1995 has been a good year for Matrix Games. In the first quarter of the year I wrote the first draft of a new matrix game product - "The Matrix Gamer." Which is to superseed "Campaign in a Day" as my main MG product. This game will come in the form of a type set book (probably 1 20 pages) that teaches the basic MG rules and also introduces the reader to the many possibly applications the game can be put to through extensive examples of play. The scenarios described run from straight forward military campaigns, to guerilla war, to political campaigns, to mystery games, to spy games (and more). I plan to have the book done by the end of 1995, and expect to keep it on the market for the next ten years (during which time I expect to sell 1,000 copies).

Once "The Matrix Gamer" is done, I can get started writing indivudual scenario books. Each one containing a complete Matrix Game, again in a book format. This is where I anticipate the real sales of books will happen. And this is where the things I've learned in NUGGET will really pay off. I anticipate each one of these books included some good background history on each subject, and orders of battle, just like other games. But they will also focus on role playing of command characters. I will use personality write ups, as I've seen so successfully used by Howard Whitehouse in his Science vs. Pluck games. In this way, the role play aspects of dark wargames, committee games and mega games can come to a wider audience. I would eventually like to be able to sell these games via book stores - the true mass market. That is my goal for the next ten years!

META GAMES

Eight years of observing MG has lead me to a realization about their nature. This article is meant to pass these on for other gamers to think about.

At first it seemed to me that MGs could do anything. I no longer believe this. Yes the basic rules are simple and can be aplied to a wide variety of games, but they fall flat in trying to do what other games do well - combat and one on one role play situations. They work well for ambiguous free flowing situations like military campaigns, politics, mystery games, spy games and certain campaign like action adventure games.

One of my first lessons in making MGs is that they are very dependent on the scenarios they are used in. The actual MG rules themselves are not a game at all. MGs require the scenarion to provide the matrix of the conflict and to tell the players what their goals are. Without these kinds of cues, players tend to flop about in confusion. But with them, especially if very simply written, I have had seven year olds play the game and have fun even against experienced gamers.

I noticed in writing MG scenarios and running games that four types of actions/areas of conflict repeatedly begain showing up. I saw them first in military games, then political games and this year in role play scenarios as well. The conflicts break down into four meta games.

The meta games include: recruiting games, alliance games, conflict games and building games. They appear in each aplication I have put MGs to, and describe in a broad way the type of arguments players make. It is interesting that the scenario played does not seem to limit what type of arguments players make. Only their goals, and the player's preference on how to get things done effct arguments. It is quite possible for players to jump back and forth from one meta game to another as the game goes on. In fact this is the norm.

The meta games are as follows.

RECRUITING GAMES: This game is self evident. It involves the players making arguments to gain the loyalty of men or political parties to their faction. Tim Price's recruiting game for the First Crusade is an excellent example of a scenario extensively focused on this meta game. In addition to trying to get new factions on one's side, this game also focuses on recruiting strength "points" to one's side, to improve one's combat or political ability.

ALLIANCE GAMES: This game is similar to recruiting except that instead of recruiting nonallied people or parties, it involves filtching such parties loyalty from other players factions. The game is thus a zero sum gain. It can be played by those gamers who do not seem that they can make up new people not mentioned in the scenario. Or it can be played by those people who realize that if they strengthen their side while weaking the other - without combat - then a bloodless victory can be achieved.

CONFLICT GAMES: This game consists of players vying for political or military control over certain vital resources like real estate, or political office. Clearly only one faction can hold Paris at once, and their can be only one president at a time (though it would appear that multiple Popes are possible!) Conflict games involve maneuvering troops around on the field, fighting battles, or alternatively holding debates and calling for votes. Either way conflict happens and one player wins (usually be strength - the biggest battaleons - but sometimes by luck). Since goals can sometimes be reached without fighting, even this meta game is not really like standard wargames.

BUILDING GAMES: This game consists of players building or construction reality itself. For instance, building a bridge over the Rhine that was not there before. Such a bridge changes the nature of the political military situation. A fortress will likely follow it. But building is not restricted to physical things. In mystery games players "build" a case by establishing who had the means, motive, and opportunely to do a crime. Spys have to creat a network of agents that allow them to gain access to their goal, actually extract the goods, and then transport them to their distant homeland. Knights questing for the Holy Grail must first learn of a quest, then travel there, and last but not least solve the problem associated with it. Problem solving is the essence of building games. Political games always are full of political problems that those in power must solve. This means taking actions geared towards making things better (one argument for a mild problem, two arguments for a moderate one, or three for a severe one). Thus making building games the most creative of all the meta games.

There may be other meta games in MGs but I have not seen them yet. They are important. If for no other reason than they are needed if MGs are ever to be computerized. Computer programs require a set of meta rules to follow if the machine is to generate any type of written argument. I am not the person to do this job, but I know that this is a first step in that direction.

Matrix Games remain an area wide open for development. But the basic work of development is complete as far as I am concerned. The work now is in creating the games that will spread the idea beyond our little tidal pool out into the larger ocean.

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