IRON GAME DESTROYER

[Tobias]

As far as I'm concerned, don't be sorry - time pressure is a familiar thing.

I agree - keep the dueling rules! But try to see whether you can translate them to a more modern (understandable) flow(chart?) and there will be a game in there.

Ok, one more chop: I've gotten around to

The Gentlemen's Entomology Club

1. Page 6, Structure of play - note that players could stall the game by choosing not to play a card to become storyteller, companion, or skeptic. A type of play against the spirit of playing in the first place, but not wholly strange, especially late game, given some concerns I will come back to later (point 5).

2. The rules for scoring are incomplete as to how scoring will be done if playing multiple rounds. (If scoring is still done at the end of a session, rules for re-distrubiting cards between rounds is needed instead. Without these rules and given different expenditure of cards, players will also have different levels of in-game incentive to play another round).

3. Page 8 'Play is organized into Rounds. A Round is made up of one Turn per player ...' and a bit further 'A Turn is made up of a Round of card-playing ...'. Probably the second 'round' should not be capitalized - using different terms could be even clearer.

4. In Telling the tale, there is no limit on the number of Difficulties or Challenges that is required. This allows for the (silly) number of 0, with the storyteller just saying 'I drove out, and in the driveway, there it was. And that's how I acquired this fine specimen of ...'. So at least 1 D/C should be required, I guess. Another option is that Storyteller and Skeptic will combine to keep creating Difficulties together for as long as there are cards in the deck - since they'll both be gaining from it (especially if it's the first turn).

5. Page 10 contains a line which is illustrative for a slight mismatch between the implied honor system of rewarding most amusing narration and purely gamist tactics of winning the game through tactical voting and tie-breaking (if the companion) - 'It is generally expected that the die will go towards whoever is more likely to provide more amusement if they win'. A hard comment to pin down on any single line in the text (although footnote 16, 'General advice for play' and 'partiality' do adress these issues). Generally, the game is open to players wishing to play hardcore for the win and ignoring the 'normal' reason for assigning reward - good narration. For instance, a hard-core player will not want to be a storyteller when he's ahead in the score - since the table (companion) will, in order to catch up, want to reduce his score, and will therefore always support the skeptic through the challenge mechanism. Likewise, the end-of-turn vote is open to this kind of abuse. Skeptics who are in the lead, score-wise, will want to create Difficulties (on top of making a deal with the storyteller to create difficulties to both gain cards), since resolution is score-independant.
As mentioned in point 1, this gives players incentives not to take certain roles.
Since the game text acknowledges tactical or 'revenge' play, this kind of hard-core gaming really feels like abuse of the game - while just a little bit of manipulation feels fine. So it's up to the social contract of the players to find an appropriate level of cut-throatness, and actually following the honor system. I'm reminded of Universalis, with the first games there generally being different from later games in players getting accustomed to their player power - and not always using it. So perhaps the rules are more suited to multi-session play than one-shot play.

Or perhaps I'm worrying too much - these are friends that are supposed to be playing, right?

6. Page 10 contains an example where the Skeptic had stated that the insect being pursued lives halfway up cliffs - but later portions of the text claim that 'Details about the insect that is the subject of the current Story are solely the domain of the Storyteller.' I would consider habitat one such detail.

--

As Doug is catching up again with his review of Beneath a High Pillow, I will drop that game to a lower priority on my list to chop (for now, or until the judges are in).

[MikeSands]

Hmm... some good points...

1. True, but unlikely. I guess maybe you have to play if you can? That makes the card play aspect less tactical, though.

2. Yes, ideally you'd have a larger deck. Larger numbers of players will use them quicker too.

3. Damn... I changed the terms halfway through, and I guess I missed that one.

4. Yes, that's an issue. I don't mind the Storyteller trying to have a story that's so prosaic, but the Skeptic really ought to make it tougher in that case. I'll think about minimum and maximum numbers for these.

5. Yeah, that tension is there on purpose. I wanted to give the feel that these old codgers are listening to the stories for the enjoyment but also maybe have old grudges and so on... maybe that should be put more explicitly.

6. Another case of something that changed partway through. That said, the Skeptic would be allowed to suggest this, but if the Storyteller wanted to they could veto it.

Thanks for the comments, they'll go into the revised version.

[Tobias]

On:

1. I agree it's unlikely. Just not impossible. Perhaps you must only play a card if you can if the deck is empty? Or perhaps the person with the most cards in hand must first play that card?

2. So you'd just give everyone 5 new cards in any following round, and score at the end?

4. It's just that the Skeptic can be caught off-guard by something like this. There's no rule saying the skeptic's allowed to stop/interrupt the Storyteller from this prosaic story. If it does happen, to prevent it, every story should have a complication right in the driveway (an amusing recurring theme!).

5. It's just that this tension can cross the line into abuse and wrecking the game spirit, IMHO.

You're welcome, glad you found it helpful.

[imported_tadk]

Thanks for the kind review you gave
I am going to add them into the next version of the Rule of 5 rules.

I had a bad week, and really spent way too little time on it
in your opinion would it be worth expanding or not
Curious if anyone else would like more or not

Tad

[Tobias]

I liked certain things about your writing style. So, in self-interest - yes, it would be worth expanding.

Whether it would be worth it to you depends on your goals, of course.

[Tobias]

I have read Malleus Maleficarum, and made comments. I've found I'm just going through the motions now, though. Iron Game Destroyer burnout.

So I'm taking a few days off from the destruction. In the end, my chops will be the more thorough for it, I hope.

[Tobias]

Oh, and I would like to tip my hat to the REAL judges of this contest.

The amount of material they have to look at, comprehend, read, and judge in appropriate consideration of all the elements (as opposed to my just being able to bash whatever I think can be bashed), is large, and so is their job.

Kudos!

[PlotDevice]

Abolutely.

I committed to reviewing all the 24 hour games ouitstanding before the next grand event, and I have found it a hard slog to manage more than 6 every 2 weeks, with everything else that is going on.

It is not just reading and commenting: you have to totally get into the headspace of the game concept as best you can and feel out the concepts for strengths and flaws. Then write about it, and try to do it again. And again. And again.

Much work! And mega Kudos to the people who put their hands up to do it.

Warm regards,
Evan

[Tobias]

Kenjib - as author of MM, would you prefer a chop:

1. As quickly as possible.
2. To my normal standards.

The same goes for others who are still up for review (also see Emily's list) or up for chop post-reviews.

I'm shooting for 2 in all chops, but there may be some who'd just prefer to hear anything, ASAP, so that they can get inspired/working themselves again.

[Tobias]

Kenjib - as author of MM, would you prefer a chop:

1. As quickly as possible.
2. To my normal standards.

The same goes for others who are still up for review (also see Emily's list) or up for chop post-reviews.

I'm shooting for 2 in all chops, but there may be some who'd just prefer to hear anything, ASAP, so that they can get inspired/working themselves again.