GAME REVIEWED: Dialectic by Chris Hall
Dialectic is a debate game that uses facts established by the GM and players to eventually create a world. This created world then ceventually be used in another RPG.
REVIEWER NAME: Bryan Hansel
1) CREATIVE AND EFFECTIVE INCORPORATION OF RULES (1-10): 6
Feedback: Dialectic uses 10 sessions of one hour to represent a series of debates, sort of like a TV show. Not a hugely original use of the format, but satisfactory. For the ingredients, it uses: Emotion, Committee, and Glass. It states that the debate will make the players emotional, and I think this is just a cop-out for not using the ingredient in the game. I can’t help but compare the use of emotion in this debate game vs. the use of emotion in the other debate game that I’m reviewing, Council of the Magisters. In the later, the use of emotion is key to the playing of the game and supported in the rules, but here in Dialectic, it just seem tacked on. The interpretation of Glass as an hourglass, called an egg timer in the rules, is a nice touch. Anyone punished by the glass can’t speak for two minutes. Nice. Committee is just used as another name for a debate, although, in personal experience, the committees that I’ve been on don’t simply debate each other.
I would have like to see emotion supported better and the committee used and have rules supporting the use to identify the problems of world building and then debate them.
2) CLARITY (1-10): 5
Feedback: I felt a little confused about the fact creating process and had to read over the rules several times in order to gain a sense about how to play this game. I’m still not sure if I know how. I think if the author moves forward with this game, the section of establishing facts needs to be expanded. Maybe a few examples of play would help here.
3) COMPLETENESS (1-10): 5
Feedback: I think that the core of the game is complete, and if explained better it will make much more sense, but there are a few obviously missing sections. First is character creation. There are no rules for character creation and not even any guidelines about what kind of characters to use. In the included scenarios, you can see that the author had specific types of characters in mind when designing the game, so now the players need to know how to create them. For example, in the first scenario, Friends, Romans, and Countrymen, the first issue is where should public funds be spent. In this issue, each of the described characters obviously has a stake in the issue, but how do the players make sure that when they create their own characters it will work out the same way?
The second missing section, I feel, is the initial establishment of the “core idea of the world.” In the current manuscript, this is left to the GM and very little guidance is given to the GM on how to proceed. I imagine that most GMs would be able to handle it, but some more guidance on how to do this, or, perhaps, rules that allow the committee to jointly develop the core idea. In the later, I think, you’d end up with more interesting ideas and worlds.
4) ESTIMATED EFFECTIVENESS IN PLAY (1-10): 5
Feedback: Could I play this game? Probably with a little work trying to figure out the missing sections that I pointed out above. I’d be trying to remember high school debate class along the way, but I think it would probably fall apart during play, because not enough of the core idea is being established up front. I propose that the first session be called a producers meeting, and during the first session, all the players brain storm a basic core idea of the world and come up with a set of interconnected nine issues that will be used during the following nine sessions of play. These then could be used if nothing else comes up or they could be bypassed if issues that are more interesting arise.
This is an interesting idea, but I wonder if in its present form if it is any more a role-playing game than a standard debate where sides are assigned as an exercise in debate. The included scenarios seem to point to the fact that it is a RPG, but the text lacks chargen and support for the wants and needs of the characters.
5) SWING VOTE (1-10): 6
Final Feedback: The idea is interesting. I like the hourglass-go-sit-in-the-corner idea. World creation by committee is an outstanding idea, but I also like the idea of playing out a debate style TV show. I’ve noticed in a few games for Game Chef that no specific setting is embraced, and this sort of feels like one of the main downfalls in this game. If the author would have grabbed the idea of the characters are Meet The Press political commentators, who are charged by the deity-that-be to create a world through debate this game might have been more interesting to me. As it stands, I don’t have any desire to attempt to play it. Like I said some nice ideas, but just not there yet.
TOTAL SCORE (add items 1 through 5, above): 27
Questions, please, ask.
Bryan