IRON GAME REVIEWER thread

[Doug Ruff]

Here's the deal.

- I am going to try and review all 37 entries to this years Game Chef competition, in this thread.

- The reviews will be in alphabetical order, from 1984 Prime to XVIII.

- I don't have enough free time to post several reviews a day, and I want to give the games more than a superficial look, so by the time I've finished, the competition will probably be over!

- The reviews will not be playtest reviews, this will be tough enough as it is. But I will attempt to give meaningful feedback in every single review.

- I won't be judging games against the Gamechef criteria. That's the judge's job, I'll be looking at the games in their own right.

- Feel free to post your own comments upon any reviews I've made, point out errors I've made and make suggestions for future review elements. However, please don't post your own reviews here (although you may make a post to link to them.)

So, before I start reviewing, does anyone have any suggestions and/or requests? You are of course allowed to mock me for my hubris.

[Tobias]

I love this attempt!

I'll back this concept up with IRON GAME DESTROYER - I'll try to find a rules loophole, or something that'll bust any of the 37 games in an unintended direction.

I'll work in increasing file size (since that will, VERY ROUGHLY, mean that small games get more attention. Tough luck if you included pictures and thus bumped up your file size - at least you'll score high with the art reviewers.).

I won't destroy my own game (Companion Fever) since I'd probably be blind to the loopholes in something I built (I would've closed them if I could've seen them, right?), but - in fairness - I'll note that CF can be over WAY early through an unlucky 'things come to pass' roll, and that there's a 'danger' of it being 'just' a dicegame with some RPG-aspects instead of a full-blown RPG (although this is a deliberate aspect that I like, some people could consider it a weakness).

If anyone wants a crack at CF, they're welcome, of course.

[Doug Ruff]

OK, here's the first review - I hope I've done the game justice.

Iron Game Review - 1984 Prime by Mischa Damon Krilov (21 Page PDF)

Core Story

The heroes lead an expedition from a massive underground bunker (the HAVEN), 22 years after a catastrophic nuclear war. They gather supplies, face danger from the environment and from hostile creatures, and seek out other survivors of the war.

How it looks

The PDF has a simple, clean layout There is little artwork (mainly photographic), but it is used well and there is no unnecessary “fluff”. I particularly like the character writeups: the portrait photographs and font choices are very evocative of an earlier age. However, there is a slight overlap between one of the character writeups and the page 9 footer.

The Setting

Mischa has already commented on the forums that he has taken inspiration from the CRPG Fallout when designing this game. This shows, and it's not a bad thing. The main point of cross-over is the combination of post-apocalyptic exploration and survival with elements of old-fashioned Colour. The main difference is that 1984 Prime is far less tribal in outlook: the war only ended 22 years ago, and civilisation has changed less as a result.

One very strong element within the setting is the inclusion of 8 powerful families, each of whom represent a different philosophy amongst the inhabitants of the HAVEN, most of whom have been “adopted” into one of the families. This is ripe for later development: for example, how do adopted members get on with people born into the Families? Can you change Family? I can see a lot of interesting story material here, and it's almost a shame that the pre-gen characters are all directly related to the family founders: I'd like to see an outside perspective too. Having said that, the write-ups for each of the eight characters are excellent.

Life outside the HAVEN is considerably less detailed than the inside. This adds to the sense that characters are exploring the unknown. However, it may also make it hard for GMs to create adventures for the players. More on this later.

The Rules

1984 Prime uses a Karma-based resolution system. Actually, it uses two. What's interesting here (if you're a design nerd like me) is that the Unopposed system is a pure task-based resolution system, whereas the Opposed system is used for conflict-based resolution. This isn't unique, but it's unusual insofar as the two systems use the same resources (poker chips) in very different ways.

In brief, the Unopposed system is a static challenge: either the player has enough chips to meet the challenge, or they don't: no chips are expended. The Opposed system is a dynamic challenge against an adversary with their own stack of chips, and chips can be lost as a result of challenges.

I'm not the Iron Game Destroyer, but I will say that more work is needed here. Firstly, the role of Bonus Chips (which are listed on each character sheets) does not appear to be explained anywhere within the rules. Also, the Exertion Damage rules imply that characters can expend chips to “strain” (presumably gaining temporary extra chips for a single challenge) but this isn't detailed. It would be a decent addition to the rules, epecially as the pre-gen characters are very weak, compared to the sample challenge ratings (with the exception of their Expertise skills, these are very powerful in comparison.) For example, something in me rebels at the thought that my character will never be able to lead a revolution, because their stats are too low.

The Opposed system appears to add extra tactical crunch, but there are only two actual outcomes: one player (presumably the weaker) yields, or the game is played out until the stronger character prevails. The expediture of resources through ante is entirely illusory as these resources are all returned as soon as the winner is determined (except for the damage incurred as a result of the conflict.) This would work much better using a mechanic where each participant in the conflict secretly determined how many chips to expend as their “effort” for that round.

On the plus side, the initiative system is brilliant. Turn order is determined by character philosophy (for PCs, this depends on which Family you're with.)

Also, a note on experience: there isn't any, in the conventional sense. This would seem more reasonable if the skill descriptions didn't include suggestions for how long it would take to learn the skills in question. Or if the characters were made more effective. However, the idea of rewarding players with the option to choose one of the themes for the next session is inspired.

Overall Impression

This is a game with a lot of potential - and, in my opinion, a strong candidate for eventual publication. The setting is well-written and grabs the interest. Although the mechanics, in my opinion, need work, there is a sound basis for development. And Mischa makes games which are easy to read – and that's a big selling point for me right now!

What I'd Like to See

I'm going throw out some ideas for future development, think of this as my “wish list” for the game rather than a set of design imperatives.

Rules for chargen, or at least some different characters. The character write-ups are superb, but I want to get a feel for what it's like to be outside the inner circle of the Eight Families.

More information about the inner politics of the HAVEN, and the relationships between the Eight Families and each other, and between the Families and the “adoptees”.

More guidance on how to create adventures for the players, in the vein of the Town Creation rules from Dogs in The Vineyard. I've said it before in the forums, but this would go a long way to helping the GM out.

Expanded rules for exertion. Either simplified rules for opposed conflicts, or a more tactical bid-based system; the current mechanic falls between both stools.

More character effectiveness, there are many ways this could be achieved (rescaling the difficulty of unopposed challenges, stronger chargen, an experience system) but the method is less important than the outcome.

---

Hope you enjoyed. Next review will be Bacchanal. In the meantime, feel free to dissect this review - I need feedback too!

[nyarly]

Honestly, I though you were pretty on the ball. I was privy to some of the game's design, and I suspect that the mechanical flaws you pointed out are more the result of accidental omission rather than missing the holes in the first place. Mischa had commented on some of those issues already, and I was surprised to see that his observations didn't make it into the finished text.

I'm suddenly intrigued by the intra-HAVEN conflict as well. I don't necessarily agree with you that chargen is important to the ruleset, but an outsider or two might be cool, and an investigation of what's going on in the HAVEN while you're taking tea with the talking cockroaches would be really interesting to see. Perhaps it's planned as an expansion?

[PlotDevice]

Excellent Review. Five Stars. I am very much looking forward to reading your take on this entire bunch of stuff and mega kudos for your commitment to doing this.

Warm regards,
Evan

[Rossum]

Per Doug's request, author's response here:


MDK

[Doug Ruff]

Here's the next review :

Iron Game Review - Bacchanal by M Paul Buja (11 Page PDF)

"Eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorow we die."

Core Story

The characters are caught in the throes of a god-inspired orgy. They get drunk, screw indiscriminately, and either escape with their companion or die in captivity.

How it Looks

It looks good, professional even. Layout is clear and the font used for the headings looks suitably Roman. The use of footnotes reminds me of a Robert Graves novel. Only one piece of artwork, which is very appropriately inappropriate.

One possible typo: the example paragraphs appear to be numbered incorrectly on page 6 (sorry, VI), they are ordered III, VI, IV.

The Setting

The author describes this as “a roleplaying game for adults”. No shit. The setting is Puteoli, “the greatest commercial port in Italy” and is well-described. In fact, it's a fine example of how to depict a setting – there's enough information to grab the interest and help with setting scenes, not so much that it gets in the way. I'll use two words to sum up the writing style: economical and impressive.

However, the most significant thing about the setting is that it is a colourful backdrop to the bacchanal itself. And the bacchanal is... intense. Maybe too intense – I think the author has done a fine job in handling the lascivious subject matter, but I recommend you choose carefully who you play this game with. If you're not convinced of the value of this advice, go read But for the love of Jesus, don't do it all at once.

If nothing else, M Paul Buja wins a special prize for the Most Tasteful Depiction of a Scene Where Someone Vomits on a Goddess. That's got to be worth something.

The Rules

Firstly, hats off for the clear rules explanations and use of examples. Even though the mechanics are slightly non-standard, they are easy to understand because of the way they are presented.

In his design thread, the author has offered the game as an example of “Fortune at the Beginning” resolution. I'm going to suggest that he's mistaken. From what I can see, this entire game is a single conflict for each player, where the stakes are “does my character get out of Puteoli alive?” Because these stakes are defined before play even begins, this is still “Fortune in the Middle”.

(Apologies for readers who aren't familiar with these terms, but they are important to the author, and I'd like to invite him to discuss further in a separate thread, where we should be able to explain further.)

This forms the basis for one of the two substantial criticisms I have about this game: once you view the game in terms of a single conflict, it seems somewhat narrow in scope. Although the players have a large amount of latitude as to how the details of their story develops, it's hard to see how they can address any significant issues in the absence of any real choices. And although this isn't a required element for a game, this does seem to be an opportunity missed.

Having said that, it's a highly unusual concept, executed beautifully, and I cannot think of another RPG which so closely conforms to the model of a single extended conflict (I look forward to being corrected by more knowledgeable readers.)

The other criticism I have relates to the way in which each player reaches their endgame. As things stand, it is way too easy for a player to start with a Soldier die in their glass, roll it as the high die during their first turn, which means that their game ends on their second turn.

This is particularly important as this appears to be game about pushing boundaries. If so, the timing of the endgame should be determined by when the players don't want to push any further (or maybe just after then - discuss!) Instead the ebb and flow of the game, and the way in which it ends, is almost purely arbitrary (there are some primitive strategies: if you want to escape, get the Companion in your glass at the first opportunity, and start removing Wine from your glass by narrating additional NPCs into your scenes.)

For example, if there are 6 players, there are 3 Soldiers, 3 Satyrs and 6 other non-Wine dice. One of these (the Companion) can't be put in a glass, so one player will only get one non-Wine die (although this may be due to an error in the rules for determining how many Soldier and Satyr dice come into play). If this is a Soldier, and it comes up 7 or 8 in the first go, that's an automatic game over for the player. Even with a second non-wine die in the cup, there's too high a chance that the player will be eliminated early.

Again, this is a shame, because there is so much to like about the mechanics. For example, the way each major character is represented as a die, and follows the character around until discarded; the way the movement of the dice represents the fickle nature of the gods; the way in which a few simple rules are applied to drive the narration. But as it stands, I think that it's broken.

Overall Impression

This is a flawed gem of a game. It's beautifully presented, imaginative, and pushes boundaries (both in terms of the subject matter and the mechanics). However, the mechanics need considerable attention. If these can be fixed then the game becomes a genuine treasure: although there are games which have attempted to address sexuality, very few of them manage to do so with such aplomb.

What I'd Like to See

In the same vein as the previous review, here's my “wish list” for Bacchanal.

Endgame has to be delayed, or at least more rigorously controlled. There's several ways this could be done, but one that appeals to me is to introduce a means for Wine to be gradually removed from the game, and not to allow Soldiers to act unless the amount of Wine (in a glass, or in the game) falls below a certain limit. Until then, the Soldiers are too caught up in the proceedings to arrest anyone! Same could (and I suspect, should) apply to the Companion.

At the moment, moral choice within the game is limited to the player's decisions as to how they narrate scenes. This could be extremely revealing psychologically, but I'd like to see some more explicit moral choices for the players to make. For example, what if the players had to choose between saving their companion or saving themselves? Or had to choose between Companions? (I concede that I may be missing the author's point by wanting this from the game though.)

---

Next up for review: Baihua, by Ben Lehman.

[Doug Ruff]

Before I post the next review, I am

[Doug Ruff]

Here's my review of Ben's game. This was the toughest review to write so far.

Iron Game Review - Baihua, by Ben Lehman (13 page PDF)

Core Story

China has fallen into corruption and internecine strife. Against this backdrop, philosophers attempt to shape the nation for the better by influencing the rulers of the warring states. Not all will succeed, but those who do will leave an immortal legacy.

How it Looks

Layout is basic, but functional and legible. A real pity Ben didn't have time to include actual cards or maps. I'm sure that later versions will do more to capture the “feel” of the period.

The Setting

Warring States period of China, and it looks like Ben knows his stuff. I like the way in which the the card suits (Wine/Incense/Self/Rice/Ink) tie in wth the setting, But my favourite bit is how the player of the Shi (the philosopher-sage) in each scene gets to announce that they have already solved the problem as soon as they turn up at court. Brilliant.

A small complaint: this game is about competing philosophical outlooks, so how come virtually all of the references are to Confucius? Ok, he did win, but I'd have really liked more information about competing schools of thought during that period. It may also prevent seven players from turning up and all deciding they want to be Confucius.

The Rules

It took me a while to understand how this game ticks, but that's not due to any lack of clarity by Ben. There's some quite complex strategy at play here. I'm not going to sum up the rules here: read the game for that, it's only 13 pages, and they don't contract well.

I am going to point out a fairly serious typo. On Page 2, Setup Phase 1(c) says that each player gets Morality tokens of each shade equal to “twice the number of players in the game +1”. However, the example implies that this should read “the number of players in the game +1”. This may be a minor slip, but it's crucial, because it has a major effect on the minimum game length.

That aside, this game is best described as two separate systems, which are also a single system. There is a storytelling system to cover the tales of each Shi and their Companion, with rules for assigning narrative authority. There is also a strategic system, which covers the political. However, the game cards and Judgement tokens are used as a resource for both systems; the movement phase of the strategic system determines who gets to play the ruler during the narrative phase; and the decisions made at the end of the narrative phase affect freedom of movement within the strategic system.

It's like the Holy Trinity applied to game design, except that there's one less member and it's slightly easier to comprehend.

The rules for narration are solid, and – this is very important – make it clear who is in control of what part of the story at any given time. This is crucial, especially in a game where no single player has a privileged “GM” status. The use of the cards to introduce and define characters is also clever; both in terms of the way that the character descriptors are assigned, and the need for two players to combine to introduce the character.

Tactically, it's fiendishly clever. I don't think I've fully plumbed the depths of this yet, but here's some insights:

- No one player knows what all of the Political Situation cards are at the start of the game, but a really clever player could start counting the other cards played for narration and guess some more of them.

[EDIT - comment removed because it was based on a misreading of the rules. Nothing to see here, move along...]

- On the surface, it appears too easy for a player to shut the game down by discarding all of their tokens of one colour (and especially the black ones.) However, there is a double penalty for this. Firstly, all of the other players get to go after you do, which means that you do not get the chance to respond to their strategy. Secondly, you will take a penalty for any clear tokens you hold on to.

- Normally the last person to play holds the most “kingmaking” power. However, whether you become the last player or not is based on someone else's decision (see above). More importantly, as the last player, you must move to another player's court, and give them the final position of power.

Now, one possible mechanics issue: it is possible to trap a player, some states have only two exits and these could easily be closed off by the appointment of Governors. The rules need to deal with this situation should it occur.

There's one potential feature of the rules which I find strangely dissatisfying. I think that the tactical options will overshadow the narrative part of the game. Particularly, the dual usage of Judgement tokens for moral and strategic decisions, may mean that deciding who wins the Moral Victory becomes secondary to the tactical decisions that players make to determine the Political Victory. I don't know exactly why I'm so unhappy with this, but I think it has something to do with feeling that a Moral Victory should be, you know, moral.

(I think that this is more likely to happen, than the Moral Victory decisions taking primacy over the Political Victory decisions. Either way, I think there's a clash, and this automatically requires a tactical decision by the players.)

Strangely, I love the extra tactical dimension that this gives to the game, in determining who gets the Cultural Victory.

Overall Impression

This is a superb strategy game, with a depth of tactical options. It's also a polished storytelling game. Put them both together, and I think you end up with a superb strategy game with some odd storytelling interludes. Either way, it's an impressive entry.

What I'd Like to See

Definitely more detail on the personages of the time, both the rulers and the Shi and their philosophies.

Also mentioned earlier, rules to determine what happens if a player's moves are blocked.

I suspect that the penalties for holding out on Clear tokens should be increased slightly.

And of course, I want a beautiful map, and cards to match.

I think the “Tactical” game works better if the players still have to assign tokens from a limted pool towards competing political and moral goals. In other words, the Tactical game should be the full game minus the narration but with Judgement tokens retained. Otherwise, it's too dependent on luck.

I'm torn with this last Wish – I seriously wonder whether the game should be split between the Tactical and Evening Game, or at least whether the two elements should be integrated differently. However, that's a playtest matter, and beyond the scope of this review. I want it to work as a fusion, but I need reassurance, dammit.

Next review: Barquest, by Jennifer Schoonover.

[Doug Ruff]

And more linkinating:

Note that I've also edited the review - after reading Ben's reply, it's clear that I misread part of the rules. Whoops.