1KM1KT Free RPG Community

REVIEWER NAME: Dave Michael
1) CREATIVE AND EFFECTIVE INCORPORATION OF RULES (1-10): 7
Feedback:
The ingredients were used effectively. But I am not sure how
creative they were. The Steel part was pushing it. But, by and large,
it was used effectively.

2) CLARITY (1-10): 4
Feedback:
There were numerous spelling, grammar errors and typos. A vague
sense of the rules and theme are conveyed, but it needs a lot of
polish.

3) COMPLETENESS (1-10):9
Feedback:
The rules seem complete. It is a very rules-lite game, but it seems
playable as-is.

4) ESTIMATED EFFECTIVENESS IN PLAY (1-10): 5
Feedback:
The rules seem complete. But this really needs examples. Also, there
seems to be no theme or guidelines to play. There are no rules for
taking action and none for narration. Just using the machine. Still,
if you take some time to find out what the game is about and emphasize
it with examples, it could be a fun game.

5) SWING VOTE (1-10): 3
Final Feedback:
This game needs all kinds of polish. It is hard to tell if it WILL
be a good game in the end. It is very possible that this could be fun,
but it could just as easily turn out very unfun. I think the mix of
GM-less and GM-centric play is innovative, but the lack of directions
on how to play and what to do is misguided at best. Sorry for the low
scores, but it does look like it was thrown together at the last
minute.

TOTAL SCORE (add items 1 through 5, above): 28

Dave, Thank you very much for a good review. I believe you will find that I have given the things you comment on in 4 a thougt if you look at (Here you also will find a SPOILER example). I seem like much of the reason I have been marked down is because it is hard to predict how actual play will be. I think this is fair, as I can't guarantee any outcome. But I am pretty sure it will be an rewarding experience.

You are mentioning "all kinds of polish", could you be more spesific? I may of course try to get someone more skilled in the english language to do a makeover of the text. You are also mentioning examples, witch I (due to the theme of the game ) are reluctant to provide. Are there anything more you had in mind?

Graham: Thank you for trying to defend me, but I have personally no big problem with geting marked down for not being fluent in the language in question (It gives me a kick in the but to get better ). But it is a topic that could consern others, and thereby a posible topic for a more general discussion on how to rate grammar and spelling.

Hi!
I just graded it according to the rules of the contest. Quite honestly for some one writing in a second language, you did a great job. If I had to write in my second language (Spanish), I would do much worse.
I think editing and proofreading are needed. It does seem that examples would be best. I know there is the danger that it might limit or influence the players, but it might also inspire them. Maybe the first game might be a variation o your example, but if the players realy liked it, they might branch off on their own on the next game. Maybe look at the examples provided in PTA or Universalis will give you some idea of how to od examples without pigeon-holing players.
Because there is no example and the rules are vague, it really is hard to gauge how fun or bad it will be. My guess is it would depend on the group dynamic and the groups experience with story games.
Again, your english skills are not that bad all in all.

Hi!
I think that is the issue, the game lacks direction. At first, you may think this is a good thing. For instance, you can use your game to do the following:
RPG Design experimentation
Social experiment (What would society be like if..?)
World building tool
Role Play Style tutorial (this is a gm-less game, this is a gm-centric game, etc).
And probably other things I haven't thought of...

And again, you might think that this is a good thing. But, in fact, it can cripple your game...
What happens when four people show up and they want different things? Will they even recognize the other player's perspective? Will they be able to reconcile it with their own?

Quick reply to your last comment: I am very well avare of the gereralist game versus the specialist game problematics. In this game I felt that the generalist aproach would be the the one that suited the consept best. I have also taken the consequenses of this and had the group with people wanting different thing in consiousnes when writing this game.

Most games have the problem that it could be played in several different ways, and the players interests might colide. Most games I have seen just leave the players to try to agree on what to actualy play. In this game I have acctualy tried to make mechanics for this prosess. The players have to team up, and if someone stands to hard on his or her own pespectives then he or she is quickly be left out in the cold. The standard conversation type of play should also be an as good as any arena to try to sort these things out.

(And due to heavy pressure it is now desided to make some examples for an optional reading spoiler appendix if I ever get arund to making a "second edition" of this game.)

Leberante: Thank you very much for an excelent and inspiering review.

The mechanics of the second session could probably have been better. At design time I considered several posible options of how to handle that problem, but as I couldn't really come to a dessision I took the easy path of leaving it more or less blank. This isn't a good soulution, but until I can decide on the better aproach it kind of works.

Designer notes is something I have realy wanted to make for this game. But as it quickly become larger than the game itself I haven't been able to muster enough motivation to start on that project.

For the overlord to make unfitting individuals for the "perfect world" is altso a game type I considdered when making the game. But again, it is far from the only way to play it.

The overlord have 1/3 chance of winning, if there is no ties for the most steel pieces entry. Remember that the winner is determined randomly among the characters, not the players.