In this game the players are time travelers who work together to correct disturbances in the time stream and then discover that one of them is the traitor who has caused all the problems. The second session involves reviewing the events of the first and determining who the traitor is through competitive play.
Brian, I want to start by saying I really like this game. It’s because I liked the concept and its potential that I opted to do this extra review. That said, I have a lot of tough feedback that I hope you will find constructive.
REVIEWER NAME: Eric J. Boyd
1) CREATIVE AND EFFECTIVE INCORPORATION OF RULES (1-10): 6
Feedback: The game uses the week interval between sessions in an awesome way by having the memories of the first session assume prime importance in the second. However, no effort or guidance is provided to ensure the sessions last about six hours each.
Similarly, the team ingredient is well used in allocating the responsibilities of time travel. Law has some nice color in the Laws of Time, but only a few of the laws actually impact play and little space is spent on explaining how that happens. Actor is loosely but well used in the second session.
2) CLARITY (1-10): 5
Feedback: The game is well-written throughout, but the rules as currently written are not completely clear.
There’s a loose reference to the Mover in the Functions section which seems to refer to a nonexistent role.
There’s a reference to assigning functions randomly by using cards and using the cards for reference, yet you did not provide the cards. Having procedures to handle disputes over assigning functions between two or three players would also be helpful.
The shared mental space should probably be decided upon in character generation, rather than stopping in the midst of the opening narration.
After the example of framing the scene you mention a bidding mechanic for adding additional elements. But this is not adequately explained and seems to contradict the mechanics for spending 3 or 5 tokens to add an element. Are these left over rules from earlier development?
You also state that a player must be careful not to contradict what the others have stated previously, or they can spend a token to override it. Are you sure you want an override to be so inexpensive? If I disagree with an element someone wants to add to the scene framing I can force them to spend 3 or 5 tokens to add it, then I can later spend 1 token to override their addition.
In discussing the narration of a scene’s resolution, you first say the players can take turns as their functions come into play. Then, later in the same paragraph, you lay out a rule that requires a player to spend a token and potentially initiate a bidding round (with no explanation of how such bidding would work) if they want to narrate when their function comes into play.
In “resolving the Scene,” you say the players each get a number of tokens equal to the “token value” of the disturbance. Is this number the same as the disturbance’s Strength?
3) COMPLETENESS (1-10): 5
Feedback: The game is incomplete in several areas. The Engineer is instructed to create a 4-d Spiral Map for later use in play, but there is absolutely no guidance on how this is to be done. Later the Engineer is supposed to have assigned a Strength rating to each disturbance on this map, but again there is no guidance for how many points to allocate or even how many disturbances to create.
Examples of character flaws and room on the character sheet for personal effects would be good additions.
The Laws of Time need to be more firmly integrated into play. Your example on how play must adhere to the Fourth Law is good, but you need examples for the Third and Fifth Laws as well and how they can affect functions besides the Maker.
The inconsistencies noted above also make it unclear how to actually role-play the scenes out.
4) ESTIMATED EFFECTIVENESS IN PLAY (1-10): 5
Feedback: The game needs a little more work to be totally playable.
You might consider making the 3 and 5 token expenditures for adding elements to the framing of a scene mandatory rather than only occurring when the other player doesn’t agree. This would better reinforce the collective storytelling by not letting one player set the entire scene without a real cost. Otherwise, a more passive player can be shut out of scene framing unless they make a fuss, which might end up derailing the game.
In addition, what do you think of the possibility of having the functions (other than Engineer) rotate among the players (essentially assuming that they all have all the sub-functions)? As currently written, some of the functions get a lot more spotlight time in framing the scene and resolving it (e.g., the Seer, the Sensor, and the Speaker). Plus, having to do the same thing for every scene could get tiresome over a whole evening. I realize this would complicate the second session a great deal, but there may be ways to work around that.
Finally, you need to go over the token economy of the game. Do you want a lot of tokens being spent in the first session, or should the players mainly be accumulating tokens? Perhaps a successful accusation in the second session could result in the accuser gaining one or more tokens? Should the rewards for each scene in the first session be mostly identical, or could the Engineer award varying amounts based on the contributions of each player?
5) SWING VOTE (1-10): 7
Final Feedback: The concept behind this game is damn cool, Brian, and I really hope you go on to do further development of it. It was very ballsy submitting a 24-hour game to Game Chef and you did great considering that. Once you fill the holes and make things clearer, I think you’ll have a strong game.
TOTAL SCORE (add items 1 through 5, above): 6 + 5 + 5 + 5 + 7 = 28
Brian, I'd be happy to discuss your entry further with you if you have any questions or comments.