REVIEW: The Glass Bead Game

[dindenver]

REVIEWER NAME: Dave Michael
1) CREATIVE AND EFFECTIVE INCORPORATION OF RULES (1-10): 9
Feedback:
The ingredients and time limit were used directly, not danced around
or hinted at. I coldn;t give you a 10, since you cold have been a
little more creative, but you did do quite a Good job!

2) CLARITY (1-10): 6
Feedback:
The rules are very dry and poorly written. However, there are plenty
of examples, so it is kind of a wash. I think if you work on the
wording of the conflict resolution rules and jazz up the text a little
to reflect how much you like this game, it will be a good game.

3) COMPLETENESS (1-10): 6
Feedback:
The examples are good. The starting of the next session and the
muddled descriptions of the conflict resolution system demand a lower
score though.

4) ESTIMATED EFFECTIVENESS IN PLAY (1-10): 5
Feedback:
I think it is great that you went with conflict resolution on a game
that is so obviously about telling a good story. But, the way the
conflict resolution is written, it cripples the emphasis on narrative
before it is even narrated. You have a conflict starting and then
immediately, the players are required to figure out the end of the
conflict and argue their idea.

5) SWING VOTE (1-10): 2
Final Feedback:
Well, I cannot say I am too impressed. The rules are copied from
another game (almost verbatim apparently), the conflict resolution is
convoluted and unnecessarily complex, and the writing is so dry I had
to put it down several times and go do something else to build up
enough interest to finish this review.
I am sorry for the bad review and harsh criticism. I feel that if
you do a good re-write, this will actually be a good game though, so
keep it up!

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

[Graham Walmsley]

(Reposting this here, because Andy said I should tidy up my review threads)

I thought the Glass Bead game sounded fascinating when I first read the idea, but I wondered whether it would work. Having read the rules, it's come off remarkably well.

I'm not generally posting the reviews I've written. But I wanted to make an exception for this one.

There's a couple of reasons for this: firstly, I note that Dan posted a first draft and didn't get feedback. Which makes me feel a bit guilty. Secondly, Dave posted a rather critical review of this game yesterday. There's nothing wrong with that, of course, but I liked the game much more than he does. So, for contrast, here's the review I've submitted.

1) Creative and effective incorporation of rules (1-10): 7
Feedback: The time restriction is used quite well, with each session of three hours divided up into distinct, timed, sections. The ingredients are Committee, Emotion and Glass. Emotion is used extremely well - it's the basis of the game. Committee is weak.

The use of Glass is debatable: Dan has used it to remind him of a novel called "The Glass Bead Game" and there's no other use of Glass. I like this, so I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt, but it's a risky move from the point of view of this competition.

2) Clarity (1-10): 10
Feedback: The rules are excellently and clearly written and supported by relevant examples. The rules are clear from a first reading. This is particularly impressive, given that it's such an unusual ruleset.

3) Completeness (1-10): 7
Feedback: There really isn't much missing from this game. The work that's put into the Node Map at the start would, I think, make for a rich story. It needs playtesting and then tweaking, but that's it.

4) Estimated Effectiveness in Play (1-10): 6
Feedback: It's an unusual game and it's difficult to tell, for certain, how successful it would be in play. I think there's a lot of room for some rich storytelling here, though, which is supported by the mechanics.

5) Swing Vote (1-10): 8
Feedback: This is a fascinating entry. It's a storytelling game with no setting and those are very, very difficult to get right, but this is a very good attempt. The nodes are a pleasantly geeky and interesting way to lay out a story. The resolution mechanic, which involves claiming the nodes as "territory", is completely intriguing.

This game won't be for everyone. And I have a slight doubt as to whether I'd want to play this for three sessions. Overall, though, it's an appealing, effective, fascinatingly different game. I'd play it like a shot.

Total: 38

[redivider]

The Glass Bead game

reviewed by mark vallianatos

1) Creative and effective incorporation of rules (1-10): 7

I'll try to touch on all the ingredients individually.

Committee is used in the sense of storytelling by committee -- which I'm judging as a weak use of 'committee' since it mutes the term from a kind of interaction between players to a vague concept of shared narrative power.

Emotion suffuses the game. Great use.

I also like the use of glass in borrowing inspiration from a famous imaginary game and reinforcing it with glass tokens.

The time element inside each of the three session (four musically derived movements) is really cool. The game chef element of four sessions of two hours seems ok for the game but could easily be other lengths. partial credit.

2) Clarity (1-10): 9

Very well written with excellent examples. I found one minor problem. The definintion of scenes under the thrid movement section says that thematic content is defined by 'the two nodes its lines connect" but in the example the most significant node is actually the outside node tragedy rather than the link between love and romance.

3) Completeness (1-10): 9

Rules, examples, and cool story and character maps make for a full game. The finishing the game section could use an example or two.

4) Estimated Effectiveness in Play (1-10): 7

I think the components and phases of this game would mesh well in play. It focuses a lot of attention on the emotional tenor of characters and scenes, with the maps connecting them and acting as conveyor belts to drive scenes and link sessions. A potential downside is that some players might not pick up the game's emotional currency quickly. Another is that there a lot of sub-systems- the maps, the beads/ counters, and the dice roling - and the totality seems like a pretty complicated way to encourage narration and move the story. This complexity is a plus given the source material, and I would probably like to try it, but it's not for everyone.


5) Swing Vote (1-10): 9

This game seems well designed, it's really beautifully crafted for a draft put together in a short period of time, and I like to reward ambitious goals. I'm (maybe unjustly) going to knock one or two points off because the title suggests the game is a working version of the far-ranging game in Hesse's novel but it is instead a sub-set focusing on emotions and characters. Post competition I'd suggest trying to think of a different main title and keeping the glass bead game in the subtitle. Another random thought is that this game could actually work as a non-competitive story-generating exercise in addition to as a game.




Total: 41

[DevP]

Creative and Effective Incorporation of the Rules: 6

The Glass and especially the Emotion elements where well and evocatively chosen; both form a core component to the game. However, Committee is a bit vaguely drawn, and while the the time element fits, the 4 sessions x 2 hours format does not seem particular to the game. It's all generally solid, however.

Clarity: 9

Despite the emergent complexity it seems this game is capable of, I managed to understand it all in a single read-through, which impressed me. The rules all build up on each other nicely, and the examples are very helpful.

Completeness: 10

This game seems really, truly complete. There's always room for revision, but I can't find anything missing here yet.

Estimated Effectiveness in Play: 8

This game look sprimed and ready for good play. One challenge that comes to mind is: what kinds of stories are best played out with this system? (I wasn't entirely enthused by the included story, although I liked the possibilities it highlighted.) Also, the game does require a great deal from the players, in terms of spontaneously creating and negotiating fictional events using nothing more than each other and the raw emotional elements as cues. Will there be enough cues to help players figure out what they want to do in the system? Perhaps are there parts of the initial story/character set up that can better give characters some direction?

Swing Vote: 9

For me, what's cool about this game is that it presents some rules from which an emergent set of themes will be organically created. I'm really eager to see, in play, how well players will use the tools of the Glass Bead Game.

Total Score: 42 / 50

[Graham Walmsley]