1KM1KT Free RPG Community

I was wondering about those blank pages. I've not read the full document yet, just flicked through it briefly to see if there was any difference between the two PDF files in the game's ZIP (I can't see any right now). I hope these blank pages aren't the result of a PDF writing error or something of the sort. Anyway I shall be reviewing it fully later on.

Ash

I hivered and hovered over putting this review up on the boards, partly because it differs quite vastly from the one that precedes it, but then I thought "hey, mine will probably be the lowest and thus discounted in any case" so here it is.

1) CREATIVE AND EFFECTIVE INCORPORATION OF RULES (1-10): 4
Feedback: The time restriction is incorporated, it being the amount of time that the walker (Flaneur) spends in each district of the eponymous Capital of the Eternal Century, but there's no particular reason WHY this time limit is in place other than 'it's there because it's there' although it is mildly incorporated into the rules. Of the three ingredients, I find glass and ancient have a slightly 'tacked on' feeling, once again just being there because they are ingredients rather than actually contributing deeply to the setting or rules. Emotion is much better employed however, referring to the game's resolution mechanics which we will come to in more detail later.


2) CLARITY (1-10): 4
Feedback: Writing is scrappy in places and would benefit immensely from a re-read and strenuous editing regime. in particular I feel that the author has gone a little far by using the actual phrenological terms for parts of the single player character's psyche. These terms are in places over-verbose and counter-intuitive, especially when perfectly acceptable everyday alternatives exist. That said there are some that defy simplification. Philoprogenitiveness apparently means the innate love of small children. No really. And there are 36 of these. Not all of them will need tracking because some will be average and the game only worries about above or below average ratings, but still, that's a lot of different emotions to keep track of. Working out how your character is meant to act from all those differing drives is going to be tricky to say the least.

There is little structure to the writing; it reads from A to B in smoothe paragraphs with barely a pause, right up until the tables at the end. This occludes the rules considerably, and the rules themselves are pretty darn esoteric.


3) COMPLETENESS (1-10): 3
Feedback: The game is incomplete, no two ways about it. The large section at the back which should be full of tables is mostly blank. Of the 13 tables that are promised in the rules, only three are complete. The rules that exist barely give any sense of playing a game at all, and the rather fanciful words used serve more to confuse than enhance the atmosphere of the setting.


4) ESTIMATED EFFECTIVENESS IN PLAY (1-10): 3
Feedback: The rules are a mish-mash of vagueness. There is only one resolution mechanic involved, which seems to be 'add up a number of pluses and minuses then add them to the roll of the dice'. However what you are supposed to DO with these results is more than a little nebulous. One die tells you if you have succeeded or failed at your set task. The other two are cross-referenced on an appropriate chart, but I have no idea which of the two remaining dice is supposed to relate to row and which relates to column. Not that it matters really. And those pluses and minuses could add or subtract from any of the three dice results based on what the players decide. And the results of those die rolls, when looked up on those tables that ARE complete, result in a single word such as 'Mundane', 'controlled' or 'ascetic' which are apparently supposed to inspire the players to describe the resolution of whatever challenge has been put before them in a fashion appropriate to that word.

Did I mention also that the players are all playing the same single character? Either one person is in charge and the others give suggestions or everyone works together to narrate what happens... it all sounds a little sparse to me. No interesting in-party conflicts here, just players discussing what the single PC does. This doesn't sound like big fun to me I'm afraid.

5) SWING VOTE (1-10): 3
Final Feedback: I'm sorry, I just don't like the concept, the execution or the mechanics of this game in any way shape or form. The only reason I gave a rating as high as 3 is because the guidelines clearly state that, on giving a rating of 1 for the swing vote, "No game deserves this fate". This isn't so much a game as an after-dinner discussion in a French bistro. It just doesn't grab me, there's no.. no drama, or hook or any real structure to the plot other than it's set in 19th century Paris. I find the whole affair almost entirely bland.


TOTAL SCORE (add items 1 through 5, above): 17

Ash