1KM1KT Free RPG Community

Excellent thread! I'll contribute as soon as I am able.

-Andy

Peer review of Doug Ruff's "The Dinner Part".

I'll presume you've read it. Otherwise the review will be as long as the text. I'll also forego any comment on proofreading and little rules quirks (specific levels of resource gain or loss) that need examination, playtest, or debugging - I think there are a few that might offer danger to play, but they're not immediately apparent as disruptive.

In short: I think this game will rock or bomb - depends on the interplay of too many factors (player options/tactics, group interaction, player resources) to be able to tell easily. Might therefore benefit mightiliy from playtesting and actual play examples.

Historical Period: 1970s (also CC #1)
Ingredients: Wine, Companion, Accuser, Invincible
Rules Limitation: playable characters are fixed.

use of historical period

Ok. While the game isn't an examination of the period in question, the supplied background information will help transport people there and mirrors the themes encountered during play. Could have taken place during any age with dinner parties, though, I reckon.

Use of ingredients.

Good. Wine is of obvious mechanical and thematic importance (although it can really be any alcoholic beverage). Companion is supported will thematically, player-role, and system-wise. Accuser isn't central, but will be an often-used tactic in the game. Invincible, as a term, feels like a bit of a slap-on-patch to me - it's a reasonable term, though, for a mechanical exception that the game does need.

All in all - using 3 terms well, using the 4th decently.

use of limitations

All pregen characters: - we're presented with well-rounded, interesting and believable, and mechanically different characters to play. Well implemented. The game might hit much closer to home if the characters weren't pregenerated, though - especially if the Other Players can determine the Issue & Hang-ups of a player. Too close?

premise

Choice of premise: 1970s vicious dinner-party talk. Very interesting ('common-man' play), very topical (given recent discussions).

Mechanical support: Excellent. Each character has an issue to adress, a social context to overcome opposition in (or curry favor), and specific mechanics for getting their way. I wonder if some 'games' that characters play aren't actually driving them away from resolving their Issue - so it will be interesting to see how resource awards interplay in those cases. Perhaps playing to a strategy of putting yourself at the other's mercy is the only way to win? Can't see that yet, but it would be a nice sneaky trick by Doug.

Conclusion

Most definately to be playtested! Perhaps with a slight reduction in the number of strategies available to the players - or an indication of the more common, easy strategies. Most definately to be examined for the parallels it can make into the actual players - the balance might be fragile, but worth seeking.

If Doug ever visits the Netherlands, I'll invite him over for dinner - I'm a good cook, so that'll be interesting for sure!

Oh, and someone review my game next - Companion Fever. Anyone? How about the following suggestion: someone review my game, and then their game is up for review by the next person who wants to review, etc. This way, everyone's game will be reviewed and you're rewarded for doing a review! (Just a thought)

Edit: this last bit of writing was done AFTER 2 people reviewed Companion Fever (thanks for that!) so as to keep the thread pure. I don't know how to 'solve' the crosspost and what it means to the thread - maybe some plucky person will review BOTH games? Edit3 NEver mind, Clinton's solved it!

edit2: Since 'edit' power on your own posts doesn't seem to expire, I'll start a new thread 'Answers from questions in the Peer Review thread', in which I'll answer questions about Companion Fever. With the 'edit power', I will only need one post to add to my answers, and other people will also only need their own single post.

Okay. I looked through Companion Fever.

Short answer: Looks fun, I would try this out. To satisfy the "lowest common demoniator" of people who may try to play this game, the rules need to be fleshed out more, probably with examples and illos.

Long Answer:

Historical Period: Unique, and a great idea.
Ingredients: Entomology, Accuser, Companion, Invincible. This is an accusations game with enomology being a significant plot point. While the terms Invincible and Companion are used, some more explanation of how these influence game play is needed.

Limitations: Pregen characters. NO character sheets, the three results on a roll and color. I understand that the three colors of dice represent (I think) entomology, companion, and invincible, but because the three simultaneous rolls are placed in order from highest to lowest, they really don't have any connection, do they?

Game mechanics concept: I understand the concept and it's a good one. What I'm having trouble with is visualizing the actual play. Your example starts out with a 6-6-1 combo, and my first thought was cripes if he passes it on and a 6 is rolled, doesn't that mean the end of the mission? But that possibility was never discussed, so maybe I misunderstood. Also, I'd like to see an example of duplicate numbers and the Fever concept played out. Like 4-4-4, just to make sure I understand how that's passed.

So that's really it: The actual play needs to be fleshed out with more examples for a better understanding of how the dice work.

An idea: Use illos of line drawings to show how the dice go around the players.

Conclusion: Would like to play this.

Review of Companion Fever

The color: The setting for this is awesome. What a great setup for a game - on board a run-aground military ship full of problems and strife! I dig it completely.

The gameplay: Well, this game ended up like a lot of games this year: all about character-versus-character play. What's more, this game is primarily a dice game with narration painted on it. There's a lot of that this year, too, with board, card, and dice games being turned into RPGs. This is not a bad thing. It's exciting, because we've got role-playing games that are fully functional social games, something we can play with friends of all types. "Companion Fever" is a game I could easily take to a coffee shop and play with co-workers and friends that had never played an RPG before. It's not altogether that different from some of the card games we play.

The ingredients and rules limitations somewhat forced this style of play: no character sheets or pre-made characters as a limitation, and accuser and companion as keywords were a direct setup. I think it was planned for most games to come out this way, and again - awesome. I love these games this year.

The mechanics: They look solid. They leave me with two questions, though:

- How can I play this with four people? Three? Six?
- What about the one character who's not connected to an entity that anyone else is connected to? Isn't he set up to get screwed?

All around, this is a tight little game I'm definitely planning on playing in the near future.

Quick and dirty review of BarQuest

The setup: I totally dig the idea for the game. I like fantasy, and I really like good fantasy spoofs.

In regards to Iron Game Chef: I'm not seeing a strong connection to the ingredients. There's a little bit of flavor from a few, but not strong. Will this affect the judging? Not mine - I'm looking for good games. It might affect it from the real judges, though.

Gameplay: It's a combo RPG/board game. It reminds me of something Tom Jolly would write, which is high praise. I do think it could be tightened: some of the characters' goals are strictly role-playing and some are strictly boardgame strategy. If each character had one of each, that might be an excellent move.

It seems like being the Barkeep's friend is paramount.

Conclusion: Would I play it? Definitely. It looks like a blast, and I really look forward to seeing it after it receives a thorough polishing.

Impressions of City of Brass...

A very tasty piece from Clinton, this, well up to his usual standards. Overall I'm impressed, mitigated by some serious concerns about the balance of odds.

First impressions are strong; the prose is clear and sharp. I would say this piece has better clarity than TSoY, for instance, which is really saying something.

Structurally it's very solid. Distribution of credibility, IIEE, and such things are well laid out and interesting. The rotating GM structure is not only intriguing and playable, it also does a seamless job of incorporating two of the IGC ingredients. My one concern in this area is that there are a few spots where there's nobody to stop the buck on a value judgment... for instance on trying to apply a secondary ability to a conflict. And while they're all small instances, these gaps are mechanically important - that secondary ability is a good example.

The premise and setting are evocative and brought out very well by a very little flavour text and his opening quotes. The mystery and danger are both conjured and sustained. Another little rough edge shows in arguably insufficient setting information to answer "What does your character seek in the City of Brass?"... more guidance on this would probably improve accessibility. On the plus side, however, the balance of flexibility (the sketchy nature of the challenges) and direction (the fixed storyline) is an excellent handling of setting and one which has huge potential. (I'm thinking of things like The Mountain Witch here, not only City of Brass itself.)

The mechanics are straightforward and playable - in that they are clear and well-standardized across play. I see no problem with comprehension or execution, and in fact it looks like a lot of fun just on the resource management end.

BUT. I have some concerns about the balancing of game vs. players, which is pretty core to Clinton's concept.

With this in mind, I crunched some numbers on it. They don't look good. The die Clinton uses (d6 needing 5-6, 6 rolls again) has an average outcome of 0.4 successes per die - same as a d10 needing 7-10 with no open-ending, except with a different shape to the curve. Using that latter die it's easy to work out the odds of n successes (0-6) with an ability rated A (1-6) and apply that to the payoffs for various quest ratings.

The issue is largely that the odds of drawing one of the two resources you can gain from a win are quite low, and the fixed cost (1 ability point) comparatively high. Starting from the raw deck odds, for instance, the odds of a "Food" card are one in nine, with an average of 1.75 points of Food each; that's an average "Food" output of only 0.194 points per card drawn. So if "Food" is one of the possible rewards, your odds are still pretty poor of getting it. The other resources are the same or worse, as low as 0.139 per draw for Safety, Honor, or Wine.

Combine the two and you can work out the average net points gained or lost from facing a challenge with rating Q using an ability A, including draws if you lose, draws if you win, and the fixed one point spent. I ignored specials for this; they'll bring things up a bit but most of them don't really gain all that much in net resources for the team, they largely just move it around.

And the results are... scary. They're pretty doomed.

For instance, let's say the challenge we're up against could give out Food or Water - the two highest odds, giving us an average of (raw deck odds) 0.388 resource points per card drawn. That's our best possible chance of payback in resources. One guy goes up against it and rolls. Even with just one QP at stake, on average he loses somewhere between about 3.28 Ability points (he had a one to start with) and 0.39 points (he had a six) getting that one point. (This includes the fact that he doesn't get it if he fails; that's a per-QP rate.) This is our QP-to-Ability-point currency scale, essentially. If he justifies another Ability, it's a bit better; the same scale goes from losing an average of 1.14 points (from a one) to an average of 0.25 (from a six). Raising the QP of the challenge mostly makes the average currency cost higher; the only case where you actually are likely to get a better rate for "spending" your Ability/Resource points is if you have a 5+, a secondary ability called, and are raising it from exactly Q=1 to Q=2. Other than this one case, if you name a higher challenge rating you spend more per point getting those quest points.

At those rates, if the players want any of them to survive, even in a full six-player game they need to basically face only challenge ratings of one or two, only allow those with abilities of about 4+ to try (and prop them back up to there where necessary), and always always always invoke a second ability. If they do ALL of those things they have a chance.

I'm a little worried this will make things a bit monotonous. Small challenge ratings (always) also has a risk of drawing out the obstacles into more scenes than intended.

One suggestion: maybe a lost challenge draws the Quest Rating in cards, not QR plus the margin of victory. That would help some. Or, draw only the margin of victory; that would bump the odds even more. And the challenge ratings the Leader must assign for each chapter will HAVE to scale with the number of players. Or the stats of the characters will. Otherwise playing with five or less players is simply folly.

Sorry for the long digression into number-crunching. It may be that playtest would prove me wrong. But overall, it looks like Clinton not only wants us to die horribly in darkest Africa... but he's practically ensured that it'll come to pass.

With a few things tweaked, though... I would buy this game in an instant. Top marks, but ow! the cayenne pepper, it burns, it burns...

- Eric

Thoughts on In the Name of Titania Regina...
Forgive me if I missed anything!

Period
The age of fighting sail, with fairies instead of your run-of-the-mill swabbies.

Ingredients
Wine, Companion (yer mates, arr), Invincible. Wine figures prominently in the design and the others less so.

Limitations
Color used as a conflict resolution mechanism. I think this works well.

Premise
You are a seafaring crew of fairies on a quest to acquire some item desired by her Majesty, Queen Titania. Oberon, his henchmen, and rapacious pixies bar your progress.

Things that Rock
I love the individual items to be quested after - it reminds me of Baron Munchausen. You could easily concoct a huge, absurd table and randomize the outcome - "Bring me an W from X, which can be found in the Y of Z." Lots of great color and this obviously drives the game.

There's a clear vision here and I have no doubt that this would be fun as hell to play with the designer.

The D12 bonus in character generation is fun, and will give everyone some added ability to create mayhem.

Questions I have
I think you covered this in the forum, but why random stats? Is that a fae thing, all caprice and whimsy? I can see it working well, but some kind of equitable distribution might allow players to craft a character they envision.

Why the D4 randomization for quests? I'm not sure why this system is in place - couldn't there just be a list, some other division that would prevent the need to re-roll?

In combat, is there any compelling reason not to roll against your best stat - Strength, Heroics, or Style? The detail in combat (wound types, hit locations) seemed out of place to me in such a light-hearted game, although it does allow the collection of peg-legs and hooks, which is a Good Thing.