1KM1KT Free RPG Community

Moral Fiber Optic

Sent To:

Game Chief Review FORM
(one review per email, and use the game’s title as the Subject Line)

REVIEWER NAME: Michael Selvaggio

1) CREATIVE AND EFFECTIVE INCORPORATION OF RULES (1-10): 7
Feedback: Wow! Neat Idea. All elements are met though, time and emotion are weak. Where is “emotion” as a game element? I missed it, also it is not a two hour game, to meet the criteria it is, but it is a full fledged RPG. I see a virtual Conan in this game.

2) CLARITY (1-10): 6
Feedback:
The use of so many technical terms is overwhelming to the computer challenged. Computer geeks will think it skimpy. If the Tec is familiar to you, a possible clarity of 9. If sticks and stones are your preference, the game has clarity of 4. I’m a Bronze Age man myself.

3) COMPLETENESS (1-10): 7
Feedback: For a game of this much breath there are the barest of guidelines. I feel if you love this subject there is enough here for a competent referee to build an adventure world. Again this game has sprawling potential and must be expanded by a referee to work at the level it deserves.

4) ESTIMATED EFFECTIVENESS IN PLAY (1-10): 7
Feedback:
Due to the rush of the contest; I think the need to slowly immerse the players with a first session was lost. This is where characters are on a training mission or in Spool School, or at their graduation High School “PROM”. The game is complete enough but I feel there is not enough staging in the work to facilitate clean play. Some people would be happy with a seven. I am not. This work needs more.

5) SWING VOTE (1-10) 7
Final Feedback: This game is so Tec that it will not appeal to many. This is sad because it is such a great setting. The game like its subject lacks softness. There is little humanizing here. Little emotion exists outside of the faction’s zeal. Of course this is what people who want to explore the “World of Micro” look for, or do they? I think I should give this game a six but I like it too much. Can this be converted to smaller “bites” for young children as an educational tool, with less Tec and more pathos?

TOTAL SCORE (add items 1 through 5, above):34

Hi!
Thanks for the review. The time limit is based on achieving your goal. It is a bit of a gusstimation, but it should be pretty close.
Yeah, there is some tech terms in there, but it is mostly defined as game effects.
As to using as an education tool, it would probably need an update. I am not sure how crrent some of the terminology is, lol
Thanks again!

As a sidenote, Dave, I really wanted to see a map of all the areas you outline Not something bland like a topo, but more engaging like the map they give you at Disneyland or another amusement park, with everything illustrated in three-quarter views. Obviously that was beyond the scope of Game Chef, but if you develop the game further, I think including one would be a big boost.

Here's my review, to keep them all in one thread.

Note: "First Impressions" don't affect final scores. They're just there to give an impression of what leapt out from an initial viewing. I'm hoping this is useful to anyone who's planning on publishing and selling their game.


Doug’s Review of Moral Fibre Optic, by Dave Michael

First impressions: Excellent use of ‘Glass’, very original! OK, so it’s about computer programs. hang on, why are they doing grocery shopping? This looks like a more traditional RPG, with use of stats and stuff. There’s more rules detail to read through.

Analysis: Of the five games I was assigned for review, this is the most ‘traditional’ insofar as there are players and a GM, the layers have characters, that characters has stats and abilities, and so on. This is actually quite refreshing: although it’s interesting to be avant-garde, sometimes it’s nice to have a clearly recognizable “roleplaying game” to read through.

However, I’m sorry to say that this is the entry that I would be least likely to play. Not because it’s a traditional role-playing game, but because it doesn’t do what it sets out to do particularly well. More on this later.

Also, I found it very hard to engage with the setting. My initial thoughts about “why would computer programs bother with grocery shopping” stayed throughout my reading of the game. Basically, what kills this game for me is that I did not find the struggles of the protagonists interesting. This is harsh, but I have to say it - I think the author must do more to make people want to play his game.

Having got that out of the way, let’s see what the game does set out to do. Character generation is simple, effective and fast. There is also a decent bidding mechanic to resolve conflicts – in essence, you cover the opponent’s bid, escalate or give in. This is combined with a small number of tactical options in the form of Traits. Although there are ten traits, these only fall into two categories: you can deny the opponent’s use of a stat (property) or mirror that Property. There is also a clearly defined “win condition” when your character’s two goals have been met, you win!

So, my conclusion is that this is essentially a strategic game, with roleplaying elements. That’s certainly what the system is set up to deliver, anyway.

However, there are fundamental weaknesses in the game design that hamper strategic play. First and foremost, the GM is sole arbiter of which Factions are affected by a conflict, so you can only win if the GM names your target Factions in the conflict. This totally robs the game of any strategic value, in my opinion.

In addition, it’s entirely possible to meet one of the two win conditions during character creation, by taking a trait that lowers your opposed Faction score. This doesn’t break the game, but it does render a fair part of it superfluous.

In addition, it is easy to ‘minimax’ your character by (for example) taking Output 5 and the Multimedia trait, and choosing to support the User Faction, and oppose the System Faction. This gives me 7 Faction with the Users, and 3 Faction with the System-ites (which meets the win condition).

This could leave me a single conflict away from winning the game – except I suspect that the GM would use their power of fiat to ensure that a relevant conflict didn’t appear until the other players had caught up. This situation shouldn’t really be allowed to happen. However, I would note that most of the games I’ve reviewed so far with clear “win” or “lose” conditions fall into the trap of allowing the game to end early, and this is easily fixed. The fact that the GM chooses the fiels of battle is far more problematic.

In addition, the task resolution part of the system does not serve any purpose in gaining or losing Faction, and appears to be wedded to an outdated concern that it’s important to know whether or not a character can succeed or fail at trivial tasks. Please, chuck this part of the game out, as it doesn’t add anything useful.

My final rules critique is that the Priority rules act in the opposite way to the intent of the game. A high Priority is meant to punish a player for taking lots of traits by forcing them to go later on in the game. However, in a bidding war, going last is a benefit as you know what the scores are on each side.

I’ve been very hard on this game so far, so I want to mention a couple of things it does well. It is generally well-written, and the use of boxout examples is to be commended. The conflict resolution rules are clearly broken down into distinct steps and this makes them very easy to understand and analyse. The only tricky bit involces calculating Faction changes and the example helped me through the difficult rules.

The Narration rules also serve as an excellent checklist for what elements could be used in a player’s description.

In summary, this game needs substantial work in both setting developments and mechanical balancing. I’m confident that if the author can find the right system for this game and make the protagonists more dynamic, they have the skill to present it effectively – but at this stage of development, I do not find myself wanting to play this game.

1) CREATIVE AND EFFECTIVE INCORPORATION OF RULES (1-10): 2

Feedback: Both of the 2 points I am awarding in this category are for the use of Glass. Ancient is name checked but not essential to the game in any way, and I don’t see Emotion at all. ike most of the other games I have been given to review, Moral Fibre Optic completely flunks the time element – the win condition isn’t based on a time target, and the Author allows you to re-use characters between sessions, which misses the point of the restraint. However, it is at least in fine company in this regard!


2) CLARITY (1-10): 9

Feedback: By far the best element of the game. major kudos for use of examples, and only let down by occasionally hard to parse sentences, and use of made-up slang. Even so, 9 points are deserved for this aspect of the game.

3) COMPLETENESS (1-10): 9

Feedback: The game mechanics are complete: in fact it’s got too much in it, as the Task resolution system is superfluous. I think that there isn’t enough exposition of the setting, which is part of the reason why I don’t feel very excited about the game. Even so, this is a question of personal taste, and does not prevent me from awarding 9 points in this category also.

4) ESTIMATED EFFECTIVENESS IN PLAY (1-10): 2

Feedback: I could say that, as this game is recognizably a roleplaying game, it should score highly in this category. However, it’s utterly “broken” and mst of my review is about system drawbacks. therefore I am only awarding 2 points in this area

5) SWING VOTE (1-10): 2

Final Feedback: I appreciate that this is a very subjective category, and I feel mean about awarding only 2 points for this category. However, I have to say that this is the only game I’ve read so far that did not engage me in any meaningful way. I look at the example activities in the game, and my main reaction is “Why? Why would the protagonists want to do any of this? Why would the players want to play it out?” The author needs to take some of his admirable clarity of thought and devote it to selling the concept behind his game, at which point this mark will improve substantially.

TOTAL SCORE (add items 1 through 5, above): 24 points

Moral Fiber Optic

REVIEWER NAME: Joe J Prince

1) CREATIVE AND EFFECTIVE INCORPORATION OF RULES (1-10): 1
Feedback: Weak use of ingredients.

2) CLARITY (1-10): 6
Feedback: No page numbers, conflict resolution is quite confusing.

3) COMPLETENESS (1-10): 6
Feedback: Needs more setting information IMHO.

4) ESTIMATED EFFECTIVENESS IN PLAY (1-10): 6
Feedback: It’ll work as long as no-one munchkins it.

5) SWING VOTE (1-10) : 4
Final Feedback: It’s a dull version of the Matrix! Grocery shopping? I want a horny as hell Monica Belluci damnit.

TOTAL SCORE (add items 1 through 5, above): 25