Page 2 of 2

PostPosted: Sun Apr 09, 2006 3:34 pm
by Queex
REVIEWER NAME: Ben Wright

1) CREATIVE AND EFFECTIVE INCORPORATION OF RULES (1-10):
9

Feedback:
It really looked like the game has been inspired by the ingedients-
the Actors and their troupe (Team) always trying to stay one step
ahead of the Law. I was a little concerned that an hour might not be
long enough to have a satisfying visit to a town, but if the players
don't um and ah too much you should be able to rattle through it. It
does seem like the time limit is a little arbitrary and the game would
benefit it it was rlaxed slightly. The ten-game limit would be better
incorproated if there were some reason why the tenth performance was
at the capital- possibly some sort of festival, but these are minor
niggles.


2) CLARITY (1-10):
8

Feedback:
Pretty much everything was well-explained. It would have been nice if
the resolution mechanics were detailed separately from the
phase-by-phase material, to make the latter more concise. More
guidance as to pace and some statistical guidance as to likely number
of flips that will generate tokens would also help.


3) COMPLETENESS (1-10):
8

Feedback:
Some more worked exmaples would help make the rules exceptionally
clear. A wish-list option would be a glossary of stage lingo
(corpsing, upstaging, dropping lines etc.) which would help bring the
characters to life as actors and give some colour. I list of play
titles might also help fire the imagination. At the moment, the three
phases of the session seem a litte disjointed. It would be nice if
they could be directly related in some way- say the conflicts in the
Production can relate directly to specific scenes in the play.

4) ESTIMATED EFFECTIVENESS IN PLAY (1-10):
8

Feedback:
Pretty much everything mechanically seems to have been covered. The
minutiae of the rules might mean that it plays different to how the
reader (or even author) would expect, but there don't appear to be any
obstacles to a smooth session. Playing strictly to time might be a
challenge without familiarity with the rules, but it's always possible
to have a taster session before proper play. Of course with 10
sessions of play with you could always have the option of making the
first session a more directed, hand-holding affair that teaches the
rules through play.

5) SWING VOTE (1-10):
10

Final Feedback:
I mean that score. It really seems to capture the feel of a half-assed
production on the point of failure and the desperate lfights from
towns only makes it seem like some kind of weekly caper TV programme.
What's more, I can really see the people I play with taking to it
immensely. I seems to really promote the development of memorable
characters among all the players. I'm going to play this puppy, no
doubt about it.

TOTAL SCORE (add items 1 through 5, above): 43/50

PostPosted: Sun Apr 16, 2006 11:49 am
by Adam Dray

PostPosted: Sun Apr 16, 2006 1:05 pm
by DevP

PostPosted: Sun Apr 16, 2006 2:52 pm
by Adam Dray

PostPosted: Sun Apr 16, 2006 5:33 pm
by Doug Ruff

PostPosted: Sun Apr 16, 2006 9:49 pm
by kleenestar

PostPosted: Mon Apr 17, 2006 8:52 am
by Queex

PostPosted: Mon Apr 17, 2006 1:39 pm
by Adam Dray

PostPosted: Mon May 01, 2006 12:23 pm
by Graham Walmsley
Hey Joe,

Just in case you're still reading, I wanted to say how much I liked this game. I'm an (partially successful) actor in London and you've caught the flavour of the theatre really well.

I have three really wanky points which you're welcome to ignore. But they're bothering me, so I thought I'd say.

Firstly, Elizabethan theatre companies didn't have a director. The whole director thing comes from a later era.

Secondly, you know that bit where you give the dates for the Elizabethan theatre company? As I remember, you give 1590 - 1610. But Elizabeth died in 1603 and Jacobean theatre (which followed) had a rather different flavour.

Also, the English town names? Couldn't you have put some real ones in there?

There you go. I did warn you they were wanky points. I hope you carry on developing the game, because it's great.

Graham