A different way to run a minis game?

[MatrixGamer]

I ran an AWI game at the Seven Years War Association con last week and made a video of it. I think it is a different way of running a minis game, one that breaks out of existing paradigms, but I'm not sure it is. I'd appreciate it if you could check out the video and let me know if there are other games that work this way or if it seems original. The video is broken into three parts and is 40 minutes in total.

"Some Godforsaken Cornfield in Pennsylvania: Spring 1778"


Thanks!

Chris Engle

[warlord frod]

In some respects it looks a little like battle lore with cards determining the actions of various segments of the battle. That being said I would need a little more information to give a better assessment. Do you need a game master or are there rules that determine how many cards are drawn and how they are acted out so a GM is not needed? What do the cards say and how are they interpreted? At one point you talked about being creative with the cards and say we are not doing this. That seems to indicate the player can reverse the cards intent ( a withdraw card is played and the player declares he refuses to withdraw for example ) what is the role of the die role and the rock paper scissors mechanic. I think the rock paper scissors would work better if cards were not revealed until both players had selected their cards and placed them face down. When one player shows his card the other player seems to merely have to play one that beats whatever he played. If they played blind there would be more suspense. I have a individual melee card game that uses similar ideas I created back in 1979 where each card has 4 options and the players lay them face down and once revealed the player with initiative can give up the initiative and turn the card to produce a more favorable outcome ie turn the card to block a shot that would have hit or turn a miss into a hit. Anyway to better evaluate your ideas give us more info please.

[MatrixGamer]

I'll look into the Battle Lore game more closely. Thanks!

As to details, the game is played in two parts: Action cards and Combat cards.

The action deck is made up of suggestive phrases and words like "Rout" and "Stand your ground" but also by odd phrases like "seduce" and "Tyrant". The players have a hand of five cards. When they play a card it inspires the story they make up. This is one version of an Engle Matrix game a technique that has been around for 25 years or so. In older version you made an argument for what you wanted and had to roll for all actions. It was GM dependent. This version allows all actions to happen unless a player on the other side throws down a card and makes a counter-argument. The player says it is countering the first story so there is no need for a referee. I was acting as a facilitator to keep things going. The two players roll, high roller wins, re-roll ties. So it is a simple narrative technique. Not quite role playing but you can do role playing with it if you want.

Matrix games work well for the free flowing parts of actions - campaigns and maneuvers - but really don't work for combat.

The combat cards are new. They are meant to keep the verbal flow going without bogging the game down into a lot of numbers. I've noticed that if you shift to a number based game it is jarring. There are attack and defense cards. Each card has a verbal description that sometimes gives instructions on how to move the minis. Cards are rock, paper or scissors. When an attacker lays down an attack card, if the defender lacks any defense card they lose the fight right there and have to retreat. If they have a suit that beats the attackers suit, they win the fight and take initiative. They play the next attack card. If they play the same suit, there is a bounce. If they play the losing suit they lose. The loser does not draw another card, the winner does. In case of a bounce both draw cards. This means figures get moved, sides are whittled down in their hand of cards and eventually one side can't stop the other and thus loses. It makes for a nice ebb and flow in battle.

I don't think the combat cards are at all realistic. They are just meant to make for a fun, quick, narrative focused fight that keeps the focus on the minis and the story rather than becoming an accounting exercise.

It is the verbal part of the game that I think might be new. Using cards in combat games is not... so not original. And rock paper scissors approaches are also not original (DBA). Some games use cards to control movement in fights and the old board game Up Front used them as well - but they lack the story element from the action cards. Together I think they are different. I want to use them to run Sci Fi and pulp games that are very story driven.

Hope this provides the detail. Thank you for the feedback. I always want and need more.

Chris

[warlord frod]

Yes that is helpful. So the point of the cards is the narrative and I recall the old Engle Matrix game technique. I guess the cards would have to have enough text on them to form the argument and that they would indicate what arguments they overruled or if a die role was called for. In other words a card that says flank would over rule an advance or shooting action. A charge into melee would be overruled by a shooting action if the shooter has the initiative and the other way around if the shooter did not have the initiative.

Still not sure how the rock paper scissors mechanic works if one player can play a card in response to a revealed card. It seems to me it would make greater sense to use the same mechanic of a narrative option and if there is any disagreement over outcomes refer to the rock paper scissors. Both players play some form of melee card and the rock paper scissors is used to determine which side won. Melee card and a pull back rock paper scissors determines which action takes place. Both players play a disengage card no need to determine winner each simply moves back. Is this how you have it played because it did not appear that way in the video. It looked to me as if you as the GM frequently told the players what the result would be. 

I do like the concept as it does help insure a battle that forms as a narrative which when played by two creative people can be awesome. I also think the cards help reduce the role of luck and the simple high roll wins keeps the narrative moving along. Simple and fast is always good IMHO. I would love to see a video of two players who are well versed in the rules play the game with out a GM.

[MatrixGamer]

I'll work on doing another video soon. I got an iPod touch to do this. May be a few weeks though. My wife has much yard work to fill my weekends.