Review: The Opposite of People

[kleenestar]

[Broin]

So that's where my bribe ended up!

I am blown away by your enthusiasm and generosity. You rock.

Uh. An actual responses to follow in the morning.

Cheers! =)

Joe.

[DevP]

Creative and Effective Incorporation of Rules: 8

We have actual real Actors in the classical sense, they are a Team, and John Law is at their back (via the Protest Deck mechanic). There's definitely something I like about the Protest Deck; I've loved the idea that art is often criminal or at least is always at risk of being put down by the Man. It would be cool to see a little bit more attention in the text to the sexiness of being on the run from the law.

The ten-session limit makes sense, given the build up to the Capital City, although it feels ultimately optional to the structure of the game. I actually think this is a feature: a game that plays well on its own, or serially if that's preferred

Clarity: 9

This game is written simply and clearly. Perhaps the final version could add some more color to parts or tighten others, but it's quite ready as such.

Completeness: 7

In terms of having its rules together, I feel like the rules are complete. More examples could be helpful. The extra settings are nice, in terms of completeness, although may I suggest that they may not be necessary? You could simply go with the assumption that we're doing an Elizabethan setting (since that's what's really going on here, no?) and work that into the text without the more confusing references to the setting in the back. You can still add alternate settings towards the end (Dogs in the Vineyard is strucutred like this, for example), although I don't feel such settings are the strength of this game.

Estimated Effectiveness in Play: 4

The problem I see is that the production phase requires us to define the town (both mechanically, and additionally adding setting details), deciding what sort of story we'll be telling on stage, and handling all the conflicts for setting up for the play. Way too much is trying to fit in an hour's time, and moreover: there could really be some better structure here. Particularly: the structure of a play is itself a really complex thing, even worth a game in itself! Some suggestions here could help, although the gist of the game is about the acting of a play, and not the actual content of one. (Off-the-cuff suggestion: perhaps before the session you agree on a commonly known story to bastardize into the play?) Also: will it be clear enough as to what kind of conflicts the players will pursue in the different phases.

Another criticism: the mechanics are basically "choose stakes, resolve, narrate win/loss", in a very vanilla and very clear. This is okay! But consider if this is enough for the play you want. The risk of drawing ire from the Protest Deck is wrinkle in these mechanics; are there others that could help as well, perhaps?

(Also, IMHO: Stakes is a rather dry term, and is roughly about "find something the character once". Is there some way to more clearly point out at what conflicts should be about, and perhaps neutralize this term? Just a thought.)

Swing Vote: 8

I like the idea. The feel is right, the rules are out of the way, and the concept is very solid and quite clear. I read it, and I immediately understand the vibe I want, and know many people who could dig on a faux-Elizabethan game of illegal theatre. It could be played now, but I'd definitely like to see some of the previous flaws considered.

Total Score: 36/50

[Adam Kleizer]

The Opposite of People

REVIEWER NAME: Adam Kleizer

1) CREATIVE AND EFFECTIVE INCORPORATION OF RULES (1-10): 9
Feedback: The time constraint was used wisely to imitate a longer tour of a travelling theatre. The use of Actor is really strong. I think as this is a game about theatre, Team was a reasonable choice. The game is about illegal theatre - not ordinary theatre - which gets the deserved attention in the settings "Young Mars" and "Shadow Puppets". The whole existence of the Protest Deck and rules about this deck just emphasizes this, so Law is used in a really good way.

2) CLARITY (1-10): 9
Feedback: Everything was understood. You don't just get examples of play, you even get a summary at the end. I think that tokens need more attention though.

3) COMPLETENESS (1-10): 8
Feedback: I hate myself for saying this, but choosing one of the settings and making it more detailed might be the right way to go. I don't think the game needs any major rules. Minor rules might be changed or introduced to make the game better - see next point.

4) ESTIMATED EFFECTIVENESS IN PLAY (1-10): 6
Feedback: While I think I could play this game and would love it, I have some questions and complaints. 1) So what if it's our really-really unlucky day and we draw cards in a way that we get a "Rout" after 5 minutes of play? Not like this would be a disaster, as you always get something, even if you loose. 2) It seems like always drawing from the Protest Deck when determining the population of a town - thus always playing in a larger town - has only a slight disadvantage and much advantage. You always get at least half of the Population in tokens (that's 5 or 6 in large towns). Why should players draw then from the other deck and play in a smaller town? 3) So many things are determined by drawing cards, the GM might feel like he has not much to do. Does the game even need a GM? What if generating the town would be the responsibility of the GM? More actual play and more surprises for the players, what do you say? 4) I didn't playtest nor did I calculations about this, but it seems that one hour just isn't enough for a session.

5) SWING VOTE (1-10): 10
Final Feedback: Not only do I want to play this game, I want to do it in all three settings provided. Cool idea, great use of cards, nice settings. I hope you'll publish this someday!

TOTAL SCORE (add items 1 through 5, above): 42

[Broin]

Thank you all so much for the reviews. I'm chuffed. =)

Some responses:

Kleenestar,

The hour-long sessions *are* tight, but doable, I think. I ran a couple of one hour sessions at a convention recently (Polaris and The Shadow of Yesterday) and had to explain the rules and background to people who'd never played any indie games whatsoever. Along with the actual game!

Afterwards, two-four hour sessions seem like a luxury.

On the clarity of the book, I found it quite difficult to sort out how the game was presented. I wanted the book to present ideas as they came up in play - conflict when conflict appeared - but that meant some chapters were huge.

You're totally right about tokens not being clear. I finally figured them out late on the Sunday. =)

And you're spot-on with the muddiness in protest cards. And it never even occured to me that I needed to explain that you stuck with characters through the ten sessions. Nice catch!

On Completeness, I didn't want an ongoing plot, but haven't communicated that. I see the game as having the intensity and energy of Invader Zim, say. Pow pow pow, conflict conflict conflict, and on to the next town.

And I thought about players helping each other, but didn't really come up with anything. Great observation there, again. =)

Effectiveness. Great thoughts here. I'll just respond with one 'correction':

You missed two rules. At the end of the first two phases, the conflict deck is shuffled (look at the ends of those chapters). As qualities and tokens can be spent to get extra draws, more tens are played, and the PCs should actually come out slightly ahead in tokens at the end of a session.

I need to fine-tune this economy as you suggest, but my stuffed-animal playtesters seemed to do ok. =)

Swing! Wow! I'm gobsmacked again by your generosity. And if you do get a chance to playtest, keep in touch!

Joe.

[Broin]

DevP,

Thank you for the review. Marvellous stuff. =)

Your point about the extra settings not adding much was interesting, as a couple of friends have made the same observation. And you're absolutely right that the structure of a play is worth a game by itself. That's definitely a project for the future (and a concept I don't think I've seen tackled in other games).

But I do think a group could handle this in an hour, as my post above mentions. An intense, slightly crazy hour, and perhaps one that needs a lot of coffee.

Conflict *is* very vanilla, so I'd like to playtest this out a bit and see where the attention of the players is drawn to. And thus, what might need more detail.

And as for 'sexiness of being on the run from the law', ha! Nicely put.

I am indebted to you.

Best,

Joe.

[Broin]

And finally, Adam,

I'd never even thought about the way that bigger towns provide relatively risk for relatively large awards. I figured the 'ever-present' Protest card would nix that, but perhaps not. Definitely something I need to work on.

And you're absolutely right about the position of the GM. I don't know if one is needed, and I'd love to see what exactly the GM did in a session (or was required for).

Again, I'm amazed and impressed by the review. I do hope I'll publish this one, and I promise I'll charge you real cash money for it. =)

Best,

Joe.

[kleenestar]

[Broin]

[kleenestar]

Joe -

Well, listen, go tell me something about Decade that I don't already know, and we'll call it even. =)

Seriously, I really liked this entry and I would be very happy to look at future drafts. Go forth and write, my son!

Jess

PS - Are Tootsie Pops considered a controlled substance? 'Cause those things are addictive . . . .