Annals of Autumn and Spring
Posted: Wed Mar 29, 2006 3:36 pmAnnals of Autumn and Spring
REVIEWER NAME: Chris Hall
SUMMARY: Players take the role of god like Seasons who advance their own views about humanity by telling stories of past heroes. Annal of Autumn and Spring is a collaborative game of storytelling in the style of Polaris.
1) CREATIVE AND EFFECTIVE INCORPORATION OF RULES (1-10): 6
Feedback:
Time is well incorporated on the macro scale, four sessions blends nicely into the four seasons. But the timing of each individual session seems awkward, there is too much direction given for how long each phase must take, this would seem to inhibit creativity greatly. That said, this may be necessary given the constraints of the contest.
Ancient is clearly dealt with by the seasons, but much of the focus on actual game play is on the very mortal heroes.
Committee is the strongest of the three ingredients represented.
Emotion is represented by the Loves of the Seasons. It would have been interesting to allow emotions other than love to be central to the game, but this works.
2) CLARITY (1-10): 3
Feedback:
Too many terms. Stick with Heart or Aiding Season, but not both.
What is the point of Bolstering and Pricking?
In the intro points are described as allowing someone authorial control at “daybreak”. In the actual daybreak section there is no mention of such a rule. I think the correct explanation is found in the “Fourth Meeting” section.
Investing seems like something you would always want to do. Why would you not want to? When the storytelling and opposing players both want to, who gets priority?
3) COMPLETENESS (1-10): 7
Feedback:
More guidance about what the “inevitable darkness” is. Why does it matter?
An example of play would have been a huge help to understanding how the game works.
Other than that the game was very complete. You have created a full RPG, congratulations!
4) ESTIMATED EFFECTIVENESS IN PLAY (1-10): 6
Feedback:
You are asking the players to play a lot of roles in just two hours. Either the focus should be on the seasons themselves, with the Hero as a plaything batted about between them; or the focus should be on the Hero and his world, with the other players being NPCs rather than seasons.
There needs to be a clearer distinction between different scenes, especially when scene ownership is so important. If anyone can declare a new scene at any time, why wouldn’t they just do that rather than dispute ownership over a scene they don’t like.
Why bother with daybreak? Does someone need to “win”?
The idea that the hero must go through reluctance to accept the quest, then victory, then resolution is very mythic. Maybe you should go with this more; perhaps those should be the only scenes? This would help direct and focus game play.
I feel like I could play this game as written, but there would be a steep learning curve for the first full game or two as I figured out how each rule fit together.
5) SWING VOTE (1-10): 6
Final Feedback:
This is a really neat premise, and I feel like there is a good game here. Unfortunately, I feel like this game needs more focus to be that game. Each of the rules seemed unconnected to the rest of the game, and there was no clear way that each rule reinforced the themes of the game and the goal of telling a good story. Personally, I would structure the game more around the seasons who are telling a story about four different Heroes. Each season gets a chance to define the starting premise of the story, and each story is classicly heroic, with a reluctance to quest scene, a journey scene, a victory scene, and a resolution scene. Each season could be distinctive in the way it can effect the hero. Winter always introductes complications into the story, say, while spring resolves them. These roles might hold true for each of the four sessions of the game. Rather than the player who best exemplified their agenda winning, the player who best filled their seasonal role could be the winner, allowing the victory system to reinforced playing your role.
TOTAL SCORE (add items 1 through 5, above): 28
REVIEWER NAME: Chris Hall
SUMMARY: Players take the role of god like Seasons who advance their own views about humanity by telling stories of past heroes. Annal of Autumn and Spring is a collaborative game of storytelling in the style of Polaris.
1) CREATIVE AND EFFECTIVE INCORPORATION OF RULES (1-10): 6
Feedback:
Time is well incorporated on the macro scale, four sessions blends nicely into the four seasons. But the timing of each individual session seems awkward, there is too much direction given for how long each phase must take, this would seem to inhibit creativity greatly. That said, this may be necessary given the constraints of the contest.
Ancient is clearly dealt with by the seasons, but much of the focus on actual game play is on the very mortal heroes.
Committee is the strongest of the three ingredients represented.
Emotion is represented by the Loves of the Seasons. It would have been interesting to allow emotions other than love to be central to the game, but this works.
2) CLARITY (1-10): 3
Feedback:
Too many terms. Stick with Heart or Aiding Season, but not both.
What is the point of Bolstering and Pricking?
In the intro points are described as allowing someone authorial control at “daybreak”. In the actual daybreak section there is no mention of such a rule. I think the correct explanation is found in the “Fourth Meeting” section.
Investing seems like something you would always want to do. Why would you not want to? When the storytelling and opposing players both want to, who gets priority?
3) COMPLETENESS (1-10): 7
Feedback:
More guidance about what the “inevitable darkness” is. Why does it matter?
An example of play would have been a huge help to understanding how the game works.
Other than that the game was very complete. You have created a full RPG, congratulations!
4) ESTIMATED EFFECTIVENESS IN PLAY (1-10): 6
Feedback:
You are asking the players to play a lot of roles in just two hours. Either the focus should be on the seasons themselves, with the Hero as a plaything batted about between them; or the focus should be on the Hero and his world, with the other players being NPCs rather than seasons.
There needs to be a clearer distinction between different scenes, especially when scene ownership is so important. If anyone can declare a new scene at any time, why wouldn’t they just do that rather than dispute ownership over a scene they don’t like.
Why bother with daybreak? Does someone need to “win”?
The idea that the hero must go through reluctance to accept the quest, then victory, then resolution is very mythic. Maybe you should go with this more; perhaps those should be the only scenes? This would help direct and focus game play.
I feel like I could play this game as written, but there would be a steep learning curve for the first full game or two as I figured out how each rule fit together.
5) SWING VOTE (1-10): 6
Final Feedback:
This is a really neat premise, and I feel like there is a good game here. Unfortunately, I feel like this game needs more focus to be that game. Each of the rules seemed unconnected to the rest of the game, and there was no clear way that each rule reinforced the themes of the game and the goal of telling a good story. Personally, I would structure the game more around the seasons who are telling a story about four different Heroes. Each season gets a chance to define the starting premise of the story, and each story is classicly heroic, with a reluctance to quest scene, a journey scene, a victory scene, and a resolution scene. Each season could be distinctive in the way it can effect the hero. Winter always introductes complications into the story, say, while spring resolves them. These roles might hold true for each of the four sessions of the game. Rather than the player who best exemplified their agenda winning, the player who best filled their seasonal role could be the winner, allowing the victory system to reinforced playing your role.
TOTAL SCORE (add items 1 through 5, above): 28