1KM1KT Free RPG Community

I found the use of the three terms in this game to be straightforward and amusing; Emotion was particularly intriguing, and Ancient was pleasingly humorous. On the other hand, the handling of the Time ingredient seemed arbitrary; I could imagine this game being played for any standard length of time and for any number of sessions (taking into account the necessity to add new Magisters and Emotional States).

There were a few points in the text where I was puzzled about what was going on. The linkage of the issues to the course of play is opaque to me, and I'd have appreciated some examples. On the whole, though, it was well-executed, particularly considering the drastically contracted timeframe the game was written in.

Given a more robust understanding of Issues, their relationship to the selection of Grand Magister, and so on---in other words, a better holistic view of the game---I think this'll be highly playable.

The mind-game element of the Emotional States makes it sound like a lot of fun. I want this game to break out of the artificial structures IGC imposes on it and really use them. Looking forward to seeing that.

GAME REVIEWED: Council of the Magisters by Willow Palecek

Council of the Magisters is a game about a bunch of powerful and old wizards who get together, attempt to debate who is going to become their ruler, and use there great powers of emotion to influence and win votes. They really just talk about nothing and use those debates as a way to use their emotional powers.

REVIEWER NAME: Bryan Hansel

1) CREATIVE AND EFFECTIVE INCORPORATION OF RULES (1-10): 7
Feedback: Four sessions of two hours, timer used, each session eliminates the chance of a player becoming a ruler. Cool. The council is a committee. Works. The council is made up of old ancient guys and they are stuck in their ancient ways. The player’s age is used with the more ancient of players being treated better. Between Works and Cool. The characters each control an emotion and can use that emotion to influence how the other players must vote. Cool. Willow also incorporated Law through the use of Laws of Debate. Nice touch.
I felt that ancient was a little of a cop-out. Sure, it works, but maybe it could have been cooler. I’m not sure how though.

2) CLARITY (1-10): 6
Feedback: The game was pretty clear, but there were a few confusing sections. The Duel Arcane and when it can be used particularly confused me. If the players can call a Duel without a debate, why debate at all? Wouldn’t the game just become Duel after Duel until the timer runs out and votes are taken? Also, when can players call in the Laws? Also, I’m still confused about the three different emotional states: When are they used? How to remove them?

3) COMPLETENESS (1-10): 7
Feedback: Some examples, some play testing, taking care of the issue of when Duel’s can be called – I say only during a debate – and taking care of formatting, separating out the age old traditions a little better, better support for when laws can be called, and I hate to say this, but some cool introductory game fiction or some other color and this game should be ready to go.

4) ESTIMATED EFFECTIVENESS IN PLAY (1-10): 7
Feedback: This game could be played as is. I think that the emotional states are the best part of the game, and how they would be used and the effects that they have would be interesting to see in play. It could be very complicated, which would be very fun. I do wonder if they would be effective at all, because the players have to guess how the other players would vote. Wouldn’t it be better if they just had to ask the other players how they are going to vote and then vote based on what they are told? I think both ways should be play tested to see which one works better. I also worry that the players who are voted out will lose interest after they are out of the running to win the game. Like in Monopoly, once you’re finished you don’t stay and watch the rest of the game, you just check in occasionally while you’re mostly watching TV.

5) SWING VOTE (1-10): 5
Final Feedback: I like the use of the emotions influencing the other players in order to force votes, but I just can’t imagine sitting down for two hours at a time and arguing and debating with my friends. I also like the idea of a council of wise wizards rules by their word over a city, but maybe if there was a way that they could get out and do cool stuff instead of just debate. There are Duels in the game, but why not challenges also and more cool magic during the challenges. Example: “According to the ancient law of the dragons laid down in the time of the two moons, I raise a challenge of boldness. We must fight the dragon that’s been eating the peasants in the Clay Corner.” And they have to complete these challenges to power-up their emotional powers. Of course, during these challenges, to win a player would need the support of their peers. Deals could be made, votes bought, etc…

TOTAL SCORE (add items 1 through 5, above): 32

Please, if you have question about the review, want to beat me up, call me on anything that I wrote, etc... ask.

Bryan

I liked this game a lot. As usual, I've tended to mark low, so apologies for that, but Andy's averaging system should fix that.

By the way, Willow, your reviews are bloody great.

1) Creative and effective incorporation of rules (1-10): 7
Feedback: The time restriction is used effectively. The ingredient use is good: the players discuss things as a Committee and, indeed, the play is very like a committee discussing things; the Emotions are used very effectively in conflicts; and Ancient is reflected, slightly weakly, in the traditions.

2) Clarity (1-10): 7
Feedback: The rules are clearly written, although more examples would help. In particular, the game really needs an example of an issue. "Utterly freeform" gives me nothing to work with. Some of the writing is slightly unclear, particularly the section about States of Severity.

There are one or two ambiguities: for example, are the Special Types of votes actually optional rules (that the players must specifically decide, before the game, will be used) or may a player bring a Special Rule in any game? When the players write down ages, is that the player's age or the character's age?

3) Completeness (1-10): 6
Feedback: It's a simple ruleset and basically complete. Given that it was written in less than 24 hours, it doesn't look totally solid, and some bits look as though they need a bit more thought: for example, can any vote become a Duel Arcane, even if the claim that there's something personal at stake seems completely false? Should there be a way to refuse a challenge? Once a Magister has voted, should he be able to remove his card, not just change it? But it's basically there.

4) Estimated Effectiveness in Play (1-10): 5
Feedback: The voting procedures would work very well, particularly with the inflicting of emotions and their associated voting preferences. Lovely.

However, at the moment, the players can debate about any issue. It's likely, I think, that given no guidance, they debate about various mundane issues, which they have no personal investment in, without any sense of personal rivalry building between the Magisters or the issues building to a head.

I'd like to see some mechanical assistance to:

a. Give the players some investment in the issues they debate
b. Promote some sort of rivalry between the players
c. Make the issues weighty and give them some sense of building on each other, rather than being unrelated issues.

For example, imagine if the Magisters were debating while the city crumbled around them under the assault of barbarian invaders. I think that would make the game much more interesting.

5) Swing Vote (1-10): 8
Feedback: There's lots of things to like about this game. What's best about it is the voting, combined with the emotional states. It's like the game Executive Decision but with players being able to force other players to vote their way. Fantastic stuff.

I'm excited about the potential for this game. With a little development, and some sense that the players were debating stuff that mattered, it could be a lot of fun.

Total: 33