IRON GAME REVIEWER thread

[Doug Ruff]

At last, the Barquest review! This weekend was not a good weekend for reviewing, so I have some catching up to do.

---

Barquest, by Jennifer Schoonover (9 page doc file)

Core Story

Everyone goes to a bar and gets drunk! What more do you need to know!

How it Looks

Basic Times New Roman, which means it's easy enough to read. I expect that a later version will include actual cards and tiles, but I was disappointed that I couldn't find descriptions of the floor tiles so that I could make my own.

The Setting

It's a stereotypical medieval tavern. The vast advantage of this is that most players will already have a good idea of what one of these looks like, and what to expect from it. In combination with the rules (say below) this means that it would be a great game to just pick up and play. I can see this game getting heavy use at conventions.

Note that there is no mention of fantasy or magic in the setting; it's not required. The whole thing does feel like a D&D-style tavern though.

The Rules

The character creaton rules are fast and effective, and there are several examples in the rules. One thought, you will need more characters than these for a long session, especially as many of them are intended to be NPCs controlled by the GM (Barkeep/Alewife). I suspect that players are likely to go through several characters in the course of a game, either because they have completed their missions, or they have been removed from play. I'd also note that some character specialities (especially “Lucky”) seem more powerful than others. However, I don't think that this is a major issue for a light-hearted game.

One big feature is that characters each have a couple of missions, the player who completes the most missions by the end of the game wins. The missions are great for driving interesting play. Some of the missions could do with a rethink: especially those which encourage the player to avoid conflicts. Players should be encouraged to make things happen. Similarly, the Character Actions section appears to slow things down a bit: if I want to finish my drink, call for another one while I flirt with the person opposite, this appears to be three rounds worth of actions. I'm sure this isn't the intention of the rules, but I the think that the rules could be more clear about “what you can do in one round” (even if it is only “whatever the GM wlll let you get away with”.)

Speaking of conflicts, conflict resolution is also simple, yet covers standard and opposed actions with a minimum of fuss. However, there doesn't appear to be a rule for resolving ties during opposed actions.

The rules for drinking need some work, mainly because they don't encourage people to drink. The penalty for getting drunk is OK, but needs to be counterbalanced by something more worthwhile (see the end of the review for a suggestion.)

I like the “damage” rules – a character who loses a contest by 5 or more is made unconscious. However, the implication is that this is a physical combat, but this isn't specified. I hope that the rules allow for character removal as a result of any conflict – making it possible for a character to be (for example) intimidated or tricked out of play, instead of just battered unconscious. Note that this also makes it easier for drunk characters to be removed from play!

I'm less fond of the random event tables. There are very few of them and this is likely to result in repetition. Also, several of the events involve gaining or losing money, which I think has a disproportionate impact, as several of the characters have money-related goals. Finally, they are too similar to the Barkeep random event tiles to justify the additional rules. See below for a suggestion for overcoming this.


Overall Impression

The basic premise of the game is rock-solid and easily comprehended. The rules are light enough to learn easily, but the game lacks tightness in several areas. This is where a good GM will earn their keep, but I would like to see a substantial rewrite of some areas of the rules.

Having said that, if I had to pick some 2005 Game Chef games to play with friends, this would be at or near the top of my list. For a casual game between other games, it would be at the very top of my list. It is fun – and for me, that's the most important mark of a good game.

What I'd Like to See

I think there is a real opportunity to expand this game into a card-based game. The events (both the tiles and the random events) could be moved onto cards. In order to encourage drinking, add this rule – have a drink, draw a card. The more a character drinks, the more narrative control the player gets (even if the character becomes less effective.
Rather than keep track of penalties for drinking, make some of the cards only affect characters who have had a certain number of beers.

(Note: this game would quite cheerfully fit a CCG model, especially if players could draw events from any player's deck. Or – more practically – a base set with optional expansions. I think that this would retail better than CCG, as it would be possible to complete the collection without too much effort. IMHO, Barquest isn't about effort.)

That's my biggest Wish for this game, but it does take it in a different direction from the original design. In order to play the game with the same rules, I'd like to see more characters, more random events and some tiles.

Next review: Beneath a High Pillow, by Jason A. Petrasko.

[Doug Ruff]

Sorry, I've been the Leaden Game Reviewer recently, I'll try to pick up some pace. Besides, Tobias is showing me up bigtime.

---

Beneath a High Pillow, by Jason A. Petrasko. (39 page PDF)

Core Story

It's the Roaring Twenties. One of you is the Boss, the rest of you work for the Boss, you all want to be the Boss. Make bulge, indulge your tastes and try to stay out of the Big House... or the cemetary.

How it Looks

The document is laid out neatly and there's plenty of whitespace, which makes the text easy to read. The font used for the title headings is excellent, and really gives a feel for the setting. I also like the minimalist cover. With 39 pages to read, I'm very glad for the contents menu and PDF bookmarks.

The Setting

The setting is the Roaring Twenties, and it lives and breathes in the game text. From the dictionary of twenties slang (all nine pages!) to the quotes from The Godfather and The Untouchables, there's a wealth of material. However, the really good stuff is the way in which the setting is integrated into the game mechanics. The slang terms are also game terms; the players earn bonuses for introducing setting-specific “cliches” into their narration.

The Rules

I'm going to get this out of the way now – I actually found the rules difficult to follow. Which is strange given how well the game is laid out. This appears to be down to two things.

Firstly, not all of the rules which need to be understood together are close together. Classic example: the game set up rules require the players to write down Sticks and Stones on the back of the Wine cards, but the rules for creating these are 10 pages later, after a big chunk of other rules.

Secondly, a detailed examination of the rules appears to reveal several gaps which need to be filled. Example one, cast can make cameo appearances, but it's not clear when they can interrupt the principal. Also, it's not clear exactly how the principal recruits a cast member to work an Angle for them. If I earn a card from another player, does this come from their hand, or from the stack? And so on. These are small things, but they add up. I actually think that Jason has a very clear idea of how the game should play, and that playtesting with him would quickly iron out any wrinkles. However, I found myself crying out for some more examples.

On a more positive note, the division of roles between the boss, the principal and the cast is inspired. Each player gets guaranteed spotlight opportunity, and extra spotlight can be earned by staying true to the genre. The boss gets less spotlight, but more authority (and is the closest to a GM role.) I especially love the idea that you can kill the boss and take his authority!

The pregenerated characters are also excellent: in a few sentences, we learn about their characters, their abilities and who they do and don't get on with. One small point: for some characters, it's explicitly stated that they high dice (d12) when they use their speciality. Does this mean that the other characters don't? Despite this, the writeups are an object lesson in economical character design.

The game also makes a decent stab at recreating the power struggles within the organisation. Players are encouraged to pull each other down so that they can be best placed to take on the boss. However, I suspect that the balance in power between the boss and the other characters needs some attention. Because of the rate at which the boss gains Wine in proportion to the other characters gaining Bulge, and the increasing influence the boss gains through Lies, I think that the boss gets more powerful as the ame goes on – which is a failing when the aim of the game is to replace the boss. It may even be that the best tactic is to attempt to take out the boss on your first turn, before any Lies come into play (but this may be due to my shaky understanding of the rules).

Overall Impression

In concept, this game is brilliant: it really captures the setting, and there are some exciting things going on with the player roles. The quality of the setting writing alone makes me want to play this game. The mechanics need some significant redrafting for me to be able to play it, but this is relatively easy to fix (and it's a casualty of the tight deadlines for the competition proper.) I'm looking forward to seeing where Jason takes this after the competition is over.

What I'd Like to See

For post-gamechef publication, I'd like to see Wine taken out of the game, and replaced with Bulge. It's the same currency, after all. Beyond that, I only want to see the rules clarified so that I can actually play the game as the creator intended. And with a bad Marlon Brando accent.

Next review: Blood and Bronze, by James Brown.

[Doug Ruff]

Alas, the last few weeks have not been good to me, and it has taken me two whole weeks to review this game. So new policy: if an aspect of the game has already been discussed at depth in this forum (and especially if they've been Iron Game Destroyed) I may skip over making the same comments myself. I'll still try to make sure that I add something new of value to each review, though.

With that out of the way...

---

Blood and Bronze, by James Brown. (7 page .doc file)

Core Story

Warring Greek states compete in multiple arenas to see who will be remembered as the best. However, their accomplishments are doomed to become as dust in the wake of the upstart Roman Empire.

How it Looks

Spartan, fittingly. The layout is basic, which also makes it easy to read. However, it's clearly a draft version – this doesn't matter for the contest, but I'm reviewing all of these games on the assumption that they want to be full published versions. So I'd like to see a bit more layout and/or artwork next time around.

Setting and Rules

I'm going to depart from the IGR “tradition” of commenting on these separately. I think that Blood and Bronze serves as a showcase example of how the rules can be made to support the setting (but also of where they should support it more, as you'll see later on.)

But first, I'd like to mention James' use of examples which show the players getting into the setting and using it to inspire their narration. This worked particularly well for me, perhaps because narration is the main way for the players to differentiate their roles in this game.

Let me explain. Each city is mechanically identical to the other cities. This means that the actual name of your city, hero, god or king has no direct impact whatsoever on play. So the examples breathe life into this part of the game. But this does indicate a need for future development: I want to see more narrative or “mechanical” support for differentiating the cities. Worse, there's not really much difference between the different city abilities. So my 5-point god can be exactly the same (mechanically) as your 5-point king. Although this does make the game a lot easier to play, I sense that there should be at least some meaning to the choice between one ability or another.

By contrast, the Oracle is an excellent example of how the rules do support narrative intent. A simple mechanic allows the player to predict the future, gain a short term advantage, and pay a price at the end of it. This an excellent addition to the game and really helps to bring the setting into the rules. (I'll admit that I'm not sure how it plays tactically – there must be a terrible temptation to gang up on someone after they make their visit.)

Somewhere in the middle, lies the rules for Blood and Bronze, and how these allegiances change by the honouring and breaking of deals. The best thing is that it mechanically rewards people for entering into agreements. I couldn't quite get my head round the way in which each city could simultaneously be Blood and Bronze: perhaps the nature of the betrayal (or honouring) of a deal should be narratively linked into the ability which gets the token?

With regards to the actual mechanical balance of the game, Tobias has already said a lot in his Iron Game Destroyer thread. So I'll just add a small amount to what has been said already.

Firstly, the reason why the bidding system works for Amber is that it's possible to buy into an attribute after the auction has ended. This prevents a player from being forced out of having any value for an attribute in later rounds. So a simple fix for this problem in Blood and Bronze is to allow the players to add spare tokens to their values after the auction, on the understanding that this cannot change who is “without peer” for the round.

Secondly, I sense that the game may be too prone to “kingmaking”. Say there are four players: the two players who are not the primary antagonists in a combat have a very large scope for influencing the outcome of the conflict, especially as it's a karma-based system. The last player to be invited (or to accept an invitation) may carry an inordinate amount of power. In fact I thin that it would be very hard indeed to win the game (by becoming “without peer” in three areas) without the tacit support of at least one other player. I'm not sure I'm too happy about this prospect.

What Have the Romans ever done for us?

Back to setting and mechanics together. I think that there's a genuine opportunity missed in the shape of the threat of Roman domination. At the moment, this is more-or-less a throwaway comment in the rules for determining the winner, but I feel that this is actually one of the central themes of the game – which is why I've included it in the “core story”. You know, here are the Greeks, fighting each other to decide who's the top dog, and the Romans are only bloody going to take it away from them anyway! If James is interested in moving this away from a tactical board game and into more roleplay-friendly territory, I'd strongly advise him to look there.

Overall Impression

As it stands, this is a solid tactical game which does enough to capture the feel of the Greek setting to make it flavourful and non-generic. However, I think that James needs to develop it further, either as a tactical game or as a story-telling (by which I do not mean WoD) game.

What I'd Like to See

Definitely: More “thematic” layout, some more background information about the cities and their armies, heroes, kings and gods. James is strong in this area and I want to see more from him that will make me love this setting more than I do already. More playtesting and Iron Game Destruction, because this will really help iron out the “balance” of the game.

Tentatively: More specific rules that make city choice and ability choice a meaningful exercise. And/or, something that will bring the menace of Roman domination into the game – to me, Greek mythic history says tragedy and the Romans would be an excellent vehicle for introducing this into the game.

Next review: Carry, by Nathan Paoletta. I'll try not to take two weeks about it this time!