"Who has played a "Mugger Game"?" Topic

Okay, I've been looking into some old timey game development/evolution and I've come across references to Paddy Griffith ans his Mugger games. Has anyone played one of these types of games? Anyone have good links to articles about them? Is Paddy Grifffith still active? I read a book by him on infantry tactics several years back, but I haven't heard his name mentioned in too much current writing.

I played a Mugger Game years ago – it needs consenting adults who know what they are doing, but works well.

There is a section on Mugger Games in the WD Handbook – available here:
link

Paggy Griffith is still around – I played in a superb e-mail campaign he ran a few months ago. His website is here:

link

What is a mugger game?

Fun! Best described, Neotacha, in the WD Handbook PDF to which John refers.

Requires players of a certain mindset, though.

Allen

Bummer…

I thought you were refering to a game about muggers and cops.

So it's a game with vague rules where you talk about what'll happen if you do X Y or Z before you do it? And it's not to win or lose, but really is 'how you play the game'?

Sounds a bit strange, but I like that there's really no competitive aspect. I could see it'd be useful in a history class or some such, if high school classes ever had time to do interesting things any more, with stupid standardized tests becoming the focus of education….

"…a game with vague rules…"

Doesn't really have any rules at all, the players discuss and agree the likely outcome of every action.

If you want a bit more structure and/or competition matrix games are similar (see WD handbook above) but with conflicting player objectives and some randomisation.

Just read the WD link description of the Muggergame… dear God. What a total wank. We're playing with toy soldiers for God's sake.

w.

Matrix Games

link

"What a total wank."

I'm prepared to concede expertise on this point.

Allen

wermacht:
I'm confused:
Do you mean you do like or don't like the sound of the thing?

I was interested in MGs because they sounded _more_ like "playing with toy soldierts" to me than other styles of minis games…

So…it's a minis game where everyone argues their opinion of how things should go, then the things turn out in the most agreed upon way?

How is that diffrent from a normal mini game?

No need for charts and tables? ;-)

Sounds like the sort of thing that happens in London every day.

Not sure exactly how you meant that last bit Azanth, but it seems like the Brits do a fair bit of stuff that isn't regularly done on this side of the pond, both with minis and different kinds of rpgs.

I'd kinda like to import the idea, ya see…

I have played Mugger Games and Matrix Games, and although similar, Matrix Games have more structure and are easier for players to pick up.

Graham Evans designed a Matrix Game that the SOA gave away to all its members – it has some very basic game mechanisims but most of the results of what happens on the tabletop is a result of the 'arguments' (AKA historical discussions) that take place.

I actually played in that first muggergame in 1983, an event so momentous in my gaming career that I was telling a friend all about it on the way back from Fall-in two days ago.

It was brlliant.

I commanded a very large battalion of about 80 figures (I'd been used to the 12-18 figure units prevalent at that time), which I had self-defined as being raw but enthusiastic, commanded by a dunderhead (being myself). The only real rules involved how far we could move in a minute. Paddy G (a genius in our hobby, and still a close friend) announced a ten minute move. So I did the sums and moved about three feet forward.

The man on my right moved a foot. The man on my left stopped to loot a farm. And I was still in march column with a very large number of model soldiers coming into a village where a fellow on the other side was arriving with his unit.

We stopped and discussed what would happen next. I thought I'd halt when he came into view and throw out skirmishers while the main body formed line. He decided to occupy the buildings as fast as possible. We decided what the chances of these things going properly were, and rolled some dice. There was some minor musketry that we thought would probably not amount to anything. Another gamer came over and discussed it a bit more. We all decided that he had the advantage, but that both sides would probably stare at each other until something else happened.

Then Paddy declared another turn, and the man on my right came storming forward. This outflanked the village, and the defender, unsupported, decided to retire before bad things happened. I took the place without a shot.

It didn't take long, and was far more illuminating than just looking up charts and remembering rules.

A total wank it was not.

Mexican Jack:

Can you tell me a little bit about the rolling dice bit?
My impression from stuff I've read indicated that the players+ref basically came up with what and how to roll for stuff on the fly.

I sort of imagine it working like:
Player:"My guys would try to put out a skirmish screen and the main body form up into lines"

Ref: "Well, the sudden appearance of the enemy troops might throw them off a bit. Plus, you've described your troops as raw and their commander as a dunderhead, so they might hesitate a bit."

Player: [Damn!] "True, true. So, let's say, that there's about a 50/50 chance that they do what I want. If they don't, at least a few of them sort of hesitate or mill around in confusion"

Ref:[Grabbing a handy d6] Okay, on 1,2,3 everything goes according to plan. On a 4,5,6 the troops start to follow orders, btu I reserve the right to make a few adjustments when you're done to represent at least a few snafus. Fair?"

Is this the sort of thing that happens?

Sounds like a Mugger Game to me!

In a Matrix Game the player would ahve said something like:

Player: "Whilst the main body of my troops form lines, I will throw out a skirmish screen in front of them (ACTION) with the result that any enemy troops will not be able to catch me unawares (RESULT). This will happen because my troops have performed this manouevre in training (REASON 1), they are not under fire (REASON 2), and this is the most sensible action I can take (REASON 3)."

Referee: "You have already been described as a dunderhead, and your troops are raw. I also judge you last reason to be weak. You must throw a 5 or 6 on a D6 to succeed."

Not that unalike but slightly more structured (Action, Result, and 3 Reasons).

Komradebob – yes, you have it exactly. I probably shouldn't have just said 'we rol some dice' in case somebody tnks that we had a set of charts from Napoleon's Battles or similar in case we needed the concrete solidity of mathematical tables.

Which would rather miss the point of the game.

What happens if there is no referee and the two sides cannot agree on what happens?

And does it happen that the two sides get so heated about their positions that the game stalls at a point where they can't agree?

Does it just come down to a 50/50 chance of it happening either way?

Rich – I think you could do it without an umpire, but I doubt you could do it with people who were primarily competitive in their intent. It's all about analysing events according to 'inherent military probability' (who coined that term?) rather than trying to win as such.

When wargamers talk about 'learning history from wargames', this is what they ought to mean (although mostly they mean 'extra complex/extra detailed' rules)

I think you and I probably know people who must never be invited to particpate in a muggergame!

Operator5:
I haven't played a Mugger Game, so I can't speak to that, but what little experience I've had with Matrix games is that they tend to become self-regulating/self-correcting. In a non-refereed game, you ask an opponent to rate the strength of the argument ( as noted by Bob Cordery, above).

That sounds like a formula for disaster right? Well, the thing is, eventually your opposing players have to ask you or another of their opponents to rate _their_ argument strength.

The results can be:
1) People get super-competitive and let their urge to win get in the way of "fair" assessment. Pretty soon, everyone's arguments are rated as very weak ( succeeed on a 6 only). Nothing really interesting happens, ceratinly not easily.

2) People get over it, realize that a game is more than a single argument, and be more reasonable with strength assessment. People are still playing "to win", but get a whole lot more subtle, building argument upon argument until they've undeniably taken control of the situation. Very Sun Tzu.

One of the key differences between the two, as I understand it, is that a roll in a Matrix Game ( in basic form) determines whether an action succeeeds, while the roll in a Mugger Game decides which _one_ of several different possible outcomes happens (assuming it even gets to the point of rolling).

Well, that and the fact that Mugger Games seem to benefit a lot more from a ref, while Matrix Games can be played pretty easily without a ref ( gaining a smaller benefit).

I appear to have ran a version without realising. I ran a few Modern map games- players with radios in different rooms radioing orders to the umpires. We would look at a situation and roll a dice for a unit- 6 being v good, 1 v. poor, and at that point decide the outcome. We also role played the subordidates back along the radio.

Last Hussar:
I'm jealous. I've always wanted to try out something like that.

Bob, I've played some Mugger Games. Howard Whitehouse ran on in Oklahoma City in 1995. We started off with a Science vs Pluck game but then did a Mugger game of soldiers crossing a valley. As in all Mugger games we made up rules on the spot as needed. Great fun.

Chris Engle

Hi Chris, good to see you stop in on the thread.

I'm still working on mushing together some of the ideas from Mugger Games, Matrix Games, some of the scenario creation stuff that Howard Whitehouse has worked on and a few of the experimental mechanics I had for that kids' minis Not-Wargame I was working on.

Hopefully I'll be getting together soon with a couple of guys out here in SF,CA who are interested in some more experimental end gamestyles and see if we can't come up with some variations of that stuff for an older audience.

If anyone is interested in trying a matrix game the one written by Graham Evans referred to above is still available from the Society of Ancients – go to the web site at soa.org.uk :-)

On an odd note, in the early Dragon Magazines there was a RPG called Mugger. I believe the highest level you could get was Senator.

Mugwump

Are these related to "Free Kriegspiel" – my somewhat sketchy understanding is that these were refereed rules-free wargames used for officer training by the pre-WWI German general staff.

We used to Kriegspiel in the service because we wouldn't have to haul anything around with us and we used this to "test" our plan against likely enemy actions – although these were a series of actions against a single time frame instead of continiuos. The down side is the fellow in charge decided everything so there was no real way to balance out the unfairness should it arise.

Another technique I call "Because" is to roll a target number with the dice and then explain why something could happen if needed. This was more a creative exercise, but you could still make a game out of it.

Why is it called "Mugger"?

Paddy used to have a criminal record of mugging. This is why Angela Rippon, a ex News presenter was put the TV show "Game of War" in 1994, in order to keep an eye on him, in the hope of seeing him Mug a old lady in the audience , whilst pretending to interpret the Kreigspeil system they used.

But Paddy ws too smart! They finished the show by dancing off stage with Angela swirling a daringly high skirt around and flourishing into Paddys arms.

For this particular finale, paddy wore the Uniform of a Full Colonel in the Cheval Chassure a la Gaurde.

It moistened my eyes.

*looks at [Tommiatkins] in stunned confusion*