Over the next few days, I'm doing a lot of travelling by train. This gives me time to read through games, which I like doing: I learn a lot by giving feedback on games.
Do bear in mind that I know little about RPG theory. My feedback is mostly from the point of view of "if I had to run your game, what questions would I want to ask?", mixed together with any worries or gripes I have. It's layman's feedback, in other words.
Today I read through Time Traitor. I'm rather excited about this game: mainly because it's basically a Dr Who RPG. It's come together very well and is clearly and elegantly written.
Here's the notes I made, Brian. I realise that picking holes in your rules is a little unfair, considering they were written so quickly, but I hope they're useful.
1. The Laws are wonderful. They remind me of Isaac Asimov. Fantastic.
2. Some of the roles seem to overlap. So, in the example on page 9, could the Seer object to the fog, on the grounds that it might be a useful object? Equally, could he object to the engines?
3. Do you feel the role of the Maker is less exciting than the others? The Connector, Seer and Sensor get to set the scene; the Speaker gets to be the protagonist; but the Maker just gets to make objects.
4. Isn't there a temptation to object to everything, on the grounds that it takes away the other players tokens, which will come into play in the second half?
5. The nodding is nice: it gives a way to consult the other players without interrupting the flow. How would you feel about additional hand signals for the person to respond to the nod, meaning "Sure, go ahead" or "No, I object"?
6. On page 13, could you clarify how the three "Traitor" conditions interact? I think the Traitor is the first one to fulfil any of the three conditions (at which point the game ends). However, it might be that the Traitor is the player who satisfies condition 1 or, failing that, the player who satisfies condition 2 or, failing that, condition 3.
7. Since we're playing this second bit competitively, isn't the best tactic to ruthlessly gun for one player? You could just keep accusing one player of stuff until they either accumulate Traitor points or run out of tokens. Or have I missed something?
8. On false accusations: Who judges whether the explanation about an action falling within a character's function is satisfactory? Is it always a good idea to try to come up with an explanation as to why the action was within your function, however implausible?
Thanks Brian. I enjoyed reading that a great deal. Good luck with it.
I'll read a couple more games on the train tomorrow. If you'd particularly like me to look through your game, get in touch.