Ah, and those games will be:
Blood and Bronze
Operation FOOLE
XVIII
Dueling Papers
The Stalk across all worlds
IRON GAME DESTROYER
by nyarly » Thu Jun 09, 2005 12:16 pm
Honestly, I think that the IGD might be the single best thing I've seen come out of IGC2k5.
Tobias, your comments are extremely good, and amazing helpful for any of us who are continuing to refine our games. I might not completely agree with your opinions on the complexity of rules, but I'll definitely keep them in mind for playtest, and your factual observations have been extremely keen.
Many thanks.
Tobias, your comments are extremely good, and amazing helpful for any of us who are continuing to refine our games. I might not completely agree with your opinions on the complexity of rules, but I'll definitely keep them in mind for playtest, and your factual observations have been extremely keen.
Many thanks.
Pssst... lemme tell you about Repertoire - oh, merde, that's my cue.
- nyarly
- Tamarin
- Posts: 33
- Joined: Wed May 25, 2005 10:31 am
by Tobias » Mon Jun 13, 2005 3:31 am
Between the Round Texel race and day of boardgaming I've gotten around to reading 4 of them - the stalk across all worlds being the outsider.
Blood and Bronze and XVIII I've read but need to fiddle around with the bits a bit more to comment adequately.
So Operation FOOLE and Dueling papers are up today. As we all know by now - there's good stuff in these games - it's just the nature of this thread to chop. I'll also mention it's a very valuable learning experience, dissecting these games - I can recommend it.
Operation FOOLE
An interesting game - like In a Grove, it contains many elements that are left open to player's shared story-building/cooperation. It might be an interesting learning (heck, even reading!) experience for playgroups/friends. This means that the amount of comments I can give will be low - but there are some:
1. Due the to open-ness, a nice game experience is very dependant on player co-operation and willingness to accept each other's input. This is not a bad thing, but high competitive drive or other sand in the social contract will wreck the engine. There aren't very many rule-methods to unstick the engine - agreement will be needed. So play this with someone you can story-share and freewheel with - not with someone you want to defeat.
2. It's certainly not the case that possible disagreement has been ignored - but I did notice there are several different ways to deal with this disagreement. At one point, a coin is flipped. At another point, a player can spend a endgame point to break argument in their favor (but it isn't mentioned what to do if both are willing to spend the EP). At another point (new Companion), players will just 'have to keep talking until they agree'. These may be specific design decisions - I don't know.
3. The plot device. Given the immense training and invincibility of Agent Patriot, and the massive player power in telling the story, the plot device basically is a one-time 'panick button' for a player that just can't come up with a suitable explanation but isn't willing to let the narration go to the other player (or the use of the plot device is just cool at that point, of course). I understand not giving any EP's for this use, but not passing on the Agent Patriot role seems to me like more of a penalty to the Companion player than to the Agent Patriot player.
Dueling Papers
1. Proofreading for basic spelling & sentence clarity is definately needed.
2. Clearer IIEE is needed. (Who does what, when and how, and what happens in-story because of it?). The rules for Deadlines aren't very clear, but can be pieced togeter. Another example is 'following another editor'.
3. Finding and creating a story are two options in one of the basic elements of the game. However, as written, merely finding a story (which is easier than creating it) is enough to reap the rewards. So this needs to be clarified, or everyone will go for the 'easy' option.
4. At a point, a subtraction is made to see whether an accusation will be made. There is no explantion what happens when the roll is failed by 1 to 5 points - presumably nothing.
5. "The accusation always leads to a duel unless the editor can convince the accuser that the duel is not needed." How?
6. The 'sample task' column of a table is left empty. If the actions mentioned in this section refer back to the goal roll for the newspaper, this table is basically just color, and the vote of other players to raise or lower target number does not match the rules. If it isn't, it is not clear when to use these actions and what for.
7. When can/are Event Cards played? Are they mandatory? What does the 'Running Article' Event actually do?
8. The duel rules take more effort for me to read and comprehend than any RPG rules should (yes, this is an opinion). The rules look and feel as if they have been taken from another source and tacked on to this game - but not well. Concepts such as 'shots' and 'Blows' are mentioned, but their importance and when they happen are unclear. There's also a statement about actions against women being penalized - but there's no incentive for players to ever take this penalty (unless they wish to give more grave offence). I get the feeling there IS a framework behind the 23 dueling rules, but it's not clear or elements are missing.
Blood and Bronze and XVIII I've read but need to fiddle around with the bits a bit more to comment adequately.
So Operation FOOLE and Dueling papers are up today. As we all know by now - there's good stuff in these games - it's just the nature of this thread to chop. I'll also mention it's a very valuable learning experience, dissecting these games - I can recommend it.
Operation FOOLE
An interesting game - like In a Grove, it contains many elements that are left open to player's shared story-building/cooperation. It might be an interesting learning (heck, even reading!) experience for playgroups/friends. This means that the amount of comments I can give will be low - but there are some:
1. Due the to open-ness, a nice game experience is very dependant on player co-operation and willingness to accept each other's input. This is not a bad thing, but high competitive drive or other sand in the social contract will wreck the engine. There aren't very many rule-methods to unstick the engine - agreement will be needed. So play this with someone you can story-share and freewheel with - not with someone you want to defeat.
2. It's certainly not the case that possible disagreement has been ignored - but I did notice there are several different ways to deal with this disagreement. At one point, a coin is flipped. At another point, a player can spend a endgame point to break argument in their favor (but it isn't mentioned what to do if both are willing to spend the EP). At another point (new Companion), players will just 'have to keep talking until they agree'. These may be specific design decisions - I don't know.
3. The plot device. Given the immense training and invincibility of Agent Patriot, and the massive player power in telling the story, the plot device basically is a one-time 'panick button' for a player that just can't come up with a suitable explanation but isn't willing to let the narration go to the other player (or the use of the plot device is just cool at that point, of course). I understand not giving any EP's for this use, but not passing on the Agent Patriot role seems to me like more of a penalty to the Companion player than to the Agent Patriot player.
Dueling Papers
1. Proofreading for basic spelling & sentence clarity is definately needed.
2. Clearer IIEE is needed. (Who does what, when and how, and what happens in-story because of it?). The rules for Deadlines aren't very clear, but can be pieced togeter. Another example is 'following another editor'.
3. Finding and creating a story are two options in one of the basic elements of the game. However, as written, merely finding a story (which is easier than creating it) is enough to reap the rewards. So this needs to be clarified, or everyone will go for the 'easy' option.
4. At a point, a subtraction is made to see whether an accusation will be made. There is no explantion what happens when the roll is failed by 1 to 5 points - presumably nothing.
5. "The accusation always leads to a duel unless the editor can convince the accuser that the duel is not needed." How?
6. The 'sample task' column of a table is left empty. If the actions mentioned in this section refer back to the goal roll for the newspaper, this table is basically just color, and the vote of other players to raise or lower target number does not match the rules. If it isn't, it is not clear when to use these actions and what for.
7. When can/are Event Cards played? Are they mandatory? What does the 'Running Article' Event actually do?
8. The duel rules take more effort for me to read and comprehend than any RPG rules should (yes, this is an opinion). The rules look and feel as if they have been taken from another source and tacked on to this game - but not well. Concepts such as 'shots' and 'Blows' are mentioned, but their importance and when they happen are unclear. There's also a statement about actions against women being penalized - but there's no incentive for players to ever take this penalty (unless they wish to give more grave offence). I get the feeling there IS a framework behind the 23 dueling rules, but it's not clear or elements are missing.
- Tobias
- Marmoset
- Posts: 60
- Joined: Tue May 24, 2005 12:55 am
by Tobias » Mon Jun 13, 2005 8:56 am
Ok,
I've decided that I (or someone else)'d have to play the game to see whether my deeper concerns (play balance) are true. But I don't have time for that. So, without further ado:
Blood and Bronze
1. Between 3 and 5 players. There are, however, only 4 cities named. That's nly a slight problem, but there are also 4 arena's. This makes it guaranteed that one player will not be without peer in any of the arena's.
2. After bidding, excess tokens are returned to the pot. Are these the un-bid coins (either by choice, or by being tactically outbid - which may or may not have been a design option) from the intial 4-arena bidding, or also the 'designate blood/bronze coins?'.
3. Deals may be made in secret. Does this mean leaving the table, passing notes, etc.?
4. 'Declaring oracle visit at the same time' and 'the first to throw a coin into the pot' are a set-up for trouble - how about you cover the pot with your hand when putting in yours? Like 'ring the bell' games, the winner's hand will clearly be on the bottom.
5. What if everyone goes all-blood, in all arena's? While this is a contrived example that could maybe be gotten out of through 'keeping a deal', there may be sub-configurations of blood/bronze selection that stall the game.
6. Clarification is needed on how many times (how many arena's) you can support another city in/with. Wouldn't the gain and damage from the first win/loss of a battle skew the game in favor of the winner rather heavily right from the start?
7. 'Mock anyone who didn't start a war this year'- seems like there's a missed rule opportunity here (if only in writing down the mocking on the passive city's sheet).
8. "One city cannot both be loyal and treacherous in the same year; ..." should probably be re-written to "One city cannot be *rewarded* for both being loyal and treacherous in the same year; ..."
9. The chapter 2 example of play could be much clearer if we saw the city sheets of the people involved.
I've decided that I (or someone else)'d have to play the game to see whether my deeper concerns (play balance) are true. But I don't have time for that. So, without further ado:
Blood and Bronze
1. Between 3 and 5 players. There are, however, only 4 cities named. That's nly a slight problem, but there are also 4 arena's. This makes it guaranteed that one player will not be without peer in any of the arena's.
2. After bidding, excess tokens are returned to the pot. Are these the un-bid coins (either by choice, or by being tactically outbid - which may or may not have been a design option) from the intial 4-arena bidding, or also the 'designate blood/bronze coins?'.
3. Deals may be made in secret. Does this mean leaving the table, passing notes, etc.?
4. 'Declaring oracle visit at the same time' and 'the first to throw a coin into the pot' are a set-up for trouble - how about you cover the pot with your hand when putting in yours? Like 'ring the bell' games, the winner's hand will clearly be on the bottom.
5. What if everyone goes all-blood, in all arena's? While this is a contrived example that could maybe be gotten out of through 'keeping a deal', there may be sub-configurations of blood/bronze selection that stall the game.
6. Clarification is needed on how many times (how many arena's) you can support another city in/with. Wouldn't the gain and damage from the first win/loss of a battle skew the game in favor of the winner rather heavily right from the start?
7. 'Mock anyone who didn't start a war this year'- seems like there's a missed rule opportunity here (if only in writing down the mocking on the passive city's sheet).
8. "One city cannot both be loyal and treacherous in the same year; ..." should probably be re-written to "One city cannot be *rewarded* for both being loyal and treacherous in the same year; ..."
9. The chapter 2 example of play could be much clearer if we saw the city sheets of the people involved.
- Tobias
- Marmoset
- Posts: 60
- Joined: Tue May 24, 2005 12:55 am
by Tobias » Mon Jun 13, 2005 2:44 pm
Definately not skipped for good - just for now. I do, however, reserve the right to stop chopping once the judges are out. Those who really want it, just ask - it's good practise.
Ok. Some more!
XVIII
1. As mentioned, the naming convention table is missing.
2. A slight clarification on how actions relate to conflicts, when an action is a conflict, etc., would be helpful.
3. Since there's a lot of freedom in player/GM conversation and stating conflicts, it seems a bit arbitrary that some combined player actions should be disallowed. Something groups will need to work out for themselves.
4. The GM determines who is involved with the climax conflict - how? What should (s)he be looking for?
5. Basic Asset Checks - will cost! A tiny refund when it does work, loss when it does. On average, 1 player will get a nice refund, the rest of the players are better off risking 0 - encouraging passive play! Also, a difficulty of 3 seems too high for 5 dice max, and 5 too high for a 10 dice max - since failure is the average.
6. The check difficulty, and what to actually check for, once again is up to the group's concept of when to doubt an action would succeed.
7. Opposed asset checks - "After the stakes are revealed..." I think the word 'or' is missing here - but the word 'opponent's' might just as well be - in other words, an important sentence to get right.
8. same section - "the losing player immediately gives the player initiating ... " - I presume that last should be "gives the the winning player..."
9. How does an off-suit asset count toward the max of 5 (or 10) dice that can be staked? And there's generally more recovery of off-suit dice on a win than of regular dice -intended?
10. Player rewards are, in the end, determined by the GM - so even if a player does gamble for the high difficulty, he's not sure of the payback.
11. I think the players will lose assets rapidly - spiraling into destruction. playtesting will tell.
The stalk across all worlds
1. The text needs proofreading (but is gripping).
2. As the game text mentions, the character stats don't really mean anything, except as description and as a factor in determining life capacity (hit points) and distance moved. The use or importance of the latter is only as high as the group makes it, since the text does not use movement rates in any way. So some stats are more important than others. Also, the example mentions rolling three dice, but also mentions that the total would be 6 if you roll 1 on each die. Also, assigning the points to the stats does not match the number of stats.
3. Clearer IIEE (who does what, how, when, and what the results are) is needed, as well as player authority on the story.
4. The cards seem to have a very minor impact on play. How many rolls would be normal for a session?
5. What, when, where and how does a Conflict Instance happen?
6. The words 'or exceeds' would be good in the list of possible results. 'It's actions take place' is also vague.
7. 'What armor or protection the character has' is undefined.
Ok. Some more!
XVIII
1. As mentioned, the naming convention table is missing.
2. A slight clarification on how actions relate to conflicts, when an action is a conflict, etc., would be helpful.
3. Since there's a lot of freedom in player/GM conversation and stating conflicts, it seems a bit arbitrary that some combined player actions should be disallowed. Something groups will need to work out for themselves.
4. The GM determines who is involved with the climax conflict - how? What should (s)he be looking for?
5. Basic Asset Checks - will cost! A tiny refund when it does work, loss when it does. On average, 1 player will get a nice refund, the rest of the players are better off risking 0 - encouraging passive play! Also, a difficulty of 3 seems too high for 5 dice max, and 5 too high for a 10 dice max - since failure is the average.
6. The check difficulty, and what to actually check for, once again is up to the group's concept of when to doubt an action would succeed.
7. Opposed asset checks - "After the stakes are revealed..." I think the word 'or' is missing here - but the word 'opponent's' might just as well be - in other words, an important sentence to get right.
8. same section - "the losing player immediately gives the player initiating ... " - I presume that last should be "gives the the winning player..."
9. How does an off-suit asset count toward the max of 5 (or 10) dice that can be staked? And there's generally more recovery of off-suit dice on a win than of regular dice -intended?
10. Player rewards are, in the end, determined by the GM - so even if a player does gamble for the high difficulty, he's not sure of the payback.
11. I think the players will lose assets rapidly - spiraling into destruction. playtesting will tell.
The stalk across all worlds
1. The text needs proofreading (but is gripping).
2. As the game text mentions, the character stats don't really mean anything, except as description and as a factor in determining life capacity (hit points) and distance moved. The use or importance of the latter is only as high as the group makes it, since the text does not use movement rates in any way. So some stats are more important than others. Also, the example mentions rolling three dice, but also mentions that the total would be 6 if you roll 1 on each die. Also, assigning the points to the stats does not match the number of stats.
3. Clearer IIEE (who does what, how, when, and what the results are) is needed, as well as player authority on the story.
4. The cards seem to have a very minor impact on play. How many rolls would be normal for a session?
5. What, when, where and how does a Conflict Instance happen?
6. The words 'or exceeds' would be good in the list of possible results. 'It's actions take place' is also vague.
7. 'What armor or protection the character has' is undefined.
- Tobias
- Marmoset
- Posts: 60
- Joined: Tue May 24, 2005 12:55 am
by Tobias » Tue Jun 14, 2005 5:10 am
Fire moon is short and sweet, rules-lite, and easy to chop:
Fire Moon
1. Some guidance on the amount of answer a witness is forced to give might be handy - or an allowance of a few 'follow-up' questions to get more than a 'yes' or 'no' response.
2. It is hard to see how an ex-companion who's been removed from the action might give accurate testimony of the events. This may be intentional design, but it may lead to a creative block for the Witness player.
3. A slight clarification of the example of card use might be handy. 'Incorporating' an 'irritating delay' as directly effecting your own unit to me reads: 'my unit was irritatingly delayed'. I guess the intent is that your unit is the cause of whatever good or bad thing happens.
4. In the endgame, scorn or praise are allocated in proportion to the amount of blame - less is better. There is no tiebreaker, nor a 'grand climax'. It might be interesting to let the least-blamed player(s) narrate what REALLY happend (heck, even though their unit got least of the blame, perhaps they were the cause of the error all along!).
Fire Moon
1. Some guidance on the amount of answer a witness is forced to give might be handy - or an allowance of a few 'follow-up' questions to get more than a 'yes' or 'no' response.
2. It is hard to see how an ex-companion who's been removed from the action might give accurate testimony of the events. This may be intentional design, but it may lead to a creative block for the Witness player.
3. A slight clarification of the example of card use might be handy. 'Incorporating' an 'irritating delay' as directly effecting your own unit to me reads: 'my unit was irritatingly delayed'. I guess the intent is that your unit is the cause of whatever good or bad thing happens.
4. In the endgame, scorn or praise are allocated in proportion to the amount of blame - less is better. There is no tiebreaker, nor a 'grand climax'. It might be interesting to let the least-blamed player(s) narrate what REALLY happend (heck, even though their unit got least of the blame, perhaps they were the cause of the error all along!).
- Tobias
- Marmoset
- Posts: 60
- Joined: Tue May 24, 2005 12:55 am
Return to Game Chef 2005 & 2006
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest