Articles

THE DESIGN PHILOSOPHY OF ENGLE MATRIX GAMES

Engle Matrix Games grew out of a discussion in 1988 about how to role play entire countries. One person thought that it required lots of numbers, the other wondered if information could be managed better using words. Words have richer levels of meaning and are very flexible. The number guy didn’t think it could work. That posed a question. “How can you run a game using words instead of numbers?”

An interesting question is always more useful than one “right” answer. They lead to hundreds of good answers. In this case it first pointed me at verbal ways to describe the world.

Plato suggested that there are “perfect” representations of thing behind everything we see. Kant suggested that the world can be described by categories. Everything can be broken down into small descriptions. We organize these in our heads to for a picture of the world. My first attempt at this was to take a mathematical matrix and use short phrases rather than numbers to describe the world. I organized them into categories pulled from anthropology and sociology. The first play testers looked at the matrix and allowed their brains to flesh out the gaps in information to form a complete picture of the world. Fortunately our brains gestalt information like this every day so it was an easy step. The first challenge of the question was answered. A matrix of words can describe a nation.

A picture of the world is all nice and fine but unless it is in motion it is not a game. Information has to be able to change.

Hegel wrote about the dialectic. One force in history puts forward one proposition. Another force presented the antithesis to oppose the thesis. The two would then come together to form a synthesis. This suggested to me that players could make a statement about what they wanted to happen while others opposed them. The statement would be an “argument” for what they wanted next in the game. The players or a referee could “judge” the argument to set a probability roll. Other players could jump in with counter-arguments using quasi Boolian logic “Yes that happened AND this happens as well.” “Yes that happened BUT this was the real result.” Or “No that didn’t happen. Actually this happened.”

At first players wrote down their arguments in a set format (Action, Result from action, 3 reasons why). If a player succeeded in their roll then the argument became another fact in the matrix. This seemed logical at the time. Later on we eased up on the format and allowed players to just say their arguments out loud.

These two elements (the matrix and arguments) came together in a workable game by 1989. They remain the core ideas behind Matrix Games. Right now there are many different Matrix Games out there. The Engle Matrix Games presented by Hamster Press are the culmination of the original creators continued work. My fondest hope is that future people will come along and do it better than me.

In the late 80’s ideas of sharing power with players, distancing player identification with a single character, and using lose structures of information (like relationship maps, and written character descriptions rather than number stats) was way out on the fringe of gaming. It was a neat idea but it would go nowhere without a lot of work. I resolved to dedicate myself to this task, to make it happen.

The trends of Matrix Game development were pragmatic, experimental and poetic. Pragmatism’s stress on being practical was very important. I looked at a problem, thought of ideas and acted. I looked at results and applied a test. Did it meet the objective? Ideas that did I kept. Each article was a meditation on methods, each play test an experiment, each convention game a pragmatic test. I had many failures. The process was also poetic because the goal was always to seek simple elegant solutions. My aesthetic model was based on Islamic teach stories and art. They use few words and few lines to create incomparable beauty.

At first I always used a set referee. This player was like a role play game GM but without as much power. The referee could not make things happen in the game, only player arguments could. The referee was just the editor. The mathematical matrix gave way to a list of key words, then the list to a set of cards, which in turn gave way to using no list at all but instead relying on the player’s mental map of the world, built from scenario information like a map, list of character descriptions, an opening write up and a plot track suggesting what kind of actions usually happen in a give type of story. This evolution came about due to convention game results. Early on I added in a “Wild Card” to the matrix list that allowed people to make up elements. I noticed that wild cards were always the first to go and resulted in the best arguments. I also noted that players going last (thus having the fewest cards to pick from) were able to twist the meanings of almost any cards to do whatever they wanted. This showed that the cards and in fact the list itself was getting in the way of the game rather than helping it. I dropped the list. English Matrix Gamers retained it and still use it today.

Early games used a six-sided die roll to determine which arguments happened. At first all rolls were 50/50. The referee could veto what they considered “silly” arguments but that didn’t happen often. Soon, possible “to happen” rolls were expanded to allow success on a roll of 3 to 6 or 5 or 6. Then 2 to 6 and 6 were added. The referee’s judgment set the number. When players rolled, they rolled for their own argument. When they counter-argued it made sense for all the contestants to continue rolling for their own argument. If they rolled a success they could roll again. Rolling continued until only one argument was left or all went out. Thus the dice rolling system was not based on any philosophy but instead evolved from a flip of a coin.

For many years the set referee was not a player. They did not run characters or make arguments. Occasionally though a referee would jump in with an argument and pick another player to be their referee. In two player games by definition there was not a third party referee. Instead the opposing player was your referee. This looks like it would not work, people would be too partisan. That was not the case. Hundreds of games show that. Opponents can be fair referees. As more referees jumped in with arguments in multi player games, more and more players were acting as referees themselves. It became clear that anyone could do it. It was a small step from here to drop the set referee altogether and have the role float from player to player.

One early observation of Matrix Games was that events were very abrupt. An argument could say something drastic and if the roll was successful it happened. It made sense to mitigate abrupt arguments by allowing second rounds of arguments to modify them. A player could make a “trouble” argument to say why they were not injured by a problem. A fight could be revisited by a “conflict” argument that could redefine the result. Thus a weak player attacking a strong player could find their win overturned so “unrealistic” unlikely results would be less frequent.

Early Matrix Games often borrowed maps from other games. Area maps (like those of Diplomacy) were used. Area movement helped Matrix Games avoid reductionist traps of looking at smaller and smaller scales to try and understand the world. Areas were divided by lines – barriers, movement barriers included geographic features like mountains and oceans but also political barriers, long lines of troops, walls or even psychological barriers like the mouth of a dragon’s lair. It was a small mental step to see other barriers. People in disguise had a “hiding” barrier. People unknown to one another had an “anonymity” barrier. Police and guards could form “defense” barriers. People could even have repressed memories indicating they had barriers inside themselves. Though it is not always explicitly stated, the geography of barriers is behind all my games.

Convention games about murder mysteries showed that players given a set formula tend to enjoy the game more. Everyone knows that in mysteries the detective finds clues that eventually point to who could have done it. Repeated play of the same scenario showed that following that format in no way limited action. The cases never came out the same twice. They were similar but not identical. Not giving players a plot track to follow on the other hand did not improve enjoyment. Instead it increased uncertainty and made the players work harder. Unlike the old matrix list of years ago, a list of suggestions or questions helped focus game play and increase fun.

A convention game in the late 90’s found me running part of the board of a large miniatures game. I had one player in my area so running a standard miniatures game was out. Instead I assigned the player goals to work on and gave him a set number of arguments to accomplish them (or face a negative consequence). In later games I measured the number arguments a player got with physical coins. Arguments are the most important currency of any Matrix Game so having players “buy” the right to make an argument made sense. It also helped new players feel better about making stuff up. They felt like they had purchased that right.

Engle Matrix Games continue to experience small tweaks but the core of rules have been the same since 2000.

Design of rules is important but for an idea to really spread people have to be able to see it touch and take ownership of it. This means it has to become a real product. Technology has changed how this is done since the late 80’s but it remains a separate area that I’ll briefly cover.

Games are a terrible business. They are costly to make and hard to sell. Consumers are very demanding and require high value for their cash. The learning curve in business is steep. Publishing demands writing ability, proof reading, graphic design knowledge, book design, negotiation with printers and suppliers, accurate accounting, advertising plans, ability to do sales calls, and above all else the ability to work consistently. The stress of the work brings out all our character flaws. Regulating emotions is a constant challenge. As boss you have to make costly decisions and lived with your mistakes – which are inevitable. I have dealt with these challenges by going slowly and conservatively. I do not move forward until I know I can sustain the effort. This way each new offering is followed up. I’ve worked hard to improve my personal skill base. I learned accounting, printing, book binding etc. Slow and steady wins the race. I believe this because the race only ends when we quit. Until then we keep on plugging away.

I have philosophy to back me up on design and game development but doing the work is a spiritual exercise. It is disciplined orderly living. Rumi, an Islamic saint, put it best when he said “You have a task, do anything else, fill you time up completely, but if you do not do this task all your time will have been wasted.” I’m trying not to waste my time.

The Matrix Game: A Verbal Technique for Simulating Highly Changeable Situations

By Chris Engle 1998

HOW THE RULES WORK

• Decides how strong each argument is.
• Decides which arguments cause conflict and trouble.
• Decides who is involved with each conflict and who is affected by each trouble.
• Decides who is in the strongest position in conflicts.
• Records changes to the matrix and communicates those changes to the players.

• To make one argument a turn, causing something to happen to further their objective.
• To roll the die for the success of their own argument.
• To make any additional arguments required each turn by conflict and trouble.

GAME SPECIFIC TERMS

Matrix Games use the following terms to track significant changes in the matrix.

STATUS: As previously described, this refers to any changes made to the matrix. All of the terms used below are statuses.

HIERARCHY: Refers to a player position on an imaginary pyramid. It is a simple short hand to show positions of relative power.

POSITION: Refers to a special office or position of responsibility in a game world.

RELATIONSHIP: Refers to a short description of the nature of a connection between two characters.

CONTROL: Refers to which player has primary power over which characters and treasures.

TREASURE: Refers to any item that players may vie for control of.

BARRIER: Refers to anything that blocks the free and open flow of people or information. Barriers can include: distance, defense, anonymity or even mental barriers.

MOVEMENT: Refers to the ability of players to move their characters at the beginning of each turn to anywhere they like as long as they do not cross a barrier.

NEGOTIATION: Refers to the players' discussions during the game. Players are encouraged to hold discussions at any point during play.

THE STRUCTURE OF

MATRIX GAME RUNS

BRIEFING SESSIONS

DEBRIEFING SESSIONS

POSSIBILITY VERSUS PROBABILITY:

LESSONS LEARNED FROM PLAYING MATRIX GAMES

Games that focus on rigid algorithms have a built-in limit on the range of activity in the game from the very beginning. They rate the importance of one action over another and teach the player to learn what the “correct” plan is. Algorithmic simulations are a very powerful tool and within the limits of their sphere, they are superior to other approaches. Unfortunately, they teach a potentially false idea. Namely, that there is always one best solution and that that solution has the highest probability of success.Algorithmic games often fall short when faced with rapidly changing fluid situations. Rigid algorithms are balanced to create an accurate picture of the world. Changing the basic structure of the algorithm around to take into account newly emerging trends can throw the balance of a game completely off. The game then presents an inaccurate, even distorted view of the world.Matrix Games make no attempt to create a single over-arching algorithm or theory about the world. Instead, they focus on the pragmatic questions, “What happened?”, and, “How does that affect what will happen next?” As players engage in game sessions, they slowly let go of the old idea of finding out what solution has the greatest probability of success and, instead, begin to see possibilities suggested by emerging information.The mental shift from probability thinking to possibility thinking is enjoyable for most. It is especially powerful for people who do not see themselves as strategic thinkers, often the people most plagued by math anxiety. At least part of the enjoyment comes from a feeling of empowerment fostered by the game. This may be the single greatest lesson this game teaches.Facilitating possibility thinking helps players see how problems can be broken down into small steps. Each step literally creates the pathway for the next step so that almost any action can work if the groundwork is laid for it. Whether the planning is how to cope with alcoholic cravings or how to conduct a peace-keeping mission in the Balkans, the utility of the world view is clear. 

MATRIX GAMES

IN THE BRITISH ARMY

by Tim Price

SCENARIO DEVELOPMENT

GENERAL EDUCATION

CONCLUSION