An Erfworld Matrix Campaign

[LTDave]

An Erfworld Matrix Campaign
By Lt. D. Grounds, (BBusFiEconDis, BTh)
With editorial assistance from Mr Ronaldo Calliari, late of Her Majesty’s Secret Service.

Preamble:
So, there are a lot of games popping up on this forum in the style of “The Battle for Gobwin Bump.” This is very edifying and encouraging to me. This represents the tactical side of the comic we enjoy, and it has some great playing and planning satisfaction. There are also some attempts at more in-depth grand Empire games. My Erfworld Empires games were a step in this direction, but at a more simplistic level.
But now I would like to try something a little bit different. I’ve long wanted to try a forum version of a Matrix game. For more information on this style of game, use the Google and enter “Matrix Games Chris Engels”. Or visit this site: http://www.onr.com/user/bturner/far_colony/fc_matrix.html which contains the basic rules I would like to use for this Campaign. All credit to Chris Engels for anything stolen from him (and or her – Chris is a pretty non-gender specific name where I’m from – but probably him).

The Game:
Each player controls an Erfworld Nation. The object of the Game is to capture the Capital of one of the opposing Nations. If at the end of a Round you have captured an opposing Capital and still control your own, you are the Winner (and Greatest Tool of the Titans).

Players:
Any number of players can join. I would like at least five.

How do we play:
In round 0, give your nation and ruler their names, and then give FIVE characteristics of the nation. Characteristics represent the strengths of your nation, and must consist of an Adjective and a Noun. For example: “Strong Military” is a characteristic. “Military” is not.
Characteristics are used as REASONS in your arguments.

Arguments
In round 1, and each round after, each player may propose an ARGUMENT. An argument consists of an ACTION and a RESULT. Each Argument may have up to three REASONS. Arguments may relate to any nation in the game, not just your own. But each player may only make one argument per round.
For Example:
King Jetstone creates a powerful army in his Capital.
Reasons: 1. Jetstone has a STRONG MILITARY
2. Jetstone has a LARGE TREASURY
3. The King is an ABLE ADMINISTRATOR

Ratings
At the end of the round, the GM will judge each argument, and rate them VERY STRONG, STRONG, NORMAL, WEAK, or STUPID, and then roll a d6 to determine outcomes.
VERY STRONG arguments will succeed on a roll of 1-5.
STRONG arguments will succeed on a roll of 1-4.
NORMAL arguments will succeed on a roll of 1-3.
WEAK arguments will succeed on a roll of 1-2.
STUPID arguments will never succeed (An argument would have to be very stupid to be judged as such. For example: The King turns into a flying anchovy and devours the entire world, ending the game, and making me emperor of the pizza planet).

Ratings are based on Reasons and Results. If the result is pretty minor, the rating will be stronger than a disastrous Result. For Example: “My army wins the battle” is going to have a better rating than “My army destroys every living thing that opposes them.”

No discussion will be entered into as to ratings or dice results. The GM’s decision is final.

Counter Arguments
Players may attempt to use their argument to change the outcome of another player’s argument. For example:

"Yes, and…" arguments add an extra result to a previous argument and give +1 to the die roll.

"Yes, but…" arguments change the effect of an action.

"No, Actually..." arguments contradict both the action and the result, but give -1 to the die roll.

So, the Jetstone player make the argument above about creating a powerful army. Another player may use their argument to say “Yes, and the Army has a large amount of Heavy Units.” This “Yes, and…” is in effect helping the Jetstone player, whose rating and results are improved.

Another player might say, “Yes, but the army is not powerful. In fact, it is quite average.” If successful, this modification would change the outcome of the Jetstone argument. They would end up with an Average Army, instead of a Powerful Army.

Another player might try a “No, Actually the King decides to commission a work of art, and the Jetstone Treasury is wasted.” This argument is less likely to succeed, but if it did it would damage the Jetstone nation.

Another player might decide to support a previous “No, actually…” by adding a “Yes, and…” to it, increasing its chance of success.

Reasons:
All arguments and counter arguments should have three Reasons to support them. If the arguments are characteristics of the relevant nation, this will help improve the rating of the argument. Reasons may also be based on successful arguments of previous rounds. If the Jetstone Nation was successful in creating a Powerful Army in a previous round, they could use this as a reason to defeat their enemies in battle.
Our Army crosses the border and defeats the army of Gobwin Knob in the field.
Reasons: 1. Powerful Army
2. Strong Military
3. Lots of Heavy Units

Rounds and Time:
Players will have 48 hours from the start of the round to make their argument. They will then be rated by the GM, dice rolled, and outcomes listed on the forum. A new round will then begin. Arguments can be made about any nation in the game, and do not have to relate to earlier arguments at all.

Competing Arguments:
Let’s say Jetstone makes an argument that “the Jetstone Army fights the Gobwin Knob army and routs them from the field.”
And the Gobwin Knob player argues “The Gobwin Knob Army fights the Jetstone Army and defeats them, wiping them out.” Only one result can be true.
In this case, the GM will rate both arguments and then roll dice until one or both fail.
For example, the Jetstone argument could be judged as Strong, while the Gobwin Knob argument is Normal. Dice are rolled until one or both fail.

So How do I win?
You win by making an argument that leaves you in control of another nation’s capital. If your argument is “My army attacks and defeats the garrison of the Escotian capital, and we capture it.” And this succeeds, you win the game. Probably every other player will want this to fail, so you’ll have a lot of counter arguments. It’ll be hard to do. You’ll need to build up a series of good reasons to win an argument like that. So you might spend a turn marching close to the Escotian Capital. The next turn you might besiege the city. The next turn you might breach the walls. And then you could argue for capture and victory. But other players will be trying to stop you!

And is there a map?
No. The world exists as the players describe it in their arguments.

And, what, no numbers?
And no, no numbers. Very strange for one of my games. Instead, it is about adjectives. If a Powerful army goes up against a Strong army, it will be up to the GM to decide which has the advantage. You might try to argue for superlatives, like “Invincible Army”, but they’ll be rated tougher as a result.

Can an argument change a past event?
No. If in Round 1 it is found that your army defeated the enemy, no one can argue in round 2 that the enemy actually defeated your army in round 1. They could argue for a new army, or a complication, but what has been declared to have happened has happened.

Can an argument be used again and again?
Yes. If an argument was very strong last round and failed, try it again this round. You might get lucky.

What if a player does not post an argument?
Then they don’t get an action that round. Players will have 48 hours from the GM’s post to give an argument. If you hold back, waiting to counter something else, you might miss out.

Goal:
The aim of this game is to be entertaining and fun. You might not win, but hopefully you’ll enjoy the experience.

[LTDave]

Thoughts, comments, suggestions?

Anyone interested in playing?

[BLANDCorporatio]

I'd be interested, but I need to read this and the thing you linked to. Sounds interesting though, and I'll definitely say yes/no tomorrow.

EDIT: ok, read it the text you wrote here. Sounds quite interesting actually, and a little variety in gaming systems never hurts. I'll give you math-based rules for TBo<>-type games to an extent that no human can handle, soon enough

[Daemonwelsh]

COunt me interested.

[WaterMonkey314]

I'm interested too.

[Iylzara]

This actually seems fairly simple, once you get to grips with it, and I'd be interested.

[Shusagi]

I'm down.

[LTDave]

Ok, great.

That makes 5 interested parties, which I figure is enough to get going with. If anyone else wants to jump in, do so in the next 48 hours or so.

For all those who want to play, name your Nation and Leader, and then list your five characteristics.

I'll say we'll kick off in about 48 hours.

Cheers

[Shusagi]

Side: Andwoidia
Ruler: Mr.Roboto

Andwoidia has a LOYAL ARMY
Andwoidia has POWERFUL SEIGE
Andwoidia has an EXPERIENCED FOOLAMANCER
Mr.Roboto has been predicted to have a FAVORABLE FATE
Andwoidia is surrounded by NATURAL ALLIES

(edited for grammar. Is "Natural" a sufficient adjective?)

[BLANDCorporatio]

Huh. I predict there'll be a war on who can get the most munchkin combo of adj/noun in the near future (seriously, "FAVOURABLE FATE"?), but that's a thing I'm not going to join.

Side: House Ordos.
Ruler: The Executrix Council (a 3+1 link between a MoneyMancer, Stuffamancer, Thinkamancer and a Warlord)

House Ordos has a POWERFUL ECONOMY.
House Ordos has a BAD REPUTATION WITH OTHER SIDES.
House Ordos produces STRONG MAGIC ITEMS.
House Ordos has a MERCENARY* ARMY.
House Ordos has a CUNNING LEADER.

There. Two of those are actually bad, gosh!

*: it's an adjective. Honest . It means the members of the army are not particularly loyal, except to the flow of Schmuckers.

[Sihoiba]

In

Weather Toffs
Ruler: The Great Lord Fahrenheit

The Weather Toffs have FAST SCOUTS.
The Weather Toffs have POWERFUL FLYERS.
The Weather Toffs have a FLYING CAPITAL.
The Weather Toffs have an EXPERT PREDICTAMANCER.
The Weather Toffs have an ENORMOUS TREASURY.

[WaterMonkey314]

Side: The Commonwealth of Escotia
Ruler: The Lord Protector

Escotia is an ISLAND NATION.
Escotia has a VAST EMPIRE.
Escotia has an INVINCIBLE* NAVY.
Escotia has a DISCIPLINED ARMY.
Escotia has BRILLIANT CASTERS.

* Well, IT thinks it's invincible.

As BLAND said, how are we going to prevent someone from having, say, an IMPREGNABLE CAPITAL? (or an INVINCIBLE NAVY... )

[LTDave]

The characteristics are just a basis for arguments to get us going. And everyone of them is a potential problem.

For instance, another player could argue that the people of Andwoidia are extremely lazy, since they trust to their favourable fate to make everything work out in the end. A Flying Capital might cost an awful lot of money to keep flying, and if it crashes the whole thing will shatter. An Impregnable Capital could have very lax guards. After all, it is impregnable! Why bother keeping watch? An Invincible Navy might have a lot of political sway in Escotia, which means that the army is underfunded...

Everything strength is also a potential weakness.

[Iylzara]

Side: The Queendom of Frank
Ruler: Queen Frank

The Queendom of Frank is A MOUNTAIN NATION
The Queendom of Frank is MINERAL RICH
The Queendom of Frank has a SMALL ARMY
The Queendom of Frank has A LOT OF FLIERS
The Queendom of Frank has MANY SHOCKAMANCERS

[Nihila]

You know, I'll jump in. I'll probably learn as I go, as always. Should be fun.

Side: Risun
Ruler: Emperor Hai Tro Chen
The Empire of Risun has a FANATICAL ARMY.
The Empire of Risun controls VALUABLE PORTS.
The Empire of Risun has an EXPERIENCED AIR FORCE.
The Empire of Risun has a COMPETENT NAVY.
The Empire of Risun has a SHREWD RULER.

[Daemonwelsh]

Side: Dominaria
Ruler: Urza
Dominaria has a POWERFUL MILITIA
Dominaria has LOYAL MINERS
Dominaria has SKILLED MINERS
Dominaria's capital, Urza's tower, is built DEEP UNDERGROUND
Dominaria has NUMEROUS MINERS

[Iylzara]

Side: Dominaria
Ruler: Urza
Dominaria has a POWERFUL MILITIA
Dominaria has LOYAL MINERS
Dominaria has SKILLED MINERS
Dominaria's capital, Urza's tower, is built DEEP UNDERGROUND
Dominaria has NUMEROUS MINERS

I'm going to build a mana battery on the moon.

Shazam.

[LTDave]

Ok, it seems like everyone who was interested has posted, and we have two new nations as well.

I'm going to make one slight rule change:

If someone proposes an argument that might win them the game (ie, the result of the argument involves occupying another player's capital), then the time allowance for argument posting will be increased by 24 hours, and players who have proposed an earlier argument may change it if they wish to do so.

Also, if all seven players have posted an argument before the 48 hours is up, I will (might) roll for the arguments earlier and start a new turn.

Which applies now. Off we go for turn 1.

Post your arguments - the 48 hours starts now.

[Iylzara]

The Queendom of Frank will establish a LARGE SCALE MINING OPERATION

Reasons: -
1. The Queendom of Frank is a MOUNTAIN NATION
2. The Queendom of Frank is MINERAL RICH
3. The Queendom of Frank is dedicating its attention entirely to THIS ACTION

[Daemonwelsh]

Dominaria has begun creating an EARTHAMANCY BATTERY

Resons:
Dominaria hopes to pop a POWERFUL EARTHAMANCER
Dominaria has OBSCENE RESOURCES
Dominaria is a WEALTHY NATION

ooc: Iylzara, I did that one just for you. Originally I was going for artificeryness...
now, earthamancy because why the hell not and battery.