I generally agree with the reviews. Two points I'd like to raise, and a general question to all readers at the end, though:
1. According to the judges, ingredients are used 'mostly as color' or 'surface gloss - The game wouldn't suffer from removing them'. I myself think the Accuser ingredient would be the (major) exception to this - accusing/trying to oust the player to your left is a core mechanic of the game. Or do the judges disagree? Do they think it's just me putting an ingredient name on a mechanic I like using? (To which the answer would be: I like the mechanic, but I chose to include it because of its appropriateness re the Accuser ingredient.)
2. On the completeness 'The game doesn't go very far in terms of it's goals'. What does this mean? The goals aren't so big? The goals aren't met?
(To which I would say: The goal was to make an amusing one-shot, or campaign-hole-filler game. Which I think it is.)
A general question, to all readers: would, in your opinion, it be better to strip the game as is from setting, and keep it what its mechanical core is - a tactical bluffing game - or try to add 'roleplaying incentive'?
Thanks for reading, and maybe thanks in advance for replying!
