1KM1KT Free RPG Community

Euthymia

Reviewed by Mark Vallianatos


1) CREATIVE AND EFFECTIVE INCORPORATION OF RULES (1-10): 8

Committee is used as the ubiquitous apparatus of power in the setting, with one player being an agent of the committee and controlling the final session. Near total credit though I have some doubts about the committee spy as it impacts the first 9 sessions (see below).

Emotions measure dissent from the norm as characters feel, speak, believe, and love differently than the ideal citizen. The feel aspect governs the other 3 in some ways, making it the most important. Near total credit.

Glasses of drink determine which players take turns and launch conflicts. The game references a drug used to control emotions and the drink is possibly meant to represent this drug but I didn’t see this stated in the rules. Near total credit.

The time restraint of 10 one-hour sessions could provide room for story development but there are only 3 kinds of sessions (set up, play, and final hour) so I wonder why the 3 x3 or 4 x 2 were not chosen. Incidentally this would save $$ on the ten bottles of good wine that otherwise would be consumed. Partial credit.


2) CLARITY (1-10): 7

Overall a good explanation of the game. The examples in the character creation section are useful and creative and most importantly, inspiring in the sense of sparking ideas. The clarification section is a great recap of some points that may be open to interpretation. I have a pretty clear grasp of how play is organized through turns and challenges and how character’s gain and lose points of aspects. But without examples, it is less obvious how the early parts of turns work (before challenges are launched.) Do players strictly take turns providing context to the active player’s urge? I assume it’s a mix of role playing and scene setting. Some of the impacts of drinking and pouring passed by me the first read through and should be emphasized more in the main rules sections.


3) COMPLETENESS (1-10): 8

The game is missing examples of play. The character examples are cool so I’m sure the designer could provide informative, evocative samples of play. It might also be useful to have some example answers to the five questions players answer during the first session to define what Euthymia is like.

4) ESTIMATED EFFECTIVENESS IN PLAY (1-10): 7

I would enjoy this game. The basic mechanics seem sound and the use of face cards to impact strength of aspects fits well with the game concept. I’ll repeat that I think the game needs more guidance to help players conceptualize what the non-active players are doing during turns. My other issue with the game is that the committee player plays a cool role in the final session but I see no reason for anyone to care who the committee player is before the 10th session. There isn’t competition between players, or at least the set up of turns and conflicts doesn’t generate any that I can anticipate, so why does it matter who the committee player is or who knows their identify (except as a narrative twist as they are revealed.) The advice to be strategic when pouring out drinks inspires me to ask the same question: why should you care since there don’t seem to be alliances or backstabbing or even necessarily connections between characters or players.



5) SWING VOTE (1-10): 9

I really like the topic and find the game’s method for generating the ideology of the ideal citizen and the players dissident urges to be truly inspired. Because the action isn’t always easy to conceptualize it needs some additional examples to hook the reader in to its dystopian allure.



TOTAL: 39

Hey Graham -

I don't think I'm nearly as good at ripping things to pieces (constructively of course!!) as you are, but since you wanted a "here's what's shitty" review of Euthymia, I'll point out a few things I noticed. However, I'm also going to point out the things that I think are really good, on the theory that strong reactions (either positive or negative) are going to be useful to you.

Positive things:

- I love it that the society you create is going to be based on some real-world group. This makes it possible that the group CAN create the world of Euthymia in under an hour, and helps players understand what the society of the world might be like and how it might function.

- Having two examples of characters who could come from the same Euthymic state is really good to show how you don't have to choose an opposite, you just have to choose a difference.

- The chart of what different levels of Aspects mean is awesome and very helpful.

- I really like that the only conflicts you can get into are conflicts about the core things that you believe or care about - the ways in which you are different from society.

- Getting more cards: yes. Rock.

- I like how clear the story arc is: characters get more passionate until they get captured, then there is the big climax of the game. Similarly, the cliffhanger at the end of each session is good, though this desperately needs examples. (In fact, the whole game needs a running example of play!)

- I love the way that players can help or hurt each other with card choices, trying to protect themselves against the Committee Member.

- I really like your fix for the Committee Member problem. ("What? No! I've been on the Committee all along!")

- I adore the character sheet.

Problematic things:

- What if you want to be only partly resistant to Euthymia? For example, what if the Euthymic society believes God is the ultimate authority - and so does the character, but in an ecstatic-mystic sort of way which would fall more under Feel than Believe? Can you create such a character? How would you do it?

- I'm not convinced that letting the challenging player (the one with the most drink in their glass) tempt the central character is necessarily going to work in play. Your aspects are so personal to you, and the whole story is about your struggle with them. Can you find a way to have the active player WANT to introduce a struggle with his or her aspects so that someone else doesn't have to tell you such an intimate thing? Perhaps the challenging player can suggest a temptation - and if the active player turns down the opportunity, then the challenging player gets some bonus. That provides strong incentive for the active player to follow up on the suggestion of a temptation, but doesn't put players in a situation where they're giving up control of their desires to another player's interpretation of them. Particularly as your game is really about finding and exploring the things that would cause your character to resist an oppressive society, it seems odd that you're asking the player to place their temptation to do so in another player's hands.

- Does the Aspect used in the conflict have to have anything to do, narratively, with what the conflict is about?

- It seems like the active player has very little agency during a conflict. They are done-to, not doing. Is this intentional? Will players be okay sitting around while a conflict that they care about is decided only by the other players at the table?

- Do players have incentive to play J/Q/K on other players, or are they only going to be playing them when they're forced to by not having any other cards of the appropriate suit? Will players really want to deliberately play J/Q/K on another player when they don't know if it will raise or lower their aspects?

- How can players win a conflict against "The Committee demands . . . " and not have their characters killed? Even when an Aspect isn't yet 10, the Committee isn't going to be thrilled with resistance. Can you address this in some way, because it's going to have to be explained!

- In the final turn, once a player has taken her final turn, she never has a chance of being the antagonist/conflict person for anyone else, but must just sit and watch. Similarly, players have no way to control who will be playing their conflict. Finally, the last player to take her final turn has no one with a "most drink" in the glass to play her conflict. I think this is really problematic, as the final turn should be the most exciting conflict of the session and players should be battling each other to be able to suggest conflicts, not removed from the running from the moment they take their turn.

- Can anyone but the Committee member launch conflicts in the final hour? Can players introduce conflicts that would allow them to overcome or destroy the Committee Member? Why would anyone play a J/Q/K in the final hour? Can players get more cards in the final hour if there's not really such a thing as "turns" anymore? The final hour section is still unclear and needs work - you may know how it's supposed to play, but I don't.

Hope that's ripped-to-shreds enough for you!

--Jess