IN THE BEGINNING – ORIGINS AND INFLUENCES

Origins of Megagames

The early prototypes of what were to become megagames started with Paddy Griffith in the later 1970s and early 1980s. As a senior lecturer at the Royal Military Academy Sandhurst, Paddy ran large multiplayer wargames for the students and my early involvement with Paddy and large, multiplayer multi-team games was being invited to take part as a member of the control teams.
The first game actually called a megagame was Paddy’s ‘Memphis Mangler‘ Vietnam wargame played in April 1982 with about 30 players, though both Paddy and others (such as the Chestnut Lodge Wargames Group in South London) had been running games that would by our modern definition qualify as a megagame these days. It was Andy Callan who coined the name, saying something like “this isn’t just a wargame, it is some sort of … MEGA-game”

scan0036-1
Megagame Control Team – Army Staff College, Montgomery Wing in the early 1990s

From the outset, for recreational wargamers, the whole idea of these large multi-player games was both startling and very exciting. At that time There was nothing else like it outside the military training environment (and even in the military training environment they were a lot less open to emerging game-play), and those early games by Paddy and, later, Andy Grainger were exceptionally inspirational and really started the development of megagames as we now understand them.
There has, of course been mainstream hobby wargames involving lots of people – but these generally lacked the hierarchies and the team interaction that characterises megagames. Wargames with large numbers of toy soldiers with two sides playing a simple game on the table top (or floor) facing each other would not generally qualify as a megagame.

Through my contact with Paddy I was able to not only see his idea of large wargames put into practice, but also I was invited to help him run operational wargames for cadets at the Sandhurst Academy, and to help Paddy set up and run a wargame for Southern TV’s series Invasion Road in 1979, where we ran a fictitious Warsaw Pact / NATO wargame using the Royal United Services Institute in Whitehall as a venue and memorably with the late Brigadier Peter Young as the NATO supreme commander!

The early 1980s saw a series of imaginative, sometimes quirky, sometimes astonishing megagames run by Paddy, with the help of others. I thoroughly recommend Paddy’s book, Sprawling Wargames for an insight into his philosophy of larger wargames with multiple players. Paddy’s games covered a wide range of historical subjects the French Revolution (in a game called ‘Sans Culottes‘). the 1918 Kaiserschlact Offensive, the Peninsular War (in a game called ‘Tajo‘), the convoy war in the Atlantic (‘Western Approaches’), the Franco-Austrian war (‘Novi‘ in conjunction with myself), and the opening moves of WW1 (‘Guns of August‘). Paddy brought a professional historian’s attention to detail and a truly creative instinct for games to his megagames.

These early games inspired Andy Grainger to turn his own highly respected and thorough research skills to the genre, and he produced a very successful series of well-written and structured world war two historical megagames, based around the Battle of Kirovograd.

scan0107-2
Megagaming at the Army Staff College, Montgomery Wing, in the early 1990s

Andy’s example proved the final inspiration for me to start running my own games on the same scale and my first megagame “Blood & Thunder” – a huge 60 player piratical naval /role playing game – in 1987. This was historical, and loosely based on Morgan’s fleet raids on the Spanish Main. It had perhaps a higher degree of role playing and plot than previous megagames, and was built around the team concept, with each team representing a ship’s crew. The main action was using model ships on a huge floor model in the Woolwich Hall in Sandhurst.

This kicked off a long run of games that continues to this day.

The early 1990s saw the first properly collaborative game design, with a megagame called Springtime for Hitler, and the creation of the loose association of megagame designers, now known as Megagame Makers. Springtime was 180 player game about the campaign in France and the Low Countries in 1940. Graham Attfield, Brian Cameron, Andy Grainger, Steve Hale, Terry Martin, and myself put together a large and complex military / political game, and set the scene for future collaborations in megagame design.
We established that it didn’t necessarily need a single talented and enthusiastic individual to produce a successful game, and that notion probably encouraged many of today’s designers to take the plunge, at first, in collaboration with others.

Other Influences

Of course, in the professional wargaming field (in government and defence circles) the multi-player political / operational game has been in existence for decades or longer . There were (and are) many elaborate wargames played by the US military and the RAND Corporation during the late 1950s to the 1980s, and these were (and still are) used to inform policy within government.
I was fortunate, in the 1980s, to be able to access quite a lot of the literature of those games through the Ministry of Defence library.
In addition there have been political and crisis games run in many University politics departments, and these routinely form part of the study programmes.
Many of our megagamers (and some designers) have had experience of these and bring that experience to their game designs.

In the UK hobby wargames world, the megagame concept came about about as a cross-over from Dr Paddy Griffith and some members of the group he founded in 1980, “Wargame Developments”.
The initial idea was to use the techniques of the military command post exercise (CPX) in playing hobby wargames. Paddy experimented successfully with the multi-room wargames using closed game systems, and ran a number of games for non-military audiences – most notably his game of ‘Sealion‘ and his NATO / Warsaw Pact game for the 1979 TV series ‘Invasion Road‘ for Southern Television.

Although the detail and the way these were put into practice has altered over the years – the basic tenets form the key central characteristics in many of the modern megagames.

scan0072-2
Operation Market Garden WW2 Megagame in 1988

Board game designs have been influential too – particularly where political and economic factors are in play. The growth of the commercial board games over the last decade has been meteoric – particularly the popularity of euro games. And this, coupled with the expansion of social board gaming has created a demographic of ‘game literati’ who form a large proportion of the present population of megagamers.

Also Kriegspiel has been important Bill Leeson’s involvement in bringing the modern Kriegspiel back into the light, and the natural similarities between the Kriegspiel and the operational megagame.
The original Reiswitz Kriegspiel has much in common with the modern operational megagame – they both involve maps gaming, and the movement of units over time, hidden movement and command and control structures. Players of kriegspiel often migrate easily to operational megagames because the feel is very similar.
Computer games and especially Real Time Strategy (RTS) games have been influential for a number of games. The computer game has massively altered from its early pixillated simplicity on the BBC, Commodore 64 or Spectrum. Even then, the classic game ‘Arnhem’ game by SSI for the Spectrum was the initial inspiration of the early operational world war 2 megagame ‘Operation Market Garden‘.
Modern computer games have many of the features that can be found in the megagame – once you get behind the photo-realistic graphics. Games which encourage multiplayer interaction in particular team play – for example famous MMORPGs such as World of Warcraft – have encouraged team-based play and even hierarchies of command and control have evolved, though this is not a central tenet of the game design.
Familiarity with cooperative play is growing, and the best example of this is Artemis, the starship bridge crew simulator. This creates, over a computer network, an excellent real-time simulation of a starship bridge with players operating key control stations and who must communicate and cooperate to run their ship. The system even allows up to six ships to cooperate, necessitating a hierarchy and an admiral and/or squadron commanders.

And, of course, most recently, the well-known Watch the Skies series of megagames was inspired by the 1994 classic game UFO Enemy Unknown developed by Mythos Games and MicroProse.

Game Theory has had its place too. As the megagame idea developed, so designers started to draw in ideas from game theory – not just the mathematical aspects, but more qualitative ideas concerned with the psychology and sociology of game play.
This has been supplemented by ideas drawn from more recent literature on game design that has arisen from the growth of game design as a subject taught at university (on the back of the explosion in the computer games industry). Academic professors of Game Design are, as professors do, writing about their subject in extremely interesting, and entertaining, ways and the literature is growing daily.  I particularly like Rules of Play  by Katie Salen   and Eric Zimmerman.. Also recommended are The Art of Game Design: A book of lenses and A Theory of Fun for Game Design.

scan0008
‘Final Frontier’ SF Megagame – 1989

Management theory has also been an influence. There are vast mountains of books on management theory, and life would be far too short to have read them all, let alone apply them to megagame design. However, a number of ideas have been influential – in particular the very effective communications theories of MIT Professor Fred Kofman in his book ‘Conscious Business‘.  Don’t be put off by the ‘business’ look of the book, it is, for me, one of the best books on interpersonal communication out there.  And megagames are all about interpersonal communication.

Some basic ideas on the operation of hierarchies, team formation and even Maslow’s hierarchy of needs have been applied in the design of megagames.

Leadership and communications theory has been influential too. Megagames are about leadership. It will come as no surprise that theories of leadership have been influential in developing and designing game briefings and setting the challenges for players leading teams (even though they might not be aware that in playing what appears to be a fairly simple game role is in fact giving them access to valuable practice for leadership.)

 

Is it a megagame?

Just a short post this week.

I came across this chart I designed a few years ago now.
The final complete analytical flow chart will be more complex, of course – but as a starting point this was an interesting exercise.
I’m working on an updated version, so it would be very interesting to hear comments on how it might be improved or adjusted.

Anyone have any thoughts?

is-it-a-megagame

wargames
Is this a megagame? – discuss.
larp-battle
Or Is THIS a megagame?
longest_lan_party_90191
What about this?  Megagame or not?

Next Week : The Origins of Megagames

Reviewing and assessing how it went

Debriefing

One of the most important traditions in megagaming is the post-game debriefing. It is really important that everyone gets together at the end for a short review of the game and to give and hear some feedback.
The format and timing of the post-game session will depend on the time available in the venue and the numbers of players and team.
Typically we allow about half an hour for the plenary debrief at the end, though it can be longer.
Ideally someone from each of the main player teams should be invited to give a short account of what their team anticipated for the day, their plan, and how it turned out. Encourage them to give one or two key points and to keep it short. Emphasise short, at the end of the game many players really want to give a blow-by-blow account of the day – avoid that if possible. And occasionally one gets players who just like the sound of their own voice!
We also ask some of the control team for their feedback – for example in a game with a main map, the Map Control might give an overview of events.
Also useful in closed games is to leave the master map open for a little while before clearing up so that players can take a look at what was really happening in their game.
The aim of the debrief at the end of the day is mainly to allow players to get a sense of some of the unfolding narrative that they would never know about otherwise.
We also encourage participants to write post-game After Action Reports (AAR) on the Megagame Makers Facebook group or on blogs. The post-game feedback from these sources is often really useful and it has the added benefit that megagamers who were not there get the chance to get a flavour of what they missed.

imgp1154

The Critique Sheet

The second main feedback tool we use is our Megagame Critique feedback form, This is a single sided questionnaire. We have used this fairly standard critique sheet for many years now, which has been very helpful in allowing us to compare subsequent runs of a game, or similar games.

The sheets are handed out at the end of the game, during the de-briefing session. We do this because we want the players to reflect a little on their day before filling it in. We also make a point of collecting the forms there and then. Experience has taught us that we lose a lot of feedback by waiting for someone to return a form later or respond on line. Also we want to be able to compare immediate responses to the game. If some respondents are giving the immediate reaction and some are reacting days or even weeks later they will have a different perspective.

Most of the key scores on the form are based on a 1 to 5 scale, and they are very helpful is getting an overall sense of how the game went.

In many cases, designers already know if a game went generally well or generally badly. What is harder to determine in a game involving many players interacting in widely different ways, if how everybody experienced the game. It is quite possible for a game to have gone generally well, and at the same time for a particular team to have had a miserable day. Psychologically, they will be disinclined to say this, especially if everyone else is chatting afterwards about how well the day went. The critique sheets not only provide a numerical measure, but also space for written comments and thoughts on the game. It is from these that we get a sense of where the ‘enjoyment black holes’ might be.
Sometimes this will be a result of game structure problems – a team might not have enough game interactions with other teams – sometime it can be as a result of the team’s own behaviours – i.e. they pissed off their other team members and nobody would talk to them thereafter. Or some combination of the two even.
It is important to hear these criticisms in a positive light – even if they are writing things like “…this was the worst game I ever played…”. Do not get defensive, read on – they might have some constructive suggestions that will make the game better – and as designers this is what we are always trying to achieve.
In our critique questionnaire we ask a number of key questions. There is nothing special about them, they just reflect what we’d like to know.
Of course, once you run a few megagames, the results have a value for rough comparison – though I would never go so far as to use the term ‘league table’ in polite company – it is something of an incentive to try to get an improving ‘Enjoyment ‘ score for your megagames.

The questions we ask are:

Part 1 : Numerically scored questions (participants score 1 to 5)

Game Briefing Materials: How well did the briefing material supplied enable you to play the game properly?
Rate of Play: To what extent were you under time pressure whilst playing? 5= too fast, and 1 = too slow
Personal Involvement: How much were you involved in the game action, or interactions with other players?
Personal Enjoyment: How much fun was it for you?
Game Difficulty: How hard you found the problems posed by the game and the situation you found yourself in?
Historical Feel: To what extent did the course of the game match up to what you would expect might happen historically?
Quality of the Control Team: The Control Team make the game run, how well or smoothly do you think they did this (so far as you could tell)?
Quality of Other Players: How well did you feel other players coped with the problems posed?
Admin Charge: To what extent do you feel you got value for money today?

Part 2 : Other questions, not numerically scored

Other Information

To help us to gauge what sort of background knowledge players come to the game with, answer the following by ticking the ONE box that most closely matches your background knowledge on the period in question:
[] Read only the game briefing material
[] Had a quick look at a book
[] Only one book on the subject
[] Several books on the subject
[] Studied the period/subject extensively

The Future

To gauge the likely take-up for future games (or re-runs of this game) please indicate below:
If this game were run again within 12 months, would you play again? YES/NO
If a game similar to this one were being organised, would you want to play? YES/NO

At the end of the form is space for the participant to offer suggestions, either on improvements to the game they have just played, or suggestions for future games.

imgp0621

Interpretation

There are some things we have noticed having review many of these feedback exercises.
Responses to game briefing materials seem to be independent of the actual quality or writing or production values We think this is usually related to how well the materials related to the player’s game role and ability to engage with the game.
Player involvement and player enjoyment are often linked.
The value for money question (Admin Charge) is also scored low when enjoyment is low.

The Real Debriefing

There is a third type of debriefing which I regard as essential after any megagame and that is the post-game social. What this is will depend on venue and timing – it can be as simple as naming your favourite local pub and everyone descends on that (remember to warm the pub first if its likely to be a lot of people), or you might be able to arrange something in the venue itself, or book a room at a restaurant. It all depends.
But whatever you choose it is important to have some sort of post-game event because this is where players really get to expand on their megagame war stories about who did what to whom and how often – and how they were shafted by their allies, or how they outwitted their enemies.

Megagames are primarily about a narrative arising from emerging gameplay and the post-game social session is, above all, the place where megagamers get to tell each other about that narrative.

dscf3393

NEXT WEEK : Is it a megagame?

The Megagame Control Team (Part 2)

Map Control

Last time we looked at the work of the Team Controls in an operational megagame (or the operational part of a political/military megagame) and this is usually coordinated by one of more Map Controls. This is largely a management role. The key things Map Control usually takes on are:

Timing. As you have seen, Team Control has a full range of things to do, and whilst all Team Controls keep one eye on the clock it can be very easy to lose track of time, especially if you have a particularly confusing or knotty situation to resolve with other Team Control on the Master Map. Map Control will gently remind the Team Controls that they only have a few minutes to complete their updates. Map Control often holds the vital responsibility for overall game timing and ensuring things do not slip. In general this works, and the unbroken pace of time passing is one of the features of a well run megagame that distinguishes it from many other types of game.

Consistency – I have mentioned elsewhere the need for a common understanding of the principles and philosophy of the base game systems. Map Control is there to help the Team Controls with interpretations, or areas where they are not sure how to apply the base system. It is also important to make sure that any new rule interpretations are shared across the map with all the Team Controls, to ensure consistency.

Supporting Team Control – Sometimes, exceptionally, where Team Controls have a lot of actions to adjudicate, Map Control might step in and assist with the actual adjudication process – though this isn’t the norm. If Map Control is doing this then they are obviously not doing the rest of their task.

Troubleshooting – sometimes things get fraught or the Control Team come under time pressure themselves. This is less than ideal – the aim of megagame designs is that the time pressure should apply to the players, not Control. So Map Control – possibly in concert with the Game Designer, if present, takes on the authority to make greater changes – maybe dispensing with rule mechanisms that are slowing things down, or even, in extremis, leading a ‘free kriegsspiel’ of the map situation to unblock delays and sticking points. The most important thing here is that “the game must go on” and as far as possible appear seamless to the players. What goes on at the Master Map, stays at the Master Map so long as the output does not challenge the players’ willing suspension of disbelief.

Generally the Map Control will tend to be a more experienced member of the Control Team, with a good knowledge of the historical period, the game rules and good interpersonal skills. They need to be able to get the Team Controls moving constructively and show some gentle authority at the Master Map table.

imgp0128

Political Control

In some games we have a role for Political Control, which is there to facilitate useful conversations between political teams / players in a political or political / military megagame.

Generally a Political Control has a good knowledge of the politics of the period in play, and can extemporise on a theme of what might be possible or what the consequence of a particular political action might be. This is a lot more open ended than the Team Control role in an operational megagame, and requires consistent judgement and imagination to tell the story. This might be giving a player team the likely reaction ‘back home’ of a particular negotiation position or treaty, or it might be handling some sort of political skulduggery in historical periods where assassination or kidnapping was the norm.

The base rules generally provide guidelines on political actions, and might provide mechanisms for things like popularity, status or the chances of a successful assassination – but inevitably, players will come up with things outside these base rules or guidelines.
Political Control will often be keeping track of several political storylines simultaneously, as the results of player actions and decision work through into the political consequences (both intended and unintended).

In our megagames we tend to use only the most experienced Control team members for Political Control, mainly because they can always add depth to the basic game structure and are used to managing political wizard wheezes constructively and without unbalancing the overall game narrative.

Another important aspect of the Political Control role is representing higher authorities. In one run of our game about the 1940 Campaign in France and the Low Countries, the player playing Winston Churchill confessed after the game that we was genuinely nervous when the Political Control announced that the King wished to interview him about the (not very successful) course of the war so far, and then made him role-play the ‘awkward interview’ with the Political Control playing the King. This is a vital bit of colour – because it is very unusual for the top level commands to be entirely independent of their political masters. A ‘visit from Hitler’ in an East Front game will always concentrate high command players’ minds.

imgp1226

Non-Played Elements

In games with a wide range of actors that are not represented by player teams we generally have a Non-Played Elements (NPE) Control to manage this aspect of the game. The non-played elements might be minor countries in a political game that are too small to warrant an active player team, but which nevertheless have something to say in events. Famously one NPE Control managed to have an argument with himself while representing two minor countries, and went to war with himself over it! The key here is to add depth to the game and make those elements of the game not under player control have some life and be able to respond, as distinct from being merely blank areas on a map to occupy with no consequence. This creates a real sense of game depth that impacts on players’ decision making and their all-important sense of the game narrative.

NPE Control might also be role-playing certain personalities, and will often have a collection of these to do – maybe a Pope here or a minor Duke there. There will usually be base game rules to determine much of this – in the case of NPE that are countries the game might have rules determining their reactions to their neighbours or to being invaded – but ultimately players will value having someone to talk to face to face – even if all the minor rulers do look uncannily similar.

Specialised Control

Some games require different types of Specialised Control. These might be adjudicating logistics or strategic air power or religion or magic or births, ‘marriages and deaths’. These will vary very much from game to game and we often find that these will be built around some specific game mechanism. However they are usually far from mechanistic Control roles. Like Team Control and NPE Control players will always look for things outside the base game systems, and a Specialised Control has be able to take this and run with it – this is, one again, part of creating the impression of an ‘open world’ of the megagame – that anything could be done in real life can be done in the game.
For example a Logistics Control might be reporting back to logistics players information that is actually operational – say if the enemy have just appeared in the rear areas.
Or one division might be surreptitiously stealing fuel from another division’s dump.
Or in a fantasy game, the Mages decide they want to use their magic in a perfectly reasonable way that has not be allowed for in the rules – Magic Control has to come up with either a perfectly good reason why they cannot or, and better to my mind, quickly give them some possible outcomes (as well as costs and benefits).

Game Control

In overall charge of the game is Game Control. This can be either very easy or very difficult and it is always hard to know which in advance.
Game control has the following main areas of responsibility:

Game Flow. This is more a sense of the ‘feeling’ of the game than any structural or definable thing. If you stand and watch and listen in a megagame, you will be aware of the game ‘buzz’. This is a combination of the body language, the conversations, the movement around the room of a large number of gamers who are engaged with a game and enjoying themselves. The buzz varies with the mood of the players, the excitement of the game and the general energy in the room. If this starts to flag this is a clue that the game might not be holding everyone’s attention fully. This might be fine – it might be that last half-hour turn of the day and everyone is winding down. If it feels ‘flat’ during in the early afternoon then this is a clear indicator of game flow issues. There might be things that can be done at this stage – what, exactly, will depend on the game. If the game designer is present then they might have suggestions. It could be as simple as injecting additional resources for some teams (reinforcements, money, magic items). Or major like re-arranging the teams, or setting fresh objectives.

Timekeeping – as you have seen, Map Control keeps the Master Map to time (if there is one). Game Control has the wider responsibility for keeping the whole game moving, and this will often involve simple things like announcing turn changes. However there is more to it than that – where there are consistent delays – maybe a player team is consistently late getting their orders ready, or the Team Controls are too slow in getting back to the players, then it is Game Control’s to track down what is going wrong and fix it.

Looking after the players – this might be as simple as circulating and checking that everyone is have a good time (see below). Some players struggle, especially at first, and Game Control is, ideally, free to spend time chatting to them and helping them.

Supporting the Control Team – this is important when there are less experienced members of the Control team who might need reassurance or advice on how they are getting on. It might also be necessary to step in and relieve a member of the Control Team who has to drop out at the last minute or as a result of some crisis or other. Or better yet – reorganise the Control Team to cover problems, workloads etc.

Final Arbiter. The Game Control will be the last port of call for game problems. However, I always advise everyone in Control to watch out for players ‘shopping’ – that is, going to a series of members of the Control Team with the same question hoping to get the answer they want (I.e. the one that most benefits them) from one of them. In these cases I always ask “have you asked your Team Control?” first.

Anything not covered above. Stuff happens. Game control sorts it out. Game Control usually suits people who like to problem solve under pressure, and have good interpersonal skills.

dscf0777

The Game Designer and Control

In a slight majority of megagames the game designer is present.

This is both a blessing and a curse for Control.

The blessing is that the game designer is there and can help brief control on the game design philosophy, and even take part as a member of the Control Team (usually as Game Control, but not always). The game designer is also a very useful source of assistance where there are problems with the game mechanisms as they will, of course, be the ultimate authority on how the game should work – in theory at least.

There is an issue where there are patches or workarounds developed during gameplay – usually involving the Game Designer. It is very important that those patches are communicated to not only the Control Team but also the players (assuming it affects them).

Where the game designer can be a curse is where they feel the need to interfere when things are actually working well enough. This can be very disruptive for Control, especially if they have got into the flow of the game and feel they know what they are doing. Even if, or especially if, this might not be exactly what the game designer wrote, to the letter.

I’ve been guilty of this more than a few times myself as a game designer. Looking around the game I’ve been seized by a sudden panic that something isn’t working properly and have the uncontrollable urge to wade in a ‘fix it’. Only to be met by the Control Team who say “Jim … shut up … its all fine”. It is important that the game designer understand that with a good Control Team, they will come to you if there is a problem – you don’t need to interfere. In some cases where Control have made a workaround for something that didn’t quite work as well as hoped, you can usefully take notes for next time the game is run.

There can be an even bigger problem if the game designer actually plays in their own game. In my view, this is never a good idea, unless the game designer can be absolutely clear that they hold no responsibility for the game while its in play, and fully delegate responsibility to the Control Team.

Nobody on the Control Team wants to be ‘outranked’ by the game designer over some adjudication decision they have made that the game designer doesn’t like or on how the game ‘should’ be going.

That way lies madness.

 NEXT WEEK : Reviewing and assessing how it went

 

The Megagame Control Team (Part 1)

The key part of any megagame is the group of people that facilitate the whole thing.

In some games this role is called ‘umpire’ or ‘GM’ but we tend to use the term ‘Control’.
We call them ‘Control’ because the term ‘Umpire’ tends to give the impression that they are impartial arbiters of a set of generally agreed-on rules as might be a tennis umpire or a football referee.
This might be a part of Control’s role, but the facilitation aspect of the Control function means they have a role to play in addition to this. It is especially important in megagames where often they are closed games, both in terms of ‘fog of war’ but also in that the game rules themselves are not available in their entirety to the players.

The term ‘Control’ implies some responsibility for the progress of the game – acting like a ‘control rod’ in an nuclear reactor – which moves to speed up or slow down the fission reaction. Similarly Control might make injects into the game to influence or moderate game flow.

dscf2293

A megagame is not a passive process, like a board game, which would typically be set up and run to a conclusion with all the player interactions being clearly defined and regulated by a set of (usually) immutable written rules.   A megagame is a more dynamic process of multi-player interaction, that might (and often does) involve the use of fixed rules to moderate some aspects of the activity – but also re-quires facilitation and interactive moderation to ensure that the maximum gain to the largest number of players. A good control team will manage this facilitation process invisibly, ensuring that they do not damage the key narratives of the game by appearing to be arbitrary.

So in a very real sense the Control team controls the game on many levels.

As a result, individual members of the Control team have a degree of leeway to develop the game themselves in their particular area. This can, and does, require some quick thinking, imagination and excellent communication skills. In some games we can even see Control developing ad-hoc rules to cover some creative idea brought up by players. This works very successfully where players come up with a wizard wheeze that is perfectly reasonable but falls outside whatever base game system the megagame is operating on. There have even been experiments with dispensing with a base game systems and mechanisms altogether and rely on Control to manage all game interactions and adjudicate results based on their judgement alone. Such ‘free kriegsspiel’ methods are risky and require a high standard of consistency between the various members of the control team, and it utterly depends on a tight, experienced, team all having very similar views on what constitutes reasonable outcomes for the narrative. Generally we have found it more reliable to have a mixed economy of a base game system with can be embellished by the Control Team as necessary – effectively like improvisation within a theme.

Team Control

It is in the operational games that Team Control – the member of the control team that interfaces between the Master Map and one particular player team – a sort of liaison role – where some of the most interesting facilitation occurs.
In games using the Player Team ↔ Team Control ↔ Master Map approach, Team Control has a great deal of responsibility for the quality of the experience of the game that their players have. It is very like the responsibility a dungeonmaster has with their group of players in a conventional role playing game.

cnv00021

Team Control is often also the person calculating combat results and updating the position on the main map. This is sometimes tricky, especially for those new to it because it can feel like playing a board game – in fact we identified early on the problem of Team Controls ‘going native’ and playing as if they were a partisan member of their player team. To a degree this is reasonable and to be expected, in that we expect Team Controls to be advocates for the orders the players have written – but they are neutral advocates rather than players. At the map table, the Team Control also generally takes low level decisions on behalf of the team on issues that cannot be covered in the written (or verbal) orders given by the players – this is to simulate the initiative taken by junior commanders who we imagine would be in charge of the units the players are ordering about. These low level decisions will aim to reflect their understanding of the players’ intentions (and because the Team Control spends the day communicating with the player team they generally get a good idea of what the players really want, even if they didn’t write it down with military precision (or even if they did!). This is a key example of how Team Control injects that all-important ‘colour’ to the game experience. Players are encouraged to develop their sense of the story unfolding by this sort of independent action. Their subordinate units are no longer merely counters to be pushed around a board, but begin to feel as though they are ‘real’ (or a bit more real, at least).

All this adjudication at the Master Map is usually done in conversation with the other Team Controls who might be handling ‘opposing’ units, and the discussion there will reflect an informed consensus of what is ‘really going on’ at that stage of the battle. The Control team gathered round the master map create the overall narrative of what has happened in a game turn, greatly influenced by the base rules or mechanisms but also by their own knowledge of the historical period and the boundaries of possibility.

I think it is important, however, to make sure that there is a common understanding of the philosophy underpinning the base mechanisms because this provides a sound foundation for any extemporising or judgement calls the Team Controls might need to make. Wherever possible we try to explain the thinking in separate briefings for Control – but it often helps to have a brief face-to-face session with all of the Control Team in the first half-hour of so of the game, while the players are sorting themselves out in preparation for the first game turn.
Where a situation arises that isn’t covered by a specific rule or mechanism it is easy, with experience, to quickly reach a consensus as to what had ‘really happened’.

So, Team Controls establish a rapport with their team early on – and aim tell the story of the division or corps or whatever it is the team is commanding. It is this storytelling aspect which is very important and wherever possible a report back on the outcome of the orders each turn is in the form of a ‘report from junior officers’. So a Team Control might say something like “The commander of 4th Brigade reports that his attack on the town of Kempshott went in as planned, except that the hoped-for air support from the Air Force unfortunately didn’t arrive due to a communications foul-up. The Germans put up a stiffer resistance than we expected and losses were heavy. Fortunately he was able to flank them with some of his tanks2 and eventually the enemy retreated to the east towards Tankerville. The brigade commander says his troops are very tired and worn down and probably only have enough energy for one more attack like that”. This would be in contrast to what might have actually happened at the master map, where under the game mechanisms the air support didn’t arrive because the air force player team forgot to issue an order for it that turn and the attacking brigade had a marginal victory on the combat results table and lost 3 strength points out of 8 and smaller German unit lost 1 strength point and had a forced retreat. Control will avoid using any terminology that is ‘gamey’ or abstract because we believe this detracts from the flavour of the experience and the narrative. It can be entertaining too as unusual events do crop up and can be turned into anecdotes, and control can impart some character into the non-played subordinate units if necessary. For example in this case Team Control might well role play the junior brigade commander offering his (player) commander a few choice words as to his opinion of the (absent) Air Force.

20141101_114338
In one example the player team had a very successful operation and had captured many prisoners from a low-quality enemy unit. They asked if they could interrogate prisoners, and Team Control went into a long and boring feedback from disgruntled enemy soldiers complaining about their own high command, the poor quality of the food, how their feet hurt, how they’d had no sleep and so on. This was more colourful that “…you have captured many men from a low quality unit”. And the players didn’t spend too long asking detailed military questions of the prisoners because they (rightly) deduced that these prisoners really had nothing useful to impart.

All of this said, speed is also very important. Megagames operate to strict timetables, and all members of the Control Team have a responsibility to ensure that the game keeps up its required pace. So sometimes the time pressure means reporting back might not be the full dramatic discourse one would like. But the principles remain.

However much we try to avoid it, it is inevitable that a mistake or two will be made on the map at some point, there can sometimes be a lot to work out and the interplay of different units and orders sometimes complex – but we will not normally go back and undo results once adjudicated. To do so would undermine the narrative flow. We might explain to players if a gross error has occurred but otherwise mistakes tend to stay in the Black Box of the master map and can usually be rationalised as fog of war or the friction of command, or simply a subordinate commander making a mistake.

In general I would always recommend to Team Controls that they are honest about major errors and try to agree with the players on a post-hoc rationalisation if possible. However it can be tough on players who have actually being doing well to have their successes ruined by a Control error. With experience and practice, fortunately, this sort of error is rare.

[Next Week – Megagame Control Team (Part 2) : Game, Map, Political, Non-played Controls, plus the relationship between the Designer and the control team.]

Being Control

Megagame Control is extremely important. A poor or under-prepared Control Team is an order of magnitude more damaging to a megagame’s narrative than poor players1.

Control subtlety influences the game by ensuring the players have the right sort of information at the right time. One might think that megagame Control attracts control-freaks who like to feeling of power and the ability to say what happens. Control freaks generally make poor megagame control team members for exactly that reason. Control is a first and foremost a facilitative role – and it is important that in this role we do not lead the players or take over their game by making decisions for them or by railroading them into choices we think they should make. It is always the players’ game, not Control’s. Control’s role is to make the whole experience feel as open ended and real-world as possible and that players have the opportunity to make mistakes as well as stunning successes.

dscf1731

This is not to say that Control should never offer advice – it can be very important, especially where the player team is inexperienced, to offer options perhaps in the form of “advice from your junior staff”. But this must be done carefully and subtly, and in the form of several realistic and genuine choices and not just the one option you think they should be taking. Sometimes players just run out of ideas and feel stuck. This is an area where Control can really help.

If, as Control, you find yourself making decisions for the players or unable to resist the temptation to put them right when they are going wrong. Or you find yourself inevitably trying to ‘win’ against the other Team Controls at the Master Map table – then being Control might not be for you.

Another key element of the control role is to look out for player problems and this is an important part of facilitation.
Control is on particular lookout for players not getting involved, or seeming out of their depth because this might be an indication of some other game problems. In the case of Team Control it will be obvious if one of the team members is particularly passive (or reading their book / newspaper / laptop).

Lack of involvement on the part of a player might indicate one of the following:

They are feeling out of their depth. This can be a concern, especial with inexperienced or new players. Someone of the control team will do what they can to involve the player and help them with hints on how to engage, some ideas of who to talk to or hints on game-play to encourage them.

Their game role is not holding their attention. This might be a design flaw that the game designer didn’t anticipate – perhaps the role simply doesn’t have enough for a player to do or maybe that particular player finds they’re just not into being the Queen of Naples all day after all. There may or may not be a fix – sometimes its possible to re-role people on the day. Control has a role in acknowledging this and doing what is possible to re-engage the player if possible.

There is some interpersonal problem within their team or with another player or even with a member of the Control Team. These can be very tricky. Sometimes emotions run high, especially if the game is engaging people a lot or where there is a high degree of role playing. Control often has to manage this sensitively and openly, perhaps with brief time-outs. We also have to remember that we’re not relationship counsellors, however, and to some extent we expect adult and mature interpersonal behaviour from all participants and this can helpfully be made explicit, either in the game briefing or in a face to face conversation at the time.

They are having a bad day/year/life in general. Not much control can do about this! Except to acknowledge it. Sometime players in this position just like it that someone noticed that things are rough.

They are fine but had a late night last night and just need a nap. Sympathy is all Control can offer. And not too much of that.

Like so many things, preparation is important for members of the Control Team. Ideally, reading the game materials supplied by the game designer will be enough to get you started – however I always encourage members of the Control Team to get in touch in advance of the game with any queries or to ask for some explanations of any parts that are not clear or seem ambiguous. This can save a lot of time on the day, and is very helpful for the designer.

dscf3720

On the day, the issues Control confront will be extremely varied – no two megagame experiences are the same. Control issues I’ve seen would include:

1. Players have not read their briefings and want you to tell them how the game works on the day as they are playing. Refer them to their briefing. Of course, help where they may not have understood what they have read, but it is not helpful to do everything for them.

2. Players who do ‘decision shopping’ (see above). As time goes on you get to know players who do this regularly. However, if anyone in Control spots it, it can help to pass the word to the other members of Control, if possible.

3. Player – player personal conflicts. Sometimes people don’t get on. We don;t have the skills, time or resources to solve that. However, giving players some down time to calm down if tempers are frayed can help. As can de-roling2.

4. Player – Control conflicts. This can be tricky. If a member of the Control team has so upset players that it is getting in the way of the game, then Game Control needs to intervene. Most often these conflicts are as a result of mis-communication on both sides. Generally, briefly involving another member of Control to mediate solves the problem.

5. Unpopular game results. Players naturally hate it when things go wrong for their side. Sometimes things can go catastrophically wrong, and this will cause perfectly natural feelings of dismay or annoyance. Players can often take a ‘shoot the messenger’ approach at this point. Defeat takes very sensitive handling by Control – and it can sometimes help to point out the positives in the situation, to offer some neutral advice as to options, and sympathy. If a team has been utterly crushed then this is an issue that Game Control and/or the game designer needs to be involved in. In a good game design this possibility will have been anticipated and the game designer will have a ready a pre-prepared new command or team role for the team to renew their part in the game.

6. Pedantic rule-mongers & Optimisers. The briefings for megagames are not like board games or wargame rules. They are never written to be more than a set of guidelines. Control can find itself engaging with players who argue about the precise interpretation of the exact wording of the game briefing (usually to try and gain a technical advantage of some sort). Fortunately this kind of behaviour is rare because it lies outside the spirit of megagames. But where it does occur there needs to be some careful explanation that in the end, Control’s interpretation is what counts, regardless of a player opinion of the legalistic wording of the game briefing. The clue is often where a player asks lots of closed questions in a row in an effort to ‘catch out’ Control. Like ‘shoppers’ if this looks like its happening too much, Game Control might need to explain to the player that this is unlikely to help them get the best out of the game.

This sounds tough – why be on the Control Team at all?

All the above might look like it requires some pretty major skills to do successfully.

And to a degree this is true, but it is by no means a barrier to contributing to a megagame successfully as a member of the Control Team.

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA

So what does it take to be a good control?  5 Features of Good Controls

1. Like to tell stories about what happens in a game – many gamers already do this. Think about the last time you described a game you have played to someone who wasn’t there. Did you give a blow by blow account of each die roll, or did you embellish it into a story of bravery, daring and genius? If the latter you have the basic narrative skills needed for control.

2. Are you a good listener? Listening, especially active listening is a skill that not everyone has practised but which everyone can learn fairly easily. If you know what I mean by ‘active listening’ then you’re there already. (See annex on Active Listening).

3. Emotional intelligence. More tricky ground here. By this I mean, in the megagame context and from the control team point of view, having some empathy for the players and their in-game problems. Again, not everyone might practice this but it is learn-able.

4. Sense of humour. Yes we’ve all got one, but it is important to be able to interact with players with a sense of the ridiculous and a sense of fun. Playfulness is also important – remember that no matter how serious the game subject, there is always a element of entertainment – people do this for fun. Constructive use of humour can also help reduce tensions for players who might be feeling that things are not going well. Mocking players, on the other hand, (tempting though it might be sometimes) is neither helpful nor constructive, and can damage their relationship with the game – especially coming from Control who have an unequal power relationship with the players.

5. Background historical or thematic knowledge. Actually this isn’t essential for every type of Control role. It is very helpful to know something before you start – though often the game briefings will contain a wealth of background information on the historical period. Political Control generally need a good working knowledge of the historical period. Team Control or Specialist Control probably less so.

dscf3359

Is this me?

Anyone who has been a role-playing Dungeon Master or Game Master for a while and run role-playing games has generally already practised all the core competences that are needed for a good megagame control team member. We have found that experienced role-players have a bit of a head-start over conventional mainstream wargamers when it comes to learning to be an effective member of the Control Team.

There are all sorts of reasons people give me for liking a Control role. For some it is the enjoyment they get from seeing the whole process play out and work. For others is it the interaction with players and a sense of helping them have a good time.

And being on the control team has one very big plus to it. You get the god-like ability to see and know what is going on and watch the story unfold before you. You see the drama of the player teams struggling against difficult odds, you see the full genius of that bold move that turns the course of the campaign you see the consequences of gross player incompetence. You also participate in a very central way in the act of collaborative storytelling that is a megagame, with an opportunity to be creative and imaginative within that framework.

 NEXT WEEK : Megagame Control Team (Part 1)

Briefing for megagames, what to include and why

Game Handbook

This is a collection of all the common information about the game, along the lines discussed above. It is intended to be given to all participants and the following are generally included:

  • The main assumptions underpinning how the game will go. Some of these might be very general, some very explicit. So, in an operational megagame you might give some information on what you think are the key combat assumptions – maybe that the game assumes that tanks are really ineffective in built-up areas, or that infantry attacks unsupported by artillery are very likely to fail. In a political game you might outline the limits the players are working under – for example you might explain that even though the player is playing the role of President, she might not have absolute power and will need to remember the importance of keeping the electorate happy.
  • A brief summary of the thematic background to the game – time, place, circumstances at the start of the game. If this is a lot (as it might be for an SF or Fantasy game) it can be worth creating a separate background briefing, or point to some really good material online.
  • A description of the main teams and player roles and how they are supposed to interact with each other. You might think this is obvious – and in some cases it might be, but not everyone will be as well read on the background to the megagame as you, as the designer, will be. Don’t be afraid to state the obvious.
  • The timetable for the day. This might not be in the game handbook, but you will certainly need to be clear when the day starts and how the day will be structured.
  • The timescales – how long each part of the game will take, what it represents in real life. So you might say, for example, that each ‘game turn’ represents 4 days of real time, and will take 30 minutes to resolve. Sometimes a more explicit timetable will be helpful, giving start and end times.
  • Guidance on how to play. Including the mood you want to set. This might contain cultural guidance to set the scene for the game. If there are lots of new players it might contain more general guidance on the megagame experience and what to expect.
  • Descriptions of the important game components, the game rules and those parts of the game system that the player will be expecting to interact with. This might not be all the rules, there might be separate playsheets available on the day in the case of very simple rulesets. And of course there may be special rules that only the control team know about.
  • Include a map of the venue layout so that players have a sense of where they need to go when they arrive, and where the other player teams are in the venue.

q0-08

Game rules

Not every megagame shares all the game rules and mechanisms with the players, but where it does, these should be explained, ideally with worked examples.
Personally I hate writing the worked examples, but participants tell us they find them really helpful and are really essential, especially for a new game.
I will talk more about the detail of writing game mechanisms and rules another time.

Historical or Scenario Background

Personally I prefer to avoid long historical articles within the game materials, partly out of a wish to keep things simple and also to keep the situation open for players. Too much emphasis on historical prototypes can lead players to mistake the game for a re-enactment and rely too heavily on hindsight than is entirely good for them. A megagame is not a re-enactment. It is an exercise in emerging gameplay and player interaction built around a theme. The game designer sets of the pre-conditions mut has little or no control over the game narrative – that is the job of the players. So a game in an historical or very well known fictional environment does not, should not, and cannot expect to, replicate the events of history or the fictional prototype.
Sometimes a game will have a wealth of background detail that, if included in the Game Handbook would make it large and unmanageable. In the past separate briefings have been used for things like a Gazetteer of places in the game, or a summary of demographic, political and geographical data. Generally this is seen as an optional reference document – though it is worth considering whether such a briefing is necessary if it not going to be used widely in the game. Many players can become overwhelmed by too much briefing material so it is important to find a balance between accessibility and completeness.

dscf2072

Team Briefings

These contain information specific to the player teams. It is important to ensure that different teams have different information, perhaps a different perspective on the situation and that these perspectives are not always clear to the other teams.
So in a game about a zombie apocalypse, the Police team briefing might focus on protecting the uninfected whilst at the same time ensuring important parts of the city are not infested, whereas the National Guard are focusses on destroying zombies and are unconcerned with civilian ‘collateral’ casualties or the impact of property damage. In a megagame the tensions between team (or player) perspectives is a very important driver of player interaction.

In some cases the differences and distinctions are obvious and know to all. For example, in a megagame about World War 2 everyone would be aware that there are important idealogical differences between the USA, Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia.
In addition to something about the team or player’s attitudes and perspectives, there is often important game information to found in the team briefing.

In an operational megagame, for example this might include:

  • the detailed order of battle of the team’s forces (something that their enemy would not have in anything other than outline)
  • intelligence summary of what is known about enemy forces and their location.
  • Information on the overall command structure and how the team fits into it.
    overall instructions from High Command – the objectives of the team in the game.

In a political game it might include:

  • secret agendas – things the player team is planning that nobody knows about.
    unique information – perhaps some information on the resources or intentions of other teams
  • obvious team objectives, such as ‘get re-elected’ or ‘gain more money than another team’.
  • likes and dislikes. This is very helpful in political games, especially when they theme is not very familiar to the players. Examples: “The Communists are evil and cannot be negotiated with”. “The English can never be trusted”. “President Faart of Silvania is an old friend and a thoroughly splendid fellow”.

The content of the team or player briefing is highly dependent on the game, of course, but there are some things that are useful in all briefings:

  • Thematic background (where needed)
  • Who they are and how they got to be here.
  • Team objectives. These need to be written carefully and should be realistic and achievable. Generally have at least three objectives (more if possible) and at least one of them must be easily achievable.
  • Humour helps too if you can manage it.

imgp0621

Personal Briefings

In some games, individual players might have their own, personalised brief for the role they are playing. This is especially common in games with a high role-playing element. These briefings will usually have some very specialised objectives, as well as items of information known only to that one player. The principles discussed above apply here too. However, it is important when developing multiple personal briefings to make sure they are internally and externally consistent. A simple example would be if a player briefing says “Your nemesis is Professor Peabody” then Professor Peabody’s briefing should mention the fact too. Or if some key bit of information such as “You have learnt that the political activist Dave Spart is being held in Police HQ” is matched with information on Dave Spart and his whereabouts in the Police briefing. It is easy to miss these things. I have found that using tools like spreadsheets can be very useful in collating and cross-checking player briefing information, as a planning tool before writing starts.

Control Briefing

This will usually contain guidance to Control from the Game Designer on how the game is envisioned, as well as game mechanisms and rules that are opaque to the players.
In this briefing one might include

  • description of the different types of control team member with a short ‘job description’ and an outline of how they interact with players and the other control team members.
  • special rules that only control know about.
  • (where the control team is inexperienced) advice on ‘how to be control’
  • key points of pressure in the game, or areas you think might prove difficult for players with advice on how the game designer want that to be handled.
  • errata, corrections or additional explanations that didn’t make their way into the game handbook.

dscf1648

Victory, Defeat and Endings

One of the things that does not feature in our megagame briefings are explicit victory or win conditions.
Many people comment on the absence of victory points (or similar) from megagames.
This is a common mechanism in board games and wargames and it intended to tell people who ‘won’ at the end.

Of course with a megagame there are no winners and losers – such an idea would be absurd in a game with 100 participants all aiming to create and emerging gameplay narrative. ‘Winning’ in meaningless outside the broader framework of general objectives and role motivations. And megagames aim, to a greater or lesser extent, to contain an element of consistent real world ‘feel’. Whether that real world is 21st Century Earth or a far distant space colony of the future. And in real worlds nobody counts up the points to see who ‘won’ at the end.

As a megagame designer, the objectives go wider. The designer is creating an entertainment for an audience. How would you feel if, at the end of watching a movie, the movie theatre owner announced that the audience member in Row G, Seat 10 had ‘won the movie’ on points. Telling the majority of players in the game at the end of a day of intense, immersive gameplay that they had ‘lost’ and someone else had ‘won’ because of their arbitrary collection of victory points does not, and cannot, ever feel like any meaningful reflection of the day’s experience.  The person who ‘won the megagame’ might feel good – but what about the 99 who ‘lost’?

Of course for abstract ‘mere games’ this is not a problem, and I will write more in a later post on how all megagames that are in any way a simulation of meaningful interaction must, by definition, contain an element of role playing.

There is another, very practical objection to victory points and that is their strong encouragement of rules-based metagaming. Players look at what earns them points, rather than using their imaginations and the megagame’s context and themes to expand the narrative of the game. Meta-gaming is the enemy of good megagaming. And in any case unless the victory point schedule is exceptionally well crafted they also tend to lead to unintended outcomes – player doing things utterly inconsistent with the theme and narrative in order to maximise victory points through some loophole in the tariff. This has massive negative effects on other players. Creating a coherent and stable VP system that does not encourage aberrant behaviours is hard enough in a six-player board game – it is orders of magnitude more difficult in a 50 player megagame, even if it were desirable.

NEXT WEEK : Being Control