1KM1KT Free RPG Community

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.

Robert,

I had a look through Terra Nova last week. I really liked the setting and the idea of the conflict between King's Laws and the Law of Nature.

I do share Eric's worries about parlour narration - much of the time, the players seemed to be responding to the cards.

And I also had a worry about some of the "low card" events. Not just the Ace, though. I thought that some of the most interesting events occurred when the low card was a Jack, Queen or King, but that that would almost never happen. (On a rough calculation, the probability of the low card being a Jack, Queen, King or Ace is about 0.6%). Would there be a way of making the more extreme events more likely to happen, especially towards the end?

Graham

Hi Robert,

I think the crucial phrase there is "I get to do what the dice tell me". I feel that, in Terra Nova, I mainly get to do what the cards tell me. The procedure is:

1. The cards say who's suffering hardship and what sort
2. We roleplay that scene

It's not quite that mechanical, because we get some choice in when we play Compassion cards. But the cards do, pretty much, lay out the scene in advance.

Personally, I'd prefer it to be more like, say, My Life With Master. In that game, the procedure is much more like:

1. I get framed in a scene, in which it's pretty clear what I'm expected to do
2. But, as we roleplay the scene, I get to choose what I do
3. Then the dice tell me whether I succeed or not.

For example - and this suggestion might be stupid - imagine what would happen if Terra Nova worked like this:

1. The cards say who's suffering hardship and what sort
2. That player roleplays the scene and, as he does so, chooses how he copes with the hardship
3. And then there's some kind of card draw to see whether he copes with the hardship or not.

Or, you know, something like that. Any thoughts?

Graham

Hi,

Here's my assigned review (also submitted to gamechef@, of course, although I just fixed 2 typos I hadn't seen earlier). As with 'Our Steel, King's Law', it's a good thing I wrote the reviews before reading others, since some folks dock points for games that aren't what they deem "RPGs".

To some degree, one could argue this game isn't an RPG because a) characters can't alter or create new plots or goals and b) all social interaction is intended to invokes advantage via mechanics. I personally think this is an excellent roleplaying game, with the added coolness of being an RPG about inevitable death.

In fact, I may approach the author at some point to use some of this stuff for a samurai-era game, since until now I'd never realized that british gentleman explorer is very similar to Bushido. Go figure.

Anyway, of the 4 I had to review, this got my highest score (eeking out 'Time Traitor' by one).

7) Terra Nova

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

1) CREATIVE AND EFFECTIVE INCORPORATION OF RULES (1-10): 6
Feedback: ingredients a little forced, especially the metaphoric
use of 'law' and, to a lesser degree, 'steel'. Time restriction
wasn't entirely thematically clear on why to end at 2 hours rather
than play out all scenes. But excellent job in making a time-
limited single session game.

2) CLARITY (1-10): 10
Feedback: As a side point, it seems to unnecessarily use a table
when the low card suit could be used instead, for clarity.

3) COMPLETENESS (1-10): 9
Feedback: The game is a bit brittle, in requiring exactly 4-5
players.

4) ESTIMATED EFFECTIVENESS IN PLAY (1-10): 10
Feedback: Nice mood to the game! Simple and elegant.

5) SWING VOTE (1-10): 9
Final Feedback: This would be a great game for a 2-hour road trip!
I like that it's a game about death and character, that it's
terminal (much like Call of Cthulhu's inversion of character
'experience'), and that it's cooperative-competitive.

TOTAL SCORE (add items 1 through 5, above): 44

Thanks for the positive review, Sandy! It's very encouraging.

Can you spell out what you mean by using the low card suit? I'm not following.