In this game the players take on the roles of members of the ill-fated Scott expedition to the South Pole. By the end, all will have died, but they hope to achieve the most merit before that happens.
REVIEWER NAME: Eric J. Boyd
1) CREATIVE AND EFFECTIVE INCORPORATION OF RULES (1-10): 6
Feedback: The game rewards teamwork in its Compassion mechanics to good effect, but law and steel are mentioned briefly in the opening notes and used only in a loose thematic way thereafter. While the game does impose its time limit of two hours strictly, I’m not certain there’s enough play here to take up all the time (scenes might take much less than 10 minutes).
2) CLARITY (1-10): 7
Feedback: The game is well-written throughout, although a couple rules aren’t completely clear. When an Ace is used as compassion the rules state it “can refresh any of the qualities of the character.” I’m assuming that means it completely “restores” the quality like other compassion cards can. If the Hardship Table indicates a quality that is already zero, we’re instructed to choose a different quality, but does the nature of the hardship otherwise remain the same? More examples of the actual role-playing would be helpful in clarifying what the scenes should look like.
3) COMPLETENESS (1-10): 7
Feedback: The game seems mostly complete, but extra guidance and examples of the role-playing of scenes and guidance on what Scott should be writing down as merits and what form they should take would be helpful.
And the rule that an ace low card immediately ends the game for everyone is not good; you need to find a better solution to this unlikely occurrence.
4) ESTIMATED EFFECTIVENESS IN PLAY (1-10): 4
Feedback: The game can be played as it is, but it’s not much of a role-playing game. The content of the role-playing scenes is scripted by the mechanics and leaves little room for player choice to have an impact. The nature of the breakdowns are dictated by the cards drawn. Spending compassion allows some player choice over events, but there is very little of it to go around (12 cards for all the players to be spread over 10 scenes), so a player could be constrained in narration most of the time. In the end, this is a parlor narration game (search for that term on the Forge to see what Ron Edwards has said about the issue) where you provide narrative color for what the cards tell you happens next.
5) SWING VOTE (1-10): 4
Final Feedback: The concept behind this game sounded cool, but in sticking so close to the history, I find myself not really interested in playing it. In execution and game play, I get the impression that this could be drudgery. The inevitable bad ending isn’t the problem; it’s that the players have little control over how they go about self-destructing.
I’d like to see you design an Antarctic exploration game where a fictional expedition could succeed or fail based on its own decisions along the way. That way you’re not sure if this will be more like Scott’s failed trek or the Norwegians. You’ve obviously done the research about this stuff, so use that knowledge to craft a system that turns on the same qualities and hardships, but allows more role-playing freedom and resource allocation.
TOTAL SCORE (add items 1 through 5, above): 6 + 7 + 7 + 4 + 4 = 28
Robert, I'd be happy to discuss the game further if you have any thoughts.