1KM1KT Free RPG Community

Thanks for the review Ben. Though its hard to swallow some of the harsher criticism, you make some good points; and I admit that I feel the same about some of what you've stated.

I was never completely satisfied with how I worked the time theme in; its integration seemed weak at best. The same goes for the dice mechanic. I thought I could re-engineer the Dogs dice mechanic; but it just doesn't work out so great.

I had a lot of factors making the whole design week more challenging than it might otherwise have been; but it's been a great experience so far. I'm looking forward to seeing other reviews of Stained Glass.

Hey, Leo! I hope I'm not too discouraging. I think that a lot of the ideas in Stained Glass are great (the color that you *do* provide, about the angels, is a fantastic frame, for instance) but I just don't think it holds together as a game. I've also had the experience of writing a role-playing game and then realizing, afterwards, that I had written a dice game (or a card game) with basically no role-playing content. (My "Want" game is still up on 1km1kt if you want to see an example.) It's very frustrating.

Totally random thought: If I were going to rewrite the game, I'd make it longer, with the council just as a framing device for the knights telling their stories, and spin out the stories into full-scale RP sessions, rather than just a challenge.

Please keep me (at 1km1kt, Story Games, or the Forge) abreast of your future designs, whether revisions to Stained Glass or new stuff.

yrs--
--Ben

Stained Glass

REVIEWER NAME: Chris Hall

SUMMARY: Players take the roles of knights seeking sainthood, as well as the committee of angels who judge them. Stained Glass tells a series of stories featuring one of the protagonists at a time.

1) CREATIVE AND EFFECTIVE INCORPORATION OF RULES (1-10): 4
Feedback:

The time limit is used fairly nicely. It would have been interesting to see time as a scare resource that the players are competing for while trying not to embaras themselves infront of the angels.

Glass is poorly incorporated into the game. The stained glass windows are more of an after thought, they are not central to play.

The core principles of knighthood are neat, but they are not really tied into emotions but rather are attributes.

Committee seems to be incorporated into the game, but it seems like the committee does not actually make collective decisions, its all up to the chair.

2) CLARITY (1-10): 7
Feedback:

The use of both beads and dice is confusing. It would have been nice to use the bead pulling mechanic to resolve conflicts. As it is, its kind of confusing how the two fit together.

Over all the game is explained well, save for the lack of an introduction. I could sit down and play now.

3) COMPLETENESS (1-10): 7
Feedback:

An introduction tells the reader how many players the game is meant for, if the game has a moderator, what the general world of the game is like, and its really not optional. Who the players are is not something for page 6.

A small point, but the pdf was formatted very strangely. Way too much whitespace.

A character sheet would have been nice, as would have an example of play.


4) ESTIMATED EFFECTIVENESS IN PLAY (1-10): 1
Feedback:

How can I do character creation, if that character creation involves defining key events in my knight’s life, if there is no setting? I really like games where world creation is left to the players, but it seems like most of the world creation will happen before the game actually starts, as the players talk during character creation.

The winning strategy seems to be to put all but 6 of your points into one stat. Advance a motion using that stat first. You should have more than 100 dice in your initial pool. In a four person game you should be opposed by about 10 dice (if everyone splits their die pool evenly), leaving you with at least 90 beads by the end of the first conflict. Each additional conflict will be you with 1 die vs. 10 dice, and should subtract 9 dice each time. After 6 losses you will be at about 36 beads.

What happens if you don’t have two dice to advance the initial motion with?

Who judges if the story reason why you are able to counter a motion is legitimate? The system and the story seem entirely divorced. Consider that the Chair need not even say a sentence that makes sense to play a die and counter the current hero. The other council members are may dissent if the Chair is not making sense, but story wise they are role-playing angels opposed to the hero, and game wise they don’t want to see the hero win.

This game seems like it would play as several mini games staring each hero in turn rather than one role-playing game.

5) SWING VOTE (1-10): 2
Final Feedback:

Why do the committee members use their knight’s statistics when rolling for the council? This seems arbitrary.

The strongest idea of the game, and the one I would use as a seed for your next project, is the code of the order, which is very mythic and resonant.

This game needs a lot of work to be playable and interesting. The game needs more interaction between the group of players, not just between two at a time. The beads and dice mechanics do not fit together well, though I do like the idea of pulling beads out of a bag that each player seeds.

TOTAL SCORE (add items 1 through 5, above): 19

REVIEWER NAME: Willow Palecek

1) CREATIVE AND EFFECTIVE INCORPORATION OF RULES (7):
Feedback:
The use of Glass and Committee is especially notable in this game. I like how both of them have significant mechanical functionality, as well as in-game presence. Emotion is used well, but doesn’t seem like anything special. The time requirement is met, but seems like it doesn’t fit the game very well. Giving each player a fixed amount of time seems like it would be better. In a game with only three players, it seems like it would be hard to fill two to three worth of time on one’s own right in one stretch. The game seems alright for four players, but anything else will crunch people too much for time.

2) CLARITY (7):
Feedback:
Overall, I found the text to be a very easy and straightforward read. I had to go over The Exchange section a few extra times to confirm how things work, primarily because there’s some confusion here with the use of “you” referring to the Knight, and it wasn’t immediately obvious until reading further what the tally pool was actually for.

3) COMPLETENESS (7):
Feedback:
The game has a strong core to it and knows what it’s trying to do. Rigorous examples of when and how narrating an event is supposed to tie in to the process of the Exchange would be helpful. It seems implied that a Knight chooses what Tenet he uses first, but this isn’t explicitly stated. The game could use some mechanical modifications, and the time limitation seems to hinder, not help the game play.

4) ESTIMATED EFFECTIVENESS IN PLAY (6):
Feedback:
Stained Glass could easily be played as written, but there is room for improvement. Tenets should have a maximum cap. Particularly in games with more players and shorter time limits, there seems to be little stopping a player from having 54 dice in one trait, getting forty or more beads on the very first Exchange, and then trying to drag the rest out long enough to have 20 left when the time ends. I would personally set the Tenet maximum around 15 or so.
Finding the necessary components to play this game seems like a real chore. If you assume you’ll need 15 in any one color, then you need 105 in seven colors, which will mean a trip to the arts and crafts store for most people.
I have no idea whether or not 20 beads is a suitable condition for Sainthood. It seems slightly high to me at a first glance, but it is quite dependent on how many people there are and how generous the Council is in dissenting, so its hard to judge without having played.

5) SWING VOTE (8):
Final Feedback:
Stained Glass was an interesting read, and the game has a lot of potential. I like that its possible for everyone to “win,” and that Dissenting when someone told a good story won’t come back to bite you because you’re in direct competition with them.

FINAL SCORE (add items 1 through 5, above): 35