1KM1KT Free RPG Community

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

Thanks for the review Bryan, it seems very fair to me.

1) CREATIVE AND EFFECTIVE INCORPORATION OF RULES (1-10): 6

Interestingly, glass always felt the most tacked on to me, of the three ingredients I used, especially as it was the ingredient I got to last in the design process. That said, I agree with your over all assessment in this category, I didn't love the ingredient lists in general, and I didn't use them as effectively as I could have. I think the TV metaphor and the hour time limit per session might have been better conveyed with some sort of "commercial breaks" and a final wrap up that each player could give each session, and that is how I would expand the game if and when I revisit it.

2) CLARITY (1-10): 5

Fact creation probably one of those things that seems simple to me because its in my head, but is not simple to an outside observer. I'm also curious to know what you thought of the process in place for contesting a fact, as I felt that was harder to understand.


3) COMPLETENESS (1-10): 5

As I never stated explicitly, but certainly should have, character creation is done by the Moderator before the game begins. The GM should offer each player a hook to base their characters on, and they can run with them from there. So that explains the lack of character creation rules. The two "pre made adventures" were meant to serve as examples of how a GM might do this. You are absolutely correct that the characters must be created carefully so that they have interesting conflicts between them, which is why I gave the job to the GM, who can see all the characters holistically, rather than the players. It is my hope that players will be excited enough about the degree of control they gain over the world to give up their traditional control over their characters, but of course I can't know if that is the case.

As for creating the core idea of the world, this is also left to the GM alone, for much the same reasons as above. This does put a lot of burden on the GM, he can sink the game with his initial decision quite easily. The pre made scenarios were meant to help with that problem, giving the GM a crutch for two full games until he gets an idea of what works and what does not.

4) ESTIMATED EFFECTIVENESS IN PLAY (1-10): 5

I think you see a key flaw here, that the game does not provide enough support for how to develop the world. This is something Lexicon does well, by confining players to a single letter, and creating back and forward references that tie the world together. I was not sure how to incorporate those features in the more fluid environment of a face to face game. I think a producers meeting is not the correct solution, however. I fear that in an hour of brainstorming the players would have created such a detailed core concept of the world that they make playing the actual game irrelevant.

I also wonder if the game I've created is a role-playing game. It is more of a world development game, with character development taking a back seat. I am fine with this, as I think its kind of neat, but that doesn't mean it works for you or (necessarily) for this contest.

5) SWING VOTE (1-10): 6

Your swing commentary is very fair, and being your opinion I can't disagree with it at all. I really appreciate your commentary and insight into the game!

--Chris