1KM1KT Free RPG Community

In this game the players take on the roles of members of the Steel Watch, defending the realm from vile criminals with dashing swordsmanship.

REVIEWER NAME: Eric J. Boyd

1) CREATIVE AND EFFECTIVE INCORPORATION OF RULES (1-10): 6
Feedback: The use of teamwork as central to the mechanics is great and very effective. The other two ingredients are used solidly. The time frame, however, seems pasted on — there is no real reason that ten sessions are important to the game’s structure. In fact, I’d likely prefer playing less than ten sessions just because each session will be the largely the same and a couple sessions will scratch the itch. In addition, the rules for the number of criminals and their Fear and Will modifiers seem to ensure later sessions will run well over an hour in length.


2) CLARITY (1-10): 6
Feedback: Overall, the game rules are described well and in clear language. However, since this is a tactical fencing game, the lack of a series of examples of the fencing maneuvers in action undercuts the clarity of how to actually play the game. The examples provided are good, but they are more focused on showing how a turn proceeds than explaining the maneuvers.

Furthermore, there are some problems with the maneuvers as currently written. Most of these problems center around the actions that cause the opponent to Advance — Retreat (Breaking Ground), Disengage, and Deceive. The description for Retreat states “the other opponent must Advance or take a -4 to his next action.” What’s unclear is whether this Advance happens immediately after the Retreat or Breaking Ground (making it a free maneuver out of turn), or it is a mandatory action on the opponent’s next action. It appears to be the former (the immediate free maneuver) since other maneuvers (e.g., Beat and Feint) specify that either of the two choices they offer must be the opponent’s next action, while these descriptions do not.

But if this so, then problems arise because an Advance usually involves a change in Position by 2, while a Retreat causes a change in position by only 1. Characters can end up passing each other’s Position (to what effect?), or the characters can end up in Corps-a-Corps position, which sets off another set of Breaking Grounds and possibly a new set of forced Advances, etc. And since an Advance can itself be responded to by Breaking Ground, it seems possible to have a long sequence of Position changes as the result of one maneuver. Needless to say, none of this is currently explained in an adequate fashion.

The Extend/Thrust maneuver also should require being in Close Quarters. It seems like it could result in a Corps-a Corps position since performing it while Engaged can result in Breaking Ground, which results in an automatic Advance and can create similar confusion as above. Even without Corps-a-Corps resulting, the Breaking Ground result needs better explanation because of the issues noted above.

Feint has one result option (Unextending and ceding Engagement) that takes a character’s next action but doesn’t constitute a maneuver. Is it meant to cost the character a turn, making the penalty the obvious choice?

I also wonder if having a number of maneuvers that present the choice of forcing certain maneuvers to be chosen next or inflicting a penalty undercuts the teamwork mechanics by telegraphing what the next maneuver chosen is likely to be.


3) COMPLETENESS (1-10): 7
Feedback: The game seems mostly complete, with the most notable exception being the lack of the examples and confusion noted above. In addition, the current rules seem to make the player characters’ Fear and Will ratings irrelevant to play, since they cannot be killed and no mention is made of them being subdued.


4) ESTIMATED EFFECTIVENESS IN PLAY (1-10): 6
Feedback: The game looks like it will be a lot of fun to play once it’s polished, but I don’t think it’s a true role-playing game. The rules don’t allow you to speak freely (to better serve the teamwork mechanics), so there is no table talk or collaborative give-and-take in narration. The narration is dictated by the maneuver chosen, with some added color based on the scenery or a descriptor being used. This doesn’t leave much room for improvisation and variety since the maneuvers will stay pretty much the same throughout the game. The final feel is more like a board game where I get to narrate my successful turn in a constrained manner, not shape a true SIS.


5) SWING VOTE (1-10): 8
Final Feedback: The fencing mechanics in this game are damn cool, and I really look forward to seeing a revised version and playing the hell out of it. I actually like the board game–RPG hybrid you’ve got going, and I think there’s a lot of room for games like this. The game really captures the Dumas feel, and could easily be adapted to handle fencing and swashbuckling in general once you’re freed from the Game Chef restraints. Definitely go out and develop this further so I can buy it.


TOTAL SCORE (add items 1 through 5, above): 6 + 6 + 7 + 6 + 8 = 33

[quote="Joshua BishopRoby"]The ten-session thing is actually pretty key, just in a non-obvious way. Assuming that no one is in the saber school, the tenth session is when they've accumulated all of the advanced maneuvers, and it's also the upper limit for how many criminals (11+escapees) they can feasibly (with great luck and skill) subdue. That said, when I rewrite, the 'sessions' will probably become 'rounds' and ten will just be the maximum. Which is more of a facelift than a complete rewrite, if you take my meaning.

I'll hold you to that offer to playtest, by the way. ]

I do understand the advanced maneuvers and # of criminals being tied to the number of sessions. But you could consider offering play options for games of different durations. For example, allowing alteration of the progression of the # of criminals to have more criminals early on in shorter games (maybe start equal to the number of players and go up by one from there).

You seem to see each player having access to all the advanced maneuvers as being key to play of the game. Can you explain why that is so? It seems to me that mastering only those of the character's chosen school is a closer fit with the theme of the fencing schools. What am I missing?

With the issue of Subduing or killing player characters, maybe you could include a maneuver that allows a Subdued PC to recover Will, so they would not be out of play for the rest of that round.

I'm looking forward to trying out the revised version.

Ah, I see. No, players don't get cards for maneuvers that they don't have, even for matching purposes.

Yes, play makes the characters more similar in terms of player options. That's the Team thing coming through. The thing that differentiates characters are their Descriptors (which are proposed by the other players but selected by the player of each character). The secret techniques and rivalries is something for the player characters to get over in order to become a more effective and interconnected team.

Hi,

Here's my review. It's a good thing I wrote my assigned reviews before reading others, since it seems a lot of people docked heavily (in one case, 18 points!) off games that "weren't RPGs". I see this as a tactical board-free board game with roleplaying, and thus it's a fine contender for GameChef.

6) Our Steel, King's Law

REVIEWER NAME: Sandy Antunes (sandy@rpg.net)

1) CREATIVE AND EFFECTIVE INCORPORATION OF RULES (1-10): 8
Feedback:
Very good use of ingredients.
10 1-hour sessions inherent in game but not made clear why.

2) CLARITY (1-10): 5
Feedback: Chargen and descriptors are vaguely described.
While the examples were helpful, a flow or bullet list
would be nice (e.g. coordination in combat).
It is not clear to me how, on the criminal's turn, the players
respond to manuevers-- Coordination again?
"Positioning" not defined before it's mentioned, making the
spatial layout unclear-- needs to be described earlier.
Overall, easy to follow the intent and the flavor, but the rules
and examples need better flow.

3) COMPLETENESS (1-10): 8
Feedback:
Not quite clear why it used Will vs Fear rather than just a single
stat, complicating without adding to the play.
But, very cool experience/evolution mechanics, with group altering
of descriptors. Complete game, problems largely due to poor
organization and thus handled in 'Clarity' above.

4) ESTIMATED EFFECTIVENESS IN PLAY (1-10): 8
Feedback:
Stances seem a bit overcomplicated.
Quick creation of criminals (particularly for larger sets) a bit
tedious and time-consuming.
But, criminal 'inheritance' and escalation from earlier sessions is neat
and balanced.

5) SWING VOTE (1-10): 8
Final Feedback: Bonus points for making a narrative board game!
Excellent use of history (and period illustrations).

TOTAL SCORE (add items 1 through 5, above): 38