Chris Engle, the creator of the Matrix Game, ran a number of them at NashCon 2000. One of them was set in the British Victorian era at a place called Dar es Salaam in the Sudan. This recap can hardly do justice to the actual game so ably run by Engels, but I hope to capture at least part of the essense of what makes a Matrix Game tick.
Set up
Dar es Salaam takes place on a 6' by 6' table, with a village in the middle of one end, a river cutting down the left side, and a series of ridges and hills on the right. In the middle is a flat plain.
The Mahdists set up either in the town, or in secret outside the town in the desert. A number of old crones and goats wander outside the town, and the Mahdist players choose which of them represent units. Three cannons were set up in the town and one cannon in entrenchments was set up on a hill outside town.
The British set up in a square at the end farthest from the town, with a "flying column" of Lights to their left along the river, and the "Bosnian Wild Circus" to their right. Engel has a most delightfully twisted sense of humor designed to test your mental reflexes--which I credit towards making a Matrix Game a success. I'm not even going to mention the reverend, the archaeologist, and wives and children.
I won't go into detail about what a Matrix Game is because so much has already been written, including issues of Engel's Matrix Game Newsletter and Experimental Game Group newsletter on Magweb.com. In short, anything can happen in a Matrix Game because you make it up as you go using a system of "arguments" and "reasons" followed by a die roll. The argument can be anything and three reasons support your argument. The umpire decides how appropriate your argument is, and then you roll a d6 for success. The stronger your argument, the better chance for success.
For example, when an Egytian (British) scout on horseback approached an old woman and goats, the British player made the argument: "The old crone and goats are really just an old crone and goats, not a band of dervishes." The reasons are: "1. It's flat terrain that nobody could hide in. 2. Scouts are trained and experienced at looking for bands of dervishes so if there were any, they'd be spotted, and 3. Scouts are mounted and thus higher than a man on foot and so can see better."
The umpire deemed this a "strong" argument and as such, the British player needed a 3,4,5, or 6 for the argument to succeed. Rolling a 5, the argument succeeded and the old crone was indeed an old crone. Had it been a "weak" argument, it would have needed a 5 or 6 to succeed.
Each player gets one argument per turn, which can be used anytime. Indeed, part of the skill in making arguments is whether to use your argument in an "offensive" capacity to give your troops extra movement, firepower, or other capability, or a "defensive" capacity to thwart your opponent's argument.
This game in particular is the Battle Game and are run by some simple rules. Movement is 1d6 for foot and 1d6+1 for mounted. Brit rifle fire and melee hit on a 5 or 6, Arabs on a 6. When your troops are hit, you make an argument on why your troops should stay alive. Again, the umpire decides how effective it is, and you roll saving throws. As before, an average argument succeeds on a 4,5, or 6, while a strong argument succeeds on a 3-6, and a weak one on a 5-6. On occasion, the umpire may rule something a "very strong" argument (succeeds on 2-6) or a very weak argument (only on a 6).
The Start
As the British player in charge of the square, I veered the square away from the flat plain in front of the three-cannon battery and thus towards the rolling hills. The mounted scouts were in front and I slowly transformed the square into more of a rectangle. The Flying Column of Lights hugged the river and moved into the copse of trees. The Bosnians covered the right flank of the square. I used the scout argument mentioned above to neutralize the old crone/dervish band in front of the Lights.
The Arab cannon roared but did little, and a group of Arab cavalry started to nose out of the hills. The Brits fired and hit a few, but an average argument and good die rolls saved all but a couple.
But, then I leapt in with an argument:
- The Arab cavalry fail morale and run because:
- 1. The figure closest to the square was killed and he was the leader
without a leader, the Arabs lose heart, and
losing the leader in the first volley meant Allah was against them.
Well, they were as good as I could come up with on the spur of the moment, and sure enough, the Matrix Game success lives and dies with your ability to reason and mix logic and background knowledge. Umpire Engels didn't think much of my argument either, and deemed it a weak argument, maning it succeeds only on a 5 or 6. Lo and Behold! I rolled a 5. The Arab cavalry broke.
But remember, the Arab player gets an argument too, so he used it. He said the cavalry stay because the leader was a bad commander, had bad breath, and was a womanizer. That too, was a weak argument. Hey, both of us were still getting used to the idea of arguments changing events of the game, so what you say matters as much as what you do. Anyway, he missed the roll and the cavalry bolted away from the square.
At this point, another old crone and goats appeared as the cavalry fled. This time, I made the argument that was a variation of the scout argument to make the old crone into a band of dervishes. 1. My scouts were on a hill and could see a long way. 2. The dervishes were in the valley and couldn't hide such a large number of men from the scouts, and 3. Scouts are trained to find the enemy. That was called a strong argument and needed a 3-6 to work. I rolled a 6 and the "slaver" dervishes poured out of the valley.
I fired and hit a few, but my opponent cleverly argued that the old crone and goats should absorb the damage because they were closer. They did. Then the slavers tried to ignore the square to go after the weaker Bosnian Circus. So, I stopped that course of action with an argument.
The dervishes immediately charge the square because: 1. the old crone was a revered figure and the infidel must pay for her death, 2. goats are currency and the infidel "stole" money by killing them, and 3. the infidel defiles our country with his killings and must be made to pay for his impiety. Engel called that a strong argument and I rolled a 5, so the argument succeeded and the dervishes charged the square.
But not so fast! The dervish player knew what would happen if he charged the square and so made his argument. The Dervishes will attack the Bosnians because 1. they're weaker than the square, 2. they shot at the dervishes too and so are a legitimate target, and 3. they're closer. Engle had a questioning look on his face and deemed that a weak argument, needing a 5 or 6 to succeed. A 2 just didn't do it. The dervishes charged the square afterall.
You'll notice that we as players started to use the other player's arguments as a basis for our own. In a sense, we're weaving a more detailed narrative than a straight move and shoot style of rules. So, if I force him to reveal his dervishes behind a crone, he used that to protect his fighters, which in turn I used to shame him into charging the square.
The dervishes spent a turn coming up to the square due to a low movement die roll. Of course, by this time, the square had become more a rectangle and I pushed an artillery piece into the front line. Then, I made the argument that the British should hit on a 4,5, and 6 instead of just a 5 or 6 because: 1. the cannon is loaded with cannister which is deadly at such short range, 2. the Highlanders have formed a double rank behind the Brits for even more firepower, and 3. the Brits will use volley fire. That was ruled a strong argument and I rolled a 4 (needing a 3 or higher), and so it worked. Then I rolled 14 hits on 18 dice (beat the odds!).
The dervish argued that his troops should not die because: 1. long marching in the sun fatigued the British troops, 2. fatigued troops can't lift their rifles, and 3. a reason I can't remember. A weak argument and 10 dervishes fell into the sand. Next turn, another 12 hits as the dervishes closed with the square. The dervishes tried to argue that a freak sandstorm rose up to allow them to retreat. It was a "very weak" argument and needed a 6 to work. The Arab player rolled a 6 and he broke off the attack and fled out of range. As you can see, even weak arguments can succeed, offering the ability to interject some truly unusual events into a game.
And so it went, arguments made and rolled for and the turns flew by. A unit of Fuzzy Wuzzies attacked at the same time the recovered slavers attacked. The square buckled slightly as dervish dice flew hot and the British dice flew cold, but that's also when I got greedy in my arguments.
As the dervishes and Fuzzies closed, I argued that I should hit on a 3,4,5,and 6 (instead of the usual 5 or 6) because 1. there were two groups and thus more targets in a compact mass, 2. the square hadn't moved and fire would be steadier and deadlier, and 3. since the Fuzzy Wuzzies were getting up from a prone position (from last turn), the Brits had more time to shoot at them. A weak argument, I flubbed the roll and shot as normal (5 or 6). The Bosnians, by the way, fled.
A really nifty event occurred with the Lights. They had swung away from the city and back towards the square, looking on as the square started to buckle. The Arab gun was still taking pot shots, and the Lights had shot away the Arab cavalry, so had a clear line to the gun, if a bit far. So, the player made an argument.
He said the Lights storm the hill and capture the gun because 1. the British blood is up so they'll move faster and farther, 2. an officer is with them to spur them on, and 3. a captured gun would look good in a regimental museum and earn said officer eternal glory! It was ruled a very strong argument and succeeded. It also meant that the late sally by the city garrison was left in the dust. They soon retreated after they saw what happened to the Fuzzy Wuzzies and slavers.
The game ended with the British laying siege to the town. It was a big victory for the British with minimal losses and major Arab losses.
Beyond the win-loss, this Matrix Battle Game is an intriguing concept, where you can influence influence the battle with tactical arguments of wit and knowledge, supported by good reasons--or as you saw from the above, even not-so-good reasons. Not only do you get to alter movement and shooting parameters, you also get to inject your own personality into the battle narrative and create exciting situations and memorable encounters.
Back to War Lore: The List
Back to Master Magazine List
© Copyright 2000 by Coalition Web, Inc.
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