referee to make them work. Howard Whitehouse tries to solve this by having the players decide all major issues by a dialogue with the referee. This dialogue recounts the logical steps the player takes to create a disaster. It is exactly like fishing for advantages, but the referee is still the one in charge of the game. So what about trying a game in which the players are in charge? 4. Here a referee decides to run a game, and does all the work of organizing it. He wants to use an MG to run the critical decision making of the game. He gets a matrix that describes campaigns and starts the game. Each turn the players make arguments about what they want to have happen that turn. This is kind of like Fishing for advantages except that the referee is not the one who decides who wins. Arguments are settled by the roll of a die. Playors argue against one another over vital points and can even make arguments about how the enemies troops do something stupid. Once the arguments are resolved, the players then move figures and fight out battles using any set of miniature rules they desire. The MG allows the referee to avoid information overload by shifting to the players with responsibility for keeping track of all those vital things like - "Do the Rebels have shoes?" (Maybe they do - the referee doesn't know. It is the player's argument than the referee what the answer is and the lack of shoes slow down.) The referee is freed and can assume that all the vital functions are working until a player comes along and messes things up. Players fish for advantages and either get them or not. Soon one side begins to see that its lack of luck means that putting off the decisive battle is only likely to make the odds worse. This launches the weakened unlucky army into a battle that it must win. Certainly the sides may not be equal but the reason to combat is clear, which is exactly what campaign games are supposed to do. The rules of MGs are simple. Every turn each player makes an argument about what he wants to happen that turn. An argument consists of an ACTION, a RESULT from the action, and THREE REASONS why it should happen. This is different from standard games because part of making an argument means making up what happens next rather than letting the rules reveal what comes via die and tables. The action, result, and reason of an argument come out of a "matrix" of cards, each of which has a short, pithy description of the world on it. Once an argument is made, a die b roll determines what happens. If an argument has three reasons supporting it, then it succeeds on a roll of three or less on a six sided die. Other factors can modify this roll but for the most part, arguments have a 50/50 chance of happening. Example of a Matrix Game: Save Gordon "Save Gordon" is an MG campaign that I run through the mail. The scenario is very simple. Gordon is trapped in Khartoum, surrounded by Dervishes. The British must rescue him by sending a relief column from Egypt or Sudan. They can pull on forces from England, Egypt, and India. In the long run the Dervishes probably don't stand a chance, but since killing Gordon is their only goal, it is a balanced game. The following example contains the arguments that were turned in to me each turn, and which ones actually happened. Turn 1 British argument ACTION: The Government sends General Morris with troops from England and Gibralter to reinforce Egypt. RESULTS: Troops start moving toward Egypt. REASON: 1. Public honor (what are you doing about Gordon?) 2. Honor (we can not abandon Gordon) 3. Patriotism (It is not in the national interest to abandon Egypt to the Dervishes) Dervish argument ACTION: The Mahdi orders a boom to be built across the Nile RESULT: Khartoum is cut off from the rest of the world REASON: 1 They shall not pass (we are sieging them) 2. Bottle neck (the river is easily blocked) 3. Superior positlon (the Arabs are in a good positlon to block the Nile) Both arguments ended up happening this turn, so Gordon is cut off but help is on the way Turn 2 British argument ACTION: Gordon loads part of his Egyptian garrison onto steamers. RESULT: Gordon leads a landing to fight a battle to destroy the boom. REASON: 1. Lead by example (Gordon personally leads the landing) 2. Fear (The Egyptlans fear the Mahdi) 3. Thay want our women (we must win to save our women from them) Dervish argument ACTION: Osman Digna is recruited to the Mahdst cause RESULT: Osman becomes a new Arab commander at Suakin. REASON: 1. Bribes (the Mahdi bribes Osman to join him) 2. Greed (Osman greedily takes the bribe) 3 Warrior ethic (Osman swears fealty tO the Mahdi) The British argument suceeded this turn, but the Dervish argument failed. So Osman Digna did not become a Dervish leader. A battle was fought near Khartoum, in which a unit of Egyptian infantry lead by Gordon made a landing against a spread out force Of Dervishes. The landing succeeded and the boom was destroyed and the Egyptians retreated back to Khartoum inflicting falr casualties on the enemy. Turn 3 British argument ACTION: Desertlon is rife in the Mahdist's army. RESULT: One Dervish Unit deserts. REASON: 1. Demorallsed (they lost the battle last turn) 2. Greed (Osman got bribed but no one else did) 3. Forage for food (foragers can easily desert) Dervish argument ACTION: The Dervishes make a night assault on Khartoum. RESULT: There is a battle at Khartoum. REASON: 1. Defeated (we lost last time, we need a victory) 2. Dervishes are good at night attacks 3. Lead by example (the Mahdi leads the attack) Once again the British argument succeeded while the Dervish argument failed. Bad news for the Mahdi. Also bad for the Dervish cause was that Gereral Morris and his men landed in Egypt this turn. Turn 4 British argumont ACTION: A British force leaves India under the command of General Whitehouse. RESULT: They will land at Suakin. REASON 1. Orders from abroad (London orders it) 2. Commander orders It (Whitehouse says to go) 3. Prepare (they must move to Suakin to fight the Arab) Dervish argument ACTION: Cholora broaks out in Egypt! RESULT: A British Unit (and thousands of locals) die. REASON: 1. Heat (British are not ready for the boat) 2. Weakened (they are weakened by weird food) 3. Disease (cholera epidemic happens in Egypt) Both arguments succeeded this turn. So now the Dervish have trouble on three fronts. Fortunately for them, the terrain and diseases of Egypt and the Sudan could well stop General Morris before he gets started. And so the war goes. "Save Gordon" is still going on, so there is no winner as of yet. It looks bad for the Dervishes right now, but it is impossible to predict who will win. That will all depend on what arguments are made and if they are successful. As in real campaigns there is no way of knowing before hand exactly which factors will be critical. It makes for a very exciting game. Back to MWAN #53 Table of Contents © Copyright 1991 Hal Thinglum 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