Anxiety of Influence

Just received a copy of Brian Train's Algeria in the mail. Truly, I wasn't aware of any of his designs when I started working on MOOTWEFL. As it happens with any new literary endeavor (I think of games are essentially literary objects) the problem of strong precursors arise. We share many of the same prejudices about games and simulation and it is a bit disconcerting to see that mechanics that I thought I had invented (or at least stolen from sufficiently obscure sources) are already present in this nicely-published game. But then there is also Ici c'est La France. I guess I'm glad that I'm not designing an Algeria game!

Anyway. Brian and I (in my notes) have both taken a missions-based approach to the problem of representing COIN in a game. My idea is different in that the mission choices my players will take will come directly from the manuals I'm studying. It is evident that Brian has read the same manuals, of course, but players of Algeria aren't necessarily interested in learning English or NATO doctrine: my players will be. The problem with the greater amount of choice facing my players will be analysis paralysis. MOOTWEFL, as I have conceived it, will be played by groups of students with each group lead by a senior officer.

This is my story, anyway. For the moment, I'm sticking to it. There is the temptation to simply run my classes using Chris Engle's matrix games. It was actually Brian who suggested I do this. Doing MGs, in addition to preparing my classes, will oblige me to do the necessary research for any MOOTWEFL topics I want to treat later.

I've got to keep moving. In the description for Ici... I see certain design goals of mine nicely reflected. It still depends on point expenditure for actions, which is something I would like to do away with. The question is how can varying levels of legitimacy and logistics be gamed without resorting to point tracks?