Hello Tobias,
I would be very grateful for anything you are willing to produce. I know that what you've taken on is a great deal of work. Please do what you want to do and either way I will be happy.
-Kenji
IRON GAME DESTROYER
by Tobias » Tue Jun 21, 2005 11:06 am
Allrighty then - on to the chopping of
malleus maleficarum:
This game's generally well-written with regards to who does what, how, when, and to what effect, although the 'act out' sections are left to the players free-form imagination.
It's interesting to note that the act of passing notes becomes significant in this game - which is design intent.
p 11., point 5. It might be good to prevent one (or a few) participant(s) from adding villagers ad infinitum.
p 11., p7 - if the prevot just communicates with the players who had mutually taken a villager as secret companion, this will communicate to these conflicting players that the chosen villager will likely not be any player's secret companion, or companion of the other conflicting player. Probably wise for the prevot to hand out pieces of paper to all (and need one back from all) then, until ok.
p 11. as the strategic tip notes, the last player to pick a villager will likely have the least advantageous one. This is an incentive to make the village-building phase as balanced as possible, but also makes it more likely that this process will run on a long(er) time.
p 13 - framing the scene. If a scene accompanies an action/conflict targeting a player's villager, is that villager automatically introduced? If not, a player can be put in 'defensive' mode by a single other player indefinitely if he needs to introduce his character to defend (although that's only a marginal advantage on average (9 target vs. 10.5), unless ANOTHER third of the social standing of the target player is added (which it probably isn't)).
All in all, a slight clarification on the options of the target and effects these options have would be good
p 13 - there isn't any reason for the player to introduce NPC villagers that oppose his action - is there? Nor power for the Prevot to do so?
p 12-15 - there are 2 types of 'secret action' - those in the end of a turn, and those as a seperate phase. It would probably be good to name these differently. Also, clarifying that a player may take any number of appropriate secret actions in the end of a turn is probably a good thing.
p 15 - secret actions phase - it's possible to have an accusation action through the secret companion against a target in this phase - the target can ".. join the scene that results via the mechanism presented in 'resolving the conflict'. But if that player's already introduced his character in defense, and thus needs to skip until his turn happens again, does that make him incapable to join the scene at this time?
p 16 the fragment 'only augmentation of the bonus' is confusing - could be removed.
Cards:
- 'bribery' mentions a villager's standing is 'partially restored' - but it goes back to 10 - the initial starting value.
- 'if I can't have it, no-one can' - text is conflicting (or unclear) with regard to earlier body text
In general - I'm a bit worried about piling on, possible death-spirals and blocking play - for instance, any conflict will always be in the best interest of one player, so to win, it's best to stop that player. This makes allying neccesary, which leads to interesting dynamics - but if they're successful we'll only know through playtesting.
malleus maleficarum:
This game's generally well-written with regards to who does what, how, when, and to what effect, although the 'act out' sections are left to the players free-form imagination.
It's interesting to note that the act of passing notes becomes significant in this game - which is design intent.
p 11., point 5. It might be good to prevent one (or a few) participant(s) from adding villagers ad infinitum.
p 11., p7 - if the prevot just communicates with the players who had mutually taken a villager as secret companion, this will communicate to these conflicting players that the chosen villager will likely not be any player's secret companion, or companion of the other conflicting player. Probably wise for the prevot to hand out pieces of paper to all (and need one back from all) then, until ok.
p 11. as the strategic tip notes, the last player to pick a villager will likely have the least advantageous one. This is an incentive to make the village-building phase as balanced as possible, but also makes it more likely that this process will run on a long(er) time.
p 13 - framing the scene. If a scene accompanies an action/conflict targeting a player's villager, is that villager automatically introduced? If not, a player can be put in 'defensive' mode by a single other player indefinitely if he needs to introduce his character to defend (although that's only a marginal advantage on average (9 target vs. 10.5), unless ANOTHER third of the social standing of the target player is added (which it probably isn't)).
All in all, a slight clarification on the options of the target and effects these options have would be good
p 13 - there isn't any reason for the player to introduce NPC villagers that oppose his action - is there? Nor power for the Prevot to do so?
p 12-15 - there are 2 types of 'secret action' - those in the end of a turn, and those as a seperate phase. It would probably be good to name these differently. Also, clarifying that a player may take any number of appropriate secret actions in the end of a turn is probably a good thing.
p 15 - secret actions phase - it's possible to have an accusation action through the secret companion against a target in this phase - the target can ".. join the scene that results via the mechanism presented in 'resolving the conflict'. But if that player's already introduced his character in defense, and thus needs to skip until his turn happens again, does that make him incapable to join the scene at this time?
p 16 the fragment 'only augmentation of the bonus' is confusing - could be removed.
Cards:
- 'bribery' mentions a villager's standing is 'partially restored' - but it goes back to 10 - the initial starting value.
- 'if I can't have it, no-one can' - text is conflicting (or unclear) with regard to earlier body text
In general - I'm a bit worried about piling on, possible death-spirals and blocking play - for instance, any conflict will always be in the best interest of one player, so to win, it's best to stop that player. This makes allying neccesary, which leads to interesting dynamics - but if they're successful we'll only know through playtesting.
- Tobias
- Marmoset
- Posts: 60
- Joined: Tue May 24, 2005 12:55 am
by Tobias » Tue Jun 28, 2005 11:57 am
Ok!
The Roach
Is generally neat and tight, but a few elements are missing - I get the feeling they're in the author's head, but just haven't been put to paper.
1. What would prevent a player from always narrating his 2 enthusiasms into a conflict?
2. The way reputation is wagered, and especially against whom (NPC/PC), needs clarification (some roach cards may force you to co-operate - which does not seem like a conflict). Does only the player starting the scene wager? Do both player and target? What if the target is an NPC? What about additional players whose PC joins - they wager against the target, or the bank?
3. p.18 (pdf pagecount, not the listed page number) - 'in turn' - where do you start? (Trivial, perhaps)
6. p.20. There isn't anything preventing a framing/NPC-owning player from kingmaking with his die and his power to let other players narrate key NPCs, is there? In a game of beating your fellow player, wouldn't this mean you always try to go for your own advantage?
7. p.20 - 'any player can suggest groups ' does this mean unlimited power on behalf of (a) player(s) to add groups - and thus dice to a conflict? Doesn't this mean limitless escalation?
8. There is no shuffling of cards? Whatever the answer, it will impact game-play.
9. There are more reputation-destroying cards than reputation-gaining cards - this is intentional?
The Roach
Is generally neat and tight, but a few elements are missing - I get the feeling they're in the author's head, but just haven't been put to paper.
1. What would prevent a player from always narrating his 2 enthusiasms into a conflict?
2. The way reputation is wagered, and especially against whom (NPC/PC), needs clarification (some roach cards may force you to co-operate - which does not seem like a conflict). Does only the player starting the scene wager? Do both player and target? What if the target is an NPC? What about additional players whose PC joins - they wager against the target, or the bank?
3. p.18 (pdf pagecount, not the listed page number) - 'in turn' - where do you start? (Trivial, perhaps)
6. p.20. There isn't anything preventing a framing/NPC-owning player from kingmaking with his die and his power to let other players narrate key NPCs, is there? In a game of beating your fellow player, wouldn't this mean you always try to go for your own advantage?
7. p.20 - 'any player can suggest groups ' does this mean unlimited power on behalf of (a) player(s) to add groups - and thus dice to a conflict? Doesn't this mean limitless escalation?
8. There is no shuffling of cards? Whatever the answer, it will impact game-play.
9. There are more reputation-destroying cards than reputation-gaining cards - this is intentional?
- Tobias
- Marmoset
- Posts: 60
- Joined: Tue May 24, 2005 12:55 am
by jmstar » Tue Jun 28, 2005 12:27 pm
Whoa, lots to think about there. I'll reply in more detail after some cogitation. Thanks, Tobias!
All those things would bring a bloodthirsty playtest to a screeching halt...
All those things would bring a bloodthirsty playtest to a screeching halt...
- jmstar
- Marmoset
- Posts: 83
- Joined: Sat May 21, 2005 6:04 am
- Location: Chapel Hill, NC, USA
Return to Game Chef 2005 & 2006
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 1 guest