Review: Escape from Prince Charming
Posted: Wed Mar 29, 2006 11:52 pmEscape from Prince Charming
by Mendel Schmiedekamp
"Escape from Prince Charming is based on the traditional fairy tale. The players take on the roles of fair princesses, seeking to escape their fate and risking their lives and the lives of others to escape it. But like the fairy tale, the endings have already been written, it's only a matter of finding which one you get. It is also the appetizer in the Full Course of Love and Death."
Preliminary note: This game is part of a multi-course meal, where the games can all, optionally, work together. However, for the purposes of this contest I am judging this game without taking the other parts into account.
REVIEWER NAME: Kenji Baugham
1) CREATIVE AND EFFECTIVE INCORPORATION OF RULES (1-10): 5
Feedback:
3 sessions of 3 hours - The format of the three sessions are very effective, with the story advancing through distinctly different phases in each one. The 3 hour limitation is rather loose and based on an expectation of 6 minutes averate per trick. That would, of course, vary greatly from group to group and I have no idea how close to the mark it is without playtest.
Glass: Glass represents a glass item used to track the princess in an alusion to Cinderella. I liked this ingredient usage. It is tied into the game thematically, fit the trope of the game very well, and has some mechanical impact as well.
Ancient: The ancient dark plays a prominent place in the game. However, in describing some manner of evil, the "ancient" aspect really isn't central (or even necessary) to the idea. This ingredient usage was mediocre.
Committee: This was the least effective element, representing the Royal Committee of fairy tale land. This concept does not really fit the fairy tale trope very well. Furthermore, it is not backed up mechanically in the game. The committee never meets nor makes any decisions. There is not even really any implication that it will ever do anything in the game nor any indication of what, exactly, it would do if one of the players wanted to incorporate it into the narration. It seems rather tacked on.
2) CLARITY (1-10): 6
Feedback: The rules were clear to me upon a complete reading, but the way in which they were presented was a bit confusing and required that I backtrack and re-read earlier sections while I read. My primary source of confusion was that rules are often mentioned before they are formally introduced. For example, the session structure is repeatedly referred to but not explained until over half way through the text. Trump suits are mentioned in one of the first passages but not explained until the section on sessions (and it's explained in the description of one particular session even though it applies to all three equally). Reordering the text and presenting a preliminary grand overview of how everything will fit together would both help a great deal. However, all of the various components, while perhaps not arranged efficiently, are very clearly described in turn. They only things that aren't clear are minor procedural points: When you count up your points at the end of a session, do you count the number of cards, or the values on the cards? I assume the latter but it's not clear. If so, how much do aces and face cards count for (maybe gin rummy rules)? Are aces high or low?
3) COMPLETENESS (1-10): 3
Feedback: There are four major potential holes that I see in the rules.
1. The delegation of authority in this game is not complete. I can see that the person who wins the trick gets to call the shots...well it might seem so at first. When do the dragon and dark players talk? Do the characters of different players ever meet each other? How is this handled? What happens when two players disagree - either in the case of their characters meeting or when players control the dragon or ancient dark. There is nothing at all in the text about how this is handled. Who plays the dragon and humans in the town and wilds during the first session? Who plays nature and the beasts in the first two sessions (especially the second, which takes place in the wild)?
2. Do we play the game or does the game play us? Though there is some strategy and positioning regarding what cards are played, the players do not get to make very many decisions for their characters in this game, but rather they are acting out the results of the cards. I think this reduces player investment in the situations that are created.
3. The game might benefit from better integration of the narration into the game - a fanmail type of mechanic for example whereby players reward each other for good narration (though this would be at cross-purposes with the competitive nature of the game so I'm not sure what the best solution would really be). As it is now, a player could just narrate "lalala" for their turn and it does not effect the game mechanically at all. There is no incentive to narrate according to the hand you are dealt, the phase of the game, and in an entertaining fashion.
4. The game could use something to help generate ideas for narration and inspire exactly what happens in these narrations without them becoming repetitive or having players run out of ideas. Each player will average 6 narrations during each session. While there is some very broad story structure suggested, currently all of these ideas for each player are the responsibility of that player - including both creating conflicts and resolving them. Is there a way to distribute this in such a way that the resulting give and take makes narration a little easier? What if I have 3 or 4 character building sessions early on - what do I do with them?
4) ESTIMATED EFFECTIVENESS IN PLAY (1-10): 3
Feedback: The biggest problems here are #1 and #2 above, and they are major impediments to the effectiveness score. #3 and #4 could be handled by the players, however that places the burden of making the game work completely on the players, rather than the game creating that itself through its rules.
Overall there is very little mechanical support for driving some of the described aspects play. Three quick examples: Trumps are described as representing certain things, for example in the wilds the spade trump is described as representing the threat of the ancient dark, but this is not reinforced by any rules. The end suit can determine that the prince kills the princess - this might be very difficult to narrate in if it was not planned for in advance. Finally, there is no real connection between the mechanical aspects of the game and what is said during narration.
5) SWING VOTE (1-10): 6
Final Feedback: There are important aspects of the game that I think are missing, however I really like what is actually there and the basic structure underlying the game really appeals to me. The way in which the cards are used to generate situations is very clever and looks like it would be fun, and the subject matter looks very entertaining. I think that after digging back into it with a toolbox this game could be very engaging and I would like to play it, but there are some major hurdles to overcome on the way there. I would be interested in seeing this developed further.
TOTAL SCORE (add items 1 through 5, above): 23
by Mendel Schmiedekamp
"Escape from Prince Charming is based on the traditional fairy tale. The players take on the roles of fair princesses, seeking to escape their fate and risking their lives and the lives of others to escape it. But like the fairy tale, the endings have already been written, it's only a matter of finding which one you get. It is also the appetizer in the Full Course of Love and Death."
Preliminary note: This game is part of a multi-course meal, where the games can all, optionally, work together. However, for the purposes of this contest I am judging this game without taking the other parts into account.
REVIEWER NAME: Kenji Baugham
1) CREATIVE AND EFFECTIVE INCORPORATION OF RULES (1-10): 5
Feedback:
3 sessions of 3 hours - The format of the three sessions are very effective, with the story advancing through distinctly different phases in each one. The 3 hour limitation is rather loose and based on an expectation of 6 minutes averate per trick. That would, of course, vary greatly from group to group and I have no idea how close to the mark it is without playtest.
Glass: Glass represents a glass item used to track the princess in an alusion to Cinderella. I liked this ingredient usage. It is tied into the game thematically, fit the trope of the game very well, and has some mechanical impact as well.
Ancient: The ancient dark plays a prominent place in the game. However, in describing some manner of evil, the "ancient" aspect really isn't central (or even necessary) to the idea. This ingredient usage was mediocre.
Committee: This was the least effective element, representing the Royal Committee of fairy tale land. This concept does not really fit the fairy tale trope very well. Furthermore, it is not backed up mechanically in the game. The committee never meets nor makes any decisions. There is not even really any implication that it will ever do anything in the game nor any indication of what, exactly, it would do if one of the players wanted to incorporate it into the narration. It seems rather tacked on.
2) CLARITY (1-10): 6
Feedback: The rules were clear to me upon a complete reading, but the way in which they were presented was a bit confusing and required that I backtrack and re-read earlier sections while I read. My primary source of confusion was that rules are often mentioned before they are formally introduced. For example, the session structure is repeatedly referred to but not explained until over half way through the text. Trump suits are mentioned in one of the first passages but not explained until the section on sessions (and it's explained in the description of one particular session even though it applies to all three equally). Reordering the text and presenting a preliminary grand overview of how everything will fit together would both help a great deal. However, all of the various components, while perhaps not arranged efficiently, are very clearly described in turn. They only things that aren't clear are minor procedural points: When you count up your points at the end of a session, do you count the number of cards, or the values on the cards? I assume the latter but it's not clear. If so, how much do aces and face cards count for (maybe gin rummy rules)? Are aces high or low?
3) COMPLETENESS (1-10): 3
Feedback: There are four major potential holes that I see in the rules.
1. The delegation of authority in this game is not complete. I can see that the person who wins the trick gets to call the shots...well it might seem so at first. When do the dragon and dark players talk? Do the characters of different players ever meet each other? How is this handled? What happens when two players disagree - either in the case of their characters meeting or when players control the dragon or ancient dark. There is nothing at all in the text about how this is handled. Who plays the dragon and humans in the town and wilds during the first session? Who plays nature and the beasts in the first two sessions (especially the second, which takes place in the wild)?
2. Do we play the game or does the game play us? Though there is some strategy and positioning regarding what cards are played, the players do not get to make very many decisions for their characters in this game, but rather they are acting out the results of the cards. I think this reduces player investment in the situations that are created.
3. The game might benefit from better integration of the narration into the game - a fanmail type of mechanic for example whereby players reward each other for good narration (though this would be at cross-purposes with the competitive nature of the game so I'm not sure what the best solution would really be). As it is now, a player could just narrate "lalala" for their turn and it does not effect the game mechanically at all. There is no incentive to narrate according to the hand you are dealt, the phase of the game, and in an entertaining fashion.
4. The game could use something to help generate ideas for narration and inspire exactly what happens in these narrations without them becoming repetitive or having players run out of ideas. Each player will average 6 narrations during each session. While there is some very broad story structure suggested, currently all of these ideas for each player are the responsibility of that player - including both creating conflicts and resolving them. Is there a way to distribute this in such a way that the resulting give and take makes narration a little easier? What if I have 3 or 4 character building sessions early on - what do I do with them?
4) ESTIMATED EFFECTIVENESS IN PLAY (1-10): 3
Feedback: The biggest problems here are #1 and #2 above, and they are major impediments to the effectiveness score. #3 and #4 could be handled by the players, however that places the burden of making the game work completely on the players, rather than the game creating that itself through its rules.
Overall there is very little mechanical support for driving some of the described aspects play. Three quick examples: Trumps are described as representing certain things, for example in the wilds the spade trump is described as representing the threat of the ancient dark, but this is not reinforced by any rules. The end suit can determine that the prince kills the princess - this might be very difficult to narrate in if it was not planned for in advance. Finally, there is no real connection between the mechanical aspects of the game and what is said during narration.
5) SWING VOTE (1-10): 6
Final Feedback: There are important aspects of the game that I think are missing, however I really like what is actually there and the basic structure underlying the game really appeals to me. The way in which the cards are used to generate situations is very clever and looks like it would be fun, and the subject matter looks very entertaining. I think that after digging back into it with a toolbox this game could be very engaging and I would like to play it, but there are some major hurdles to overcome on the way there. I would be interested in seeing this developed further.
TOTAL SCORE (add items 1 through 5, above): 23