Review: Decade (#17)

[Lebrante]

[kleenestar]

[Kevin Allen]

1) CREATIVE AND EFFECTIVE INCORPORATION OF RULES (1-10): 8

Ancient- A weak implication of use, poor at best.
Emotion- Central to the entire functionality of the game, well realized and executed
Glass- Involved, but not super well integrated.

Time- A particularly difficult time requirement, excellently used. The game is all about time, and how people deal with it from session to session. Masterfully done.

2) CLARITY (1-10): 9

Feedback: The game text was easy to understand. Good, ample examples simplified the already well written rules. Not too long winded, flowery or sterile. Reading gave a very good idea of what gameplay would be like.

3) COMPLETENESS (1-10): 9

Feedback: A very minor amount of editing is needed before publishing (and I think it’s evident I’m not the best judge of this). Regular old graphic design criticisms (its successful in it’s ease of reading, but it looks a little boring on the page) [note: this wasn’t part of my scoring, it’s just an added crit]. I LOVED the alternate “settings” and deck options. Made the game that much more complete.

4) ESTIMATED EFFECTIVENESS IN PLAY (1-10): 8

Feedback: The game appears ready to play. Great potential for a LARP. The rules look like they hold water. However, I do fear that the game could get dull after 5-6 sessions.

5) SWING VOTE (1-10): 8

Feedback: This game was very well written. It was a joy to read through. I would play this game. I would like to see something a little more interesting (visually) with the cards (great work for a first draft). I think if I played it I wouldn’t hold my play group to a full 10 sessions.

TOTAL: 42

[Lebrante]

[kleenestar]

[kleenestar]

[Lebrante]

[Graham Walmsley]

Jessica,

A while ago, you asked me to have a look through Decade, so I had a read through this lunchtime.

There's lots of things I like about Decade: it's a superb basis for a game and there's some really nice rules quirks in there. Here's some questions and then I'll give you some thoughts on the central mechanic.

1. Just as an observation, you're using the term Premise. "Premise" has a fairly specific meaning on intimidating sites like the Forge and it's different from the meaning you give it. This isn't a problem but I just wanted to point it out.

2. At the moment, the setting could be anything: from France under the Sun King to New York in the eighties. Had you considered tightening the "default" setting up: saying this was a game to be played in the twentieth century, for example? Not a problem, again, but it might give a sharper focus to the game.

3. In the character building session, what exactly counts as a fact? If I say: "Jessica! I haven't seen you since you broke up with Maria. I bet you'll really want a drink." I might have established any of the following:

a. That your name is Jessica
b. That you're a lesbian
c. That you broke up with Maria
d. That you like a drink
e. That you drink
f. That you're an alcoholic

How do we decide exactly what's been established?

4. Would it be a good idea to let the player challenge facts that are established about their character? For example, what would we do if I made the statement above and you really feel uncomfortable playing a lesbian?

5. Quick clarification. You say: "Once all the players have arrived, the Host starts the clock." But wouldn't that mean that the last player to arrive gets no facts established about him (because the game started immediately he arrived)? In general, can the Host cut off the "establishing facts" period or must we wait until all the players have picked up their cards?

6. To clarify, when we start the party, do we sit down to play or stay standing?

7. I'm a bit worried about inviting people to join a scene. It might favour players playing with the people they know and ignoring the players who aren't as well-known.

8. In the example about about Joey, have you noticed how he's the most interesting character, but he's an NPC? Would it be a better idea to ensure that all the interesting characters (such as ex-lovers and so on) are the other PCs?

9. As a follow-up point: all the characters are created separately by the players. This could mean they don't really have relationships to each other. Could you use a "relationship map" or similar to ensure that all PCs have interesting relationships?

10. I really like the kissing at midnight. Can I kiss more than one person?

11. Isn't kissing NPCs a bit of a cop-out? Surely any unkissed players will automatically invent an NPC to kiss ("I kiss the waiter!") and no-one will really challenge them.

12. I really like adding complications to resolutions. It's so good that I think it should be done automatically, without having to discard cards. It makes them more interesting.

13. I really don't like negating the resolution. Why should the other players be able to negate the resolution?

14. I like the alternative endings and the suggestions for removing cards. However, couldn't you do it mechanically in some way? For example, you could count up all the Envy, Shame and Hate cards used in the 10 sessions and all the Love, Benevolence and Pity cards. Whichever is the lesser, you get rid of those cards.

Or you could do it on a session by session basis. At the end of each session, count up those two sets of cards. Whichever is the lesser, you lose one of those cards from the next game.

15. As a general comment, you give a lot of decisions to the Host (such as choosing the mix of cards). Had you thought about giving those decisions to the play group as a whole?

OK. I've also got some general comments about the central Emotion mechanic. I'm a bit worried about it, because I'm not sure it's doing exactly what you want. Take this with a pinch of salt, of course.

You said above that you wanted the game to be about social conflicts. But, at the moment, the central mechanic rewards players for displaying emotions. And I don't think the displaying emotions really goes anywhere.

For example: In one scene, you've got an Anger card, so you're angry with me. In the next scene, I feel I should be angry back: but all I've got is a Love card, so I act that instead. In the next scene, you feel you should counter my Love in some way (either respond with Love or Anger or something) but the card you've got left is Mildness, so you play that.

Do you see what I mean? There's no reward for actually building on things. If I display Anger to you, I think there should be an incentive for you either to respond with Anger in the next scene or to respond with other interesting things: Love, for example.

And I'd like some way of developing themes. If I get angry over (say) your ex-girlfriend, then I think the system should reward us both for bringing up our ex-girlfriend as a recurring theme.

What you could do, for example, is write down Traits after each scene. When I play an Anger card and yell about your ex-girlfriend, we both write down "Ex-girlfriend". Then, when we bring up the ex-girlfriend in other conflicts, we get a bonus for bringing in the ex-girlfriend. Perhaps not quite that, but something like that.

A while ago, I mentioned Breaking The Ice. You said it wasn't to your taste, which is fine (I really like it, personally).

But what I think Breaking the Ice does really well is use its mechanics to support the types of stories it wants. It's a game about romantic stories and their ups and downs: so you get to roll dice for narrating attractions; you get to reroll dice for narrating problems; you get continuing attraction between dates; compatibilities between characters can be used for a mechanical bonus; and so on.

I'd really like to see Decade use mechanics in a similar way. If you want stories about friendships and romances making and breaking, you could support all that with your system.

For example, you could give people mechanical rewards for forming relationships, an increased reward for keeping that relationship going but then a greater reward if one of them breaks that relationship. And rewards when someone introduces a conflict into a relationship. And again, perhaps not exactly that, but something like it.

I hope some of that helps, Jessica. I like Decade very much: it has so much potential and it has some great ideas in it. Good luck with it.

Graham

[kleenestar]