Hi,
> Can you spell out what you mean by using the low card suit?
Right now, you draw the high card to determine 'who' and use a table lookup of the low card value to determine 'what'. This means, among other things, the group needs to have the table printed and handy (whereas the suit for 'who' is already on character sheets).
But if you do both as related to suits, it's internally more consistant, easier to memorize, and slightly more streamlined.
So if you make each attribute match a suit, then the low card suit (not value) can determine the quality involved. I'd suggest: Hearts = Hope, Spades= Strength, Clubs = Discipline. If a Diamond is draw, you can either make the rule to 'draw again', to use the same suit as the Person Affected, or to just use the same quality that was previously involved.
This third one is thematically interesting, because it means "that thing that was just a problem, is still a problem." So if the hardship of Strength hits, it's slightly more likely that Strength will be a problem in the immediate future.
On the other hand, if you take the first choice that the suit (if diamonds) reverts to the home suit of the player affected, then you get a slightly positive world where the challenge is more likely something one can deal with.
Hope that helps!
Cheers,
Sandy
Review: Terra Nova
19 posts
• Page 2 of 2 • 1, 2
by rpoppe » Tue Apr 11, 2006 6:25 am
Thanks for the review, Willow!
Error noted - I switched from 7 to 6 points for optional character generation, but the change didn't carry through in the final edit.
Personally, I think Scott's role is the best in the game - not only does he get to influence the tenor of the game by granting or denying merit throughout, but he also gets to be as personally involved as he wants by allocating compassion at the outset - if he keeps it all for himself, he's going to be in every scene. I imagine playing him as a hectoring pedant, constantly goading other players into spending their precious resources to help others rather than looking to their own self interest, all the while completely above the calamity.
Error noted - I switched from 7 to 6 points for optional character generation, but the change didn't carry through in the final edit.
Personally, I think Scott's role is the best in the game - not only does he get to influence the tenor of the game by granting or denying merit throughout, but he also gets to be as personally involved as he wants by allocating compassion at the outset - if he keeps it all for himself, he's going to be in every scene. I imagine playing him as a hectoring pedant, constantly goading other players into spending their precious resources to help others rather than looking to their own self interest, all the while completely above the calamity.
- rpoppe
- Marmoset
- Posts: 55
- Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2006 1:50 pm
by spaceanddeath » Wed Apr 12, 2006 10:17 pm
1) CREATIVE AND EFFECTIVE INCORPORATION OF RULES (1-10): 6
Feedback:
Team and Steel were integrated well, and the inclusion of the law was fascinating and terrific, however, the follow through on this idea was somewhat weak. The Law of Nature vs. Law of England could make for a great and powerful dichotomy, and I was really excited when reading this description in the intro. I expected that the core dynamic of the mechanics would be based on this idea: Your life or your composure, not both.In play, however, though this dynamic is encouraged, there's little to support it actually happening.
As for Time, The game fits it's time constraint well, but does not seem to do so with any intent, and does not use it as an actual constraint. Although each scene should take about 10 minutes, there's no support to follow this guideline, and no apparent reason that they should be constrained this way. Also, the game could end five minutes in, with the "pull four Aces" rule.
2) CLARITY (1-10): 6
Feedback:
The flavor text of the game is fantastic. By the time I read the notes and introduction, I was salivating to get into the game. Ditto with the introduction of the characters. All around, anything that is written around the situation or actual history that the game is based in is delightful and obviously comes from a love of the story or subject.
The clarity of the mechanics is so-so. There are some inconsistencies in the terminology that is used throughout these sections (for example, I got the impression that a previous draft of the game had actually used Compassion as a point stat rather than a card that is played because there's a different mode of writing about it: "Someone can spend a point of compassion to raise the quality above zero. " on pg 19 vs. "A compassion card can be played at any time, but you cannot play a compassion card on a character who has not lost a point in a quality during the scene." on pg 15.)
The use of "effected" vs. "affected" should be verified for correctness in this document. Though I usually wouldn't nitpick over grammar, I think this particular grammatical issue is really very important in describing processes of play, because it can confuse the enactor with the enacted upon. I'm mentioning it because it affected me greatly, with the effect of leading me into considerable confusion.
Many of the actual mechanical processes of play are pretty clear, but overall the document gives very little direction of what actual game experience is like. I was very glad to see Examples of play in the document, as it helped to sort out what was confusing. However, I would strongly recommend the inclusion of "in the moment" examples of actual dialogue. Also, make sure that your Examples of play follow the chronology dictated in the rules (e.g.. page 15, the loss of the points due to the drawing of the cards should come before the discussion of the hardship experienced according to the turn sequence on page 12).
3) COMPLETENESS (1-10): 4
Feedback:
Reading it, I have a very good understanding of the chronology of the game. The turn sequence is very complete; I know when I should be doing what. The thing that is very noticeably missing, though, is the how. The hardship table helps to narrow down the kind of things that the explorers should be facing, but gives very little direction on how to frame out scenes, and can be confusing on who should be doing that.
The game seems to assume that the players would have a high level of understanding about the prerogatives and obligations of an English gentleman, and gives no support to players who can not put that to use in an immediate way. Also, the game gives few guidelines to Scott on how to identify good examples of this behavior.
4) ESTIMATED EFFECTIVENESS IN PLAY (1-10): 4
Feedback:
Although the intro to the game presents a concept of a very cool, intense role-playing experience (Play explorers doomed to die in the frozen wastes of the Antarctic! They have turned back with their dreams dashed, they are losing their minds and their hearts to the elements, they may never get home at all, but their dignity, their uprightness, their composure is the true measure of their success. You may die, but you will die like true gentlemen!) and then provides rules for something that feels more like a board game. The game does not seem to encourage in-character exploration or demonstration, treating it more like an afterthought or a bonus to regular play than the point of the exercise.
There seems to be very little room for strategy at all in the game. Most events are entirely random, the players can only really use their compassion cards to try and exert any control or strategy in the game, and there is no guarantee that they will have any compassion cards at all.
The arbitrariness of Scott's role in the game is very troubling:
I'm not sure that the role provides enough stimulation to keep the player interested, engaged or involved.
In order to be able to actually engage and have fun, it behooves Scott's player to keep all the compassion cards for himself.
Playing without compassion cards denies strategy to the rest of the players, and therefore puts Scott's player in a position where he must either take fun away from the others to have fun, or give his fun away to let the others have fun.
Both the compassion distribution at the beginning of the game and the merit awarding throughout provide for a great deal of abuse because there is no check to ensure the judging is done fairly. In the hands of a player who may feel excluded from the action, this can be even more dangerous.
I would suggest that Scott should not be played by a separate person, but as a rotating role, each round shifting to a different non-active player, or that records should not be written at all, but more on the level of fanmail - something like: every player must distribute one token to another player each turn for examples of exemplary behavior (that are much better defined), and that tokens tallied at the end determine merit or somesuch. Also, I'd suggest that compassion should not be distributed by a single subjective body, but rather dealt out to all players evenly at the beginning of play.
Captain Scott's notebook entries are a very cool idea, but they will become quickly problematic for continuity in play. If Wilson, for example, gets hit with a strength hardship in the second or third scene, has no compassion to play, is not helped by another player and dies, he can not be finding fossils in scene four. Also, if there was terrible hardship (which is very possible, in the current rules set) one scene, and the next scene's intro is chipper or optimistic, it will undermine the narrative tension in the game.
5) SWING VOTE (1-10): 5
Final Feedback:
The premise is amazing, the execution is lacking. It feels like two different games sewn together. I think that the author must choose to focus on the intense story (the law dichotomy) or the boardgame but should not try to play both sides against the middle.
Oh, and the character sheets totally rocked my socks. I also like that they would be entirely reusable if they were used with protective sheets and wipe off markers.
TOTAL SCORE (add items 1 through 5, above): 25
Feedback:
Team and Steel were integrated well, and the inclusion of the law was fascinating and terrific, however, the follow through on this idea was somewhat weak. The Law of Nature vs. Law of England could make for a great and powerful dichotomy, and I was really excited when reading this description in the intro. I expected that the core dynamic of the mechanics would be based on this idea: Your life or your composure, not both.In play, however, though this dynamic is encouraged, there's little to support it actually happening.
As for Time, The game fits it's time constraint well, but does not seem to do so with any intent, and does not use it as an actual constraint. Although each scene should take about 10 minutes, there's no support to follow this guideline, and no apparent reason that they should be constrained this way. Also, the game could end five minutes in, with the "pull four Aces" rule.
2) CLARITY (1-10): 6
Feedback:
The flavor text of the game is fantastic. By the time I read the notes and introduction, I was salivating to get into the game. Ditto with the introduction of the characters. All around, anything that is written around the situation or actual history that the game is based in is delightful and obviously comes from a love of the story or subject.
The clarity of the mechanics is so-so. There are some inconsistencies in the terminology that is used throughout these sections (for example, I got the impression that a previous draft of the game had actually used Compassion as a point stat rather than a card that is played because there's a different mode of writing about it: "Someone can spend a point of compassion to raise the quality above zero. " on pg 19 vs. "A compassion card can be played at any time, but you cannot play a compassion card on a character who has not lost a point in a quality during the scene." on pg 15.)
The use of "effected" vs. "affected" should be verified for correctness in this document. Though I usually wouldn't nitpick over grammar, I think this particular grammatical issue is really very important in describing processes of play, because it can confuse the enactor with the enacted upon. I'm mentioning it because it affected me greatly, with the effect of leading me into considerable confusion.
Many of the actual mechanical processes of play are pretty clear, but overall the document gives very little direction of what actual game experience is like. I was very glad to see Examples of play in the document, as it helped to sort out what was confusing. However, I would strongly recommend the inclusion of "in the moment" examples of actual dialogue. Also, make sure that your Examples of play follow the chronology dictated in the rules (e.g.. page 15, the loss of the points due to the drawing of the cards should come before the discussion of the hardship experienced according to the turn sequence on page 12).
3) COMPLETENESS (1-10): 4
Feedback:
Reading it, I have a very good understanding of the chronology of the game. The turn sequence is very complete; I know when I should be doing what. The thing that is very noticeably missing, though, is the how. The hardship table helps to narrow down the kind of things that the explorers should be facing, but gives very little direction on how to frame out scenes, and can be confusing on who should be doing that.
The game seems to assume that the players would have a high level of understanding about the prerogatives and obligations of an English gentleman, and gives no support to players who can not put that to use in an immediate way. Also, the game gives few guidelines to Scott on how to identify good examples of this behavior.
4) ESTIMATED EFFECTIVENESS IN PLAY (1-10): 4
Feedback:
Although the intro to the game presents a concept of a very cool, intense role-playing experience (Play explorers doomed to die in the frozen wastes of the Antarctic! They have turned back with their dreams dashed, they are losing their minds and their hearts to the elements, they may never get home at all, but their dignity, their uprightness, their composure is the true measure of their success. You may die, but you will die like true gentlemen!) and then provides rules for something that feels more like a board game. The game does not seem to encourage in-character exploration or demonstration, treating it more like an afterthought or a bonus to regular play than the point of the exercise.
There seems to be very little room for strategy at all in the game. Most events are entirely random, the players can only really use their compassion cards to try and exert any control or strategy in the game, and there is no guarantee that they will have any compassion cards at all.
The arbitrariness of Scott's role in the game is very troubling:
I'm not sure that the role provides enough stimulation to keep the player interested, engaged or involved.
In order to be able to actually engage and have fun, it behooves Scott's player to keep all the compassion cards for himself.
Playing without compassion cards denies strategy to the rest of the players, and therefore puts Scott's player in a position where he must either take fun away from the others to have fun, or give his fun away to let the others have fun.
Both the compassion distribution at the beginning of the game and the merit awarding throughout provide for a great deal of abuse because there is no check to ensure the judging is done fairly. In the hands of a player who may feel excluded from the action, this can be even more dangerous.
I would suggest that Scott should not be played by a separate person, but as a rotating role, each round shifting to a different non-active player, or that records should not be written at all, but more on the level of fanmail - something like: every player must distribute one token to another player each turn for examples of exemplary behavior (that are much better defined), and that tokens tallied at the end determine merit or somesuch. Also, I'd suggest that compassion should not be distributed by a single subjective body, but rather dealt out to all players evenly at the beginning of play.
Captain Scott's notebook entries are a very cool idea, but they will become quickly problematic for continuity in play. If Wilson, for example, gets hit with a strength hardship in the second or third scene, has no compassion to play, is not helped by another player and dies, he can not be finding fossils in scene four. Also, if there was terrible hardship (which is very possible, in the current rules set) one scene, and the next scene's intro is chipper or optimistic, it will undermine the narrative tension in the game.
5) SWING VOTE (1-10): 5
Final Feedback:
The premise is amazing, the execution is lacking. It feels like two different games sewn together. I think that the author must choose to focus on the intense story (the law dichotomy) or the boardgame but should not try to play both sides against the middle.
Oh, and the character sheets totally rocked my socks. I also like that they would be entirely reusable if they were used with protective sheets and wipe off markers.
TOTAL SCORE (add items 1 through 5, above): 25
- spaceanddeath
- Tamarin
- Posts: 43
- Joined: Fri Mar 10, 2006 5:20 pm
- Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
by Graham Walmsley » Thu Apr 13, 2006 3:34 am
- Graham Walmsley
- Langur
- Posts: 148
- Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2006 6:23 am
by Eric J. Boyd » Fri Apr 14, 2006 10:00 am
- Eric J. Boyd
- Tamarin
- Posts: 48
- Joined: Fri Mar 10, 2006 10:30 am
19 posts
• Page 2 of 2 • 1, 2
Return to Game Chef 2005 & 2006
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 43 guests