Page 1 of 2

REVIEW: Crime & Punishment

PostPosted: Wed Mar 29, 2006 6:14 pm
by Matt Cowens
I couldn't spot a thread for this game - hopefully I'm not doubling up!

Crime & Punishment, by Moyra Turkington

CREATIVE AND EFFECTIVE INCORPORATION OF RULES:

9

FEEDBACK

Law, Team and Actor were all used well (Steele was in there as a character name too, in quite an appropriate way). The time limit of 1 session, 2 hours was effectively used with 2 parts to the session – the writing and the enactment of the episode. I particularly liked the way the game captures the genre, and it feels totally smooth and obvious that those elements should combine to make this game.

CLARITY

10

Feedback: The writing is clear and organised, and both easy and enjoyable to read. There were only a handful of typos, which is impressive in a game written in such a short space of time.

COMPLETENESS

9

Feedback: This is a very complete game that is playable immediately. Everything you’d need is right there, including handy summary sheets. It is not part of the competition, but this game is also DAMN PRETTY in its presentation. It really is a complete package in every sense.

ESTIMATED EFFECTIVENESS IN PLAY

8

Feedback: This game looks great. The tightly structured first half, where writers contribute ideas in 4 minute blocks, would keep all players focussed and interested. The guidance about what to include in each Procedure should keep the story well in-genre, and allow first time players to be confident that they’re on track.

The only element I wasn’t sure about was contesting the spotlight. I can see why a motivated player would want their investigator to get the most screen-time, but it wasn’t clear whether the system of contesting control was meant to be in the foreground, or merely there to break deadlocks. Given that in the first half of the game the writers ‘collect their pay’ for good ideas in the form of shields, I wondered whether there would be some sort of scoring at the end – most shields wins or similar. The system of contesting spotlight uses the shields that you earn in the writing segment, so there’s a clear incentive to contribute good ideas in the first half.

Having looked back at the game, I note that Steele (the boss) plays shields against the investigators. I guess that much of the use of the shield bidding system might come from this. The example of play, however, gives an investigator versus investigator example. Perhaps a second example of Steele vs Investigators would clarify this for the dim-witted reader such as myself.

SWING VOTE

10

Feedback: This is my clear favourite of the games I’ve read so far. It captures the genre brilliantly, has great support for creating stories, and is tonally excellent. When I saw that it was a 5mb pdf I wondered what it would contain. The answer? 20something pages of beautiful RPG, in every sense.

TOTAL

46

PostPosted: Wed Mar 29, 2006 7:18 pm
by spaceanddeath
Hi Matt!

Nope, no other reviews are posted (Though Mike Sands had a teaser somewhere around here), I've been chomping at the bit to see a review, so thank you so much for posting it. :)

I'm really glad you liked it, and I'll definately make sure to add in some more examples (esp. Steele vs. the Investigators) and also to tighten up the expectations around bidding for the spotlight. It's meant to be used behind the narrative to allow for resolution when ownership or use of a story element is contested. Steele might also use it to push the investigators when they are lagging behind in the investigation and the statute might "run out".

In our playtest, we played a Without A Trace-style FBI Missing Persons Unit. There was a teenager that was taken by her father because her mother, a pharmeceutical researcher, had given her an experimental abortion drug. When doing the resolution storyboard we invested in the element "One of the investigators may be pregnant". We were having a high investigator intensity game and thought it would be fun if the two investigators involved were having an affair. Some examples of where sheilds were played:

-By Steele to refuse to allow a player to call a witness (the teenager's princiapal) "Principal Skinner".

-By one actor to get the forensics lab technician to flirt with her investigator while exchanging facts.

-By the same actor to back Steele's play when the lab technician later tried to get her investigator's number from the other investigator and told him while asking that it was obvious that she hadn't had a good lover in a while.

-By one actor against another in order to take control of the interrogation scene.

-By Steele, who used political sheilds to give the father diplomatic immunity and let him get away when the Statute of Limitations ran out on us.

It was a hell of a lot of fun. Brand posted some more details on my original design thread here:
Thanks again Matt,

~Mo

PostPosted: Fri Mar 31, 2006 9:29 pm
by Isbo

PostPosted: Sat Apr 01, 2006 3:48 pm
by spaceanddeath

PostPosted: Sat Apr 01, 2006 4:41 pm
by Isbo

PostPosted: Sun Apr 02, 2006 5:09 pm
by blankshield
REVIEWER NAME: James Brown

1) CREATIVE AND EFFECTIVE INCORPORATION OF RULES (1-10): 9
Feedback: Very strong use of Time as a limitor and controller of the flow of play. It not only meets the bare requirements of the constraint, but also uses it creatively and functionally as a pacing mechanic. Law and Team were well and clearly used - team especially so both in the creative 'build' phase for the players, and in the game fiction. Actor seemed a bit weak to me, since, while the game does use 'actor' as synonymous with 'player' in the latter half of play, it focuses on the characters, and there's no strong tie to focus on the people playing the roles. However, it's overall a very strong design in this catagory, and none of the elements feel forced or awkward.

2) CLARITY (1-10): 9
Feedback: VERY well written in terms of grammer and all that jazz - highly readable. The examples of play were well-placed and clear, and for the most part, the rules themselves were expressed clearly. There were a few places where I had to re-read to clear up confusion, but not very many. An example would be the "Six procedures, five used in play" confusion. I found myself constantly having to stop and think "Shouldn't that 5 be a 6? Oh, no, 'procedures' is being used the other way here." Kudos that I didn't catch any slipped references, but having the two numbers be so close together and also used in proximity made for confusion.

3) COMPLETENESS (1-10): 8
Feedback: The strong framework is all in place, and almost entirely fleshed out; this game needs very little to be playable off the shelf. The only notable absence I saw was some sort of glossary. The game manages to explain it's own terms pretty clearly, and there's some picking up from context, but for someone like me, who's probably sat through maybe 5 epsiodes of a prodedural crime drama in his life (and that's counting Barney Miller...), there's obviously a lot of colour I'm missing out on.

4)ESTIMATED EFFECTIVENESS IN PLAY (1-10): 7
Feedback: Pretty strong in this catagory as well; it feels like it may already have been given a playtest. One weakness I noted was that it doesn't have a good mechanism to push past impasse - In the later stages of the game it offers bidding as a strong "no, my way" mechanic, but earlier on it relies very strongly on consensus and awareness. As an example of this, getting the required elements into a procedure is required by text but not mechanics, and there is no proviso for what happens if one gets missed. "Whoops, no victim!" needs to be addressed somehow. I would strongly recommend a "blind" playtest by folks who aren't you or your immediate gaming circle to catch those kind of potential trip-ups.

5) SWING VOTE (1-10): 9
Final Feedback: This game impressed the pants off of me. I can't stand procedural drama - watching CSI makes my teeth ache and my toes peel off - but I'd consider playing this game. I would, in the final analysis, likely set it aside for something which ties into my genre preferences, but even that much is a huge step. One of the questions that's gotten asked a lot in the last couple years for any kind of TV-sourced game is "Why wouldn't I just use PTA?", and I think Moyra's provided a solid answer with this game - possibly one of the first times it's been answered successfully. I look forward to this on the shelf at Gencon.


TOTAL SCORE (add items 1 through 5, above): 42

PostPosted: Mon Apr 03, 2006 6:16 pm
by MikeSands

PostPosted: Wed Apr 12, 2006 11:19 pm
by spaceanddeath
James & Mike: Thanks for the terrific reviews! I have to say my head is spinning - I'm so pleased you all liked it so much. I'm especially pleased that your reviews all came in in the same range. I think it's a pretty good indication that I did OK on getting things across, because you all seem to feel similarly about the game, and have the same conception of it. After reading some of the other review threads, I'm amazed at how much disparity there is between reviewers on a single game.

I'm sorry I haven't come back to talk about your feedback yet (and that I haven't replied to your second post Ian) I've just been trying desperately to get on vacation, and my spare time has been sparse and badly spent.

Once I'm back in town I'll have a clear head and can go over everything again. I've also had some ideas for the game that I'd be interested in hearing your takes on.

Thanks so much!

~Mo

PostPosted: Thu Apr 13, 2006 8:12 am
by Isbo

PostPosted: Thu Apr 20, 2006 11:23 pm
by spaceanddeath
Hi Gents!

So I have to say thank you again... I returned from vacation to find out the good news, and I'm more than a little taken aback.

So, I've been chewing over expansion plans for C&P, and I've got some general ideas:

I'm thinking I would actually like to see this through to a publishable format, though I think it needs some work to finish up. I'd love to have it ready for Gencon, and that's what I'll be working on, but no guarantees.

I think I may (not sure about this) expand the game to cover the "big three" of prime-time dramas: cops, lawyers, doctors as they all have similar thematics and processes of plot development and exploration. I'd like to provide a system that makes all three workable independantly or in cross over (E.g. Just cops: SVU, Cops & Lawyers: L&O, Cops & Doctors, Third Watch) there can then be optional or modular rules for combinations and specialized rules for each.

I'd like to expand it to make it into a "series" playable game as you all have suggested, providing opportunity for character progression or advancement. I'm thinking I might institute flags with each of the character types that highlight hotbutton issues with each of the detectives (PC's) that can be changed in play that create both advantages and disadvantages.

I am going to, of course, put in additional and expanded examples (especially for the Steel on PC's) and a glossary and an index. I'm going to expand on storymapping the procedures, and I haven't quite figured out what to do with James' point about missing story elements in the first half of the game. I want to find just the right mechanism - one that facilitates or mandates the right actions get taken without stepping outside the collaborative consensus. I built the two sections in the two modes very intentionally, and I know there's a way to do it, I just haven't found it yet.

If you all, (or anybody else!) has any more input, please shout out. :)

And thanks again for your terrific reviews.