Peer Review

[Jonathan "Buddha" Davis]

Okay, looks like we've got a few submissions, and with the deadline lifted, we may get a few more here and there. So, I think it's time we started the review process!!! I say that mainly 'cause I want to know how people feel about my work! :P

Seriously, I'm gonna put up my thoughts on "Evil Twin" and "Fragarach" sometime in the next few days, if not today! Sorry, Ron... but I think we may get a chance to playtest yours in-group, so you can get my feedback from playtesting!!

I'd love to hear thoughts; good, bad, or, as Ron would put it, "Meh" on both "Second Sight" and the other submissions, in this thread. If you haven't gotten a chance to submit a game, please feel free to contribute by reviewing one or more of the games and letting us attention-starved designers know how amazing we already know we are!!! Seriously, at least as far as I'm concerned, critisism is also welcome! I'll do my best not to get a defensive, or curl up in a ball and cry on the floor...

(Even just a sentence or two is good! Everyone likes to know people are reading their stuff!)

[Justin Smith]

Unfortunately, I have not been able to try this game out. My gaming time is very limited, and I have not been able to get to it.

Summary:
$econd $ight is Office Space, as reimmagined by the X-Men. The PCs are mutant psychics employed by a soulless corporate bureaucrasy who have horrible things happen to them as they try to advance.
Mechanically, the game relies on a secret bid of coins which are tossed. High bid wins and the conflict, and the highest number of heads recieves narration rights.
One of two different endgame conditions is determined at the beginning of the game. The game either ends at a particular time, or it continues until the bank is out of money. The player with the most money wins.

On the criteria proposed by George:

Use of Ingredients
Mr. Davis announced that he used the following four ingredients beyond the mandatory: "Second," "Mesencephalon," "Explicit losing condition" and "Randomizer that is neither cards nor dice."
The first two, "second" and "mesencephalon" are only tangentially integrated into the game. They are included in the flavor of the game, but the game is not about them.
The "explicit losing condition" only applies to the CFO (GM.) If the CFO is the player with the most money at the end of the game, he/she loses. The CFO cannot win in any case.
The ingredient that is best integrated is "randomizer not cards or dice." The challenge system really integrates this and not as a token inclusion. Not only are the coins used, they take advantage of all the different ways in which coins are unique as a randomizer. Nicely done.
The obligatory ingredient is "designed for someone that has never played before." Most of the concepts are well detailed, and the game is simple enough. From my reading, it would be a great party game, and requires only a bit more rules savvy than, say, Baron Munchausen.

Fun Premise
Oh, hell yes. If you enjoyed Office Space, the Office (either version), Dilbert, or any other comedic look at the workplace, you'll love this game. It is all about fun.

Fun Mechanics
The mechanics are simple and unubtrusive. There is some strategy involved, and the only way that the mechanics could seriously get in the way of the fun is if players hem and haw about if they should bid X cents or y cents, dime or two nickels....

Unity
The game fundamentally has only one simple system. Mr. Davis would have to work very hard to make it not unified. The theme connects well with the premise

And one more from me:
Improvements Moving Forward
The system as presented is simple and robust. I fear that there is an optimal strategy that may lead to a death-spiral. This is something that can be sussed out by competent mechanical/alpha playtesting.
Also, my advice to everyone: if you're going to publish, hire an editor. It is always right to hire an editor.

Conclusion
Overall, this is a great party game in much the same intelectual space as Baron Munchausen, but with a more significant direction in narration. Writing quality was clear and of good quality.

[Jonathan "Buddha" Davis]

Justin,

Wow, thanks! No need at all to apologize about not getting a chance to playtest, we've all got the problem of not enough time to game!

I definitely need to edit and re-organize this puppy... In fact, your summary is better organized than the entry! Ha!

I was totally going for a party/board game with roleplaying flavor, so I'm glad that came across.

Hmm, that's interesting what you said about the losing condition... I was thinking that since there's a winning player at the end of the game, that everyone else loses was the explicit losing condition... You're right, though, I'd need to make that much clearer. (Heh, so much for not being defensive!)

I was a little worried about the death spiral you noticed, pushing everything you have into each action will probably net you a big win for a while, maybe even a game or two, but once this strategy is noticed, the CFO will be getting some serious coin when he begs for change, so hopefully that'll balance out...

Seriously, I really appreciate the review and I think you're right on the money with your comments, if not more than a little generous with your praise! Thanks for the review!!! (and being compared to Baron Munchausen and Office Space in the same review... bliss!)

And, please, everyone, just call me Buddha (or Jonathan if Buddha makes you feel weird)... Mr. Davis is way too formal!

[Justin Smith]

It is in my nature to refer to people in a respectful manner. If you prefer Buddha, then Buddha it will be.
The economy of begging for change may be something that would end the death-spiral.
A quick thought:
I can build a character that can kick my basic worth into virtually any conflict.
I cannot lose my basic worth, and if my opponent wins it, I take it back.
If I kick my worth into a conflict, there is literally nothing to lose. There is no reason I should not kick my .40 behind one or the other. If another player is even slightly ahead, backing the CFO knocks them down. If I want some good will, or a kickback on my turn, I kick in on the player's side.
All with zero risk.

[Jonathan "Buddha" Davis]

Doh! Here's my first errata...

You may only use one Worth Ability in any Challenge, and you need to justify it in the scene. If everyone else Vetos it, you've got to use something else (CFOs, remember you're here to make the game fun for everyone!)...

As for the Worth and begging problem.... let me see:

When someone begs for change, the coins in the challenge go to the winner of the challenge. So either no-one can spare a Worth coin when someone else begs for change, or if you do, it's gone for good... you can still use that Worth ability, but you just get $0.00 when you do (you can totally narrate that as the ability being crippled or burned out, or being horrendously wounded... Possibly earning you a Horrible Event coin when it's your turn).

Hmmm... that's kinda lame... What about this instead:

Any time you want (and there's enough in the Bank), you may Burn your Worth. Burning your Worth means you turn your Worth Coins into regular coins. When you Burn your Worth, you put an X next to the worth ability (or abilities) you burned out. You no longer have any coins in those abilities. In return, you get any amount back up to 2x (3x ??) the Worth you Burned, starting with the highest denomination coins that can be used and working your way down (like if you were making change at a register, but the register is the Bank). You may then spend these coins as you wish.

You cannot use your worth abilites when someone begs for change unless you burn them out.

---

Dude, great questions/concerns! The only rule that I for sure forgot to put in was the use one Worth ability in any challenge rule. Played straight, you could kick one of your Worth coins into every Challenge without risk.

I think some limit when begging for change is a good idea though... which of the above ideas sounds good to you?

PS- also, during lunch I started paging through Fragarach... I love the character creation system!!! Will post more...

[Justin Smith]

It looks like I may be at least 6 weeks without gaming. I swear, it's torture. Needless to say, I will not be able to playtest Evil Twin either. Sorry, John.

Summary

Evil Twin is a light-hearted game where the players adopt the roles of their Evil Twins, bent on supervillianous exploits. Because supervillianous acts are generally illegal, they are in group therapy to learn how to resist the urge to be EVIL!!!
The three exclamation points and underlining appear to be mandatory. This game definitely put me in the mind of Dr. Horrible, and if you enjoyed Mr. Wheedon's web-series, you would probably get a kick out of this game.
Because each player is playing the EVIL!!! version of themselves, character creation is incredibly simple: if I can do it, I can do it. Can I push a stalled car? Yes! Can I lift a stalled car? No! The system is fairly basic: roll 1d6 vs. a GM ("Counselor") determined target number. Various points (Evil, Good, Domination and Failure) modify rolls, and challenges generate more of these points.
When a player achieves 10 total points, their story is complete and the players produce an epilogue for that character. The three potential fates that an Evil Twin can achieve are Prison (losing), Normalcy, and TAKING OVER THE WORLD!!!

Use of Ingredients
John used the ingredients "Mesencephalon," "Second," "Counseling," and "Explicit Losing Condition." With the exception of the last, these are token nods. The player's take the form of their Seconds, i.e. Evil Twins, who are EVIL!!! because of damage to their mesencephalon. The backstory has the Evil Twins in counseling, though this does not seem to be revisited.
The Explicit Losing Condition is a lifetime in prison (until they break out in classic supervillian fashion.) This is a clear and incorporated use of the ingredient.
The secret ingredient used by all games in this competition, "Make a game for people who have never played before." This game does a good job of this: there is no deep understanding of RPGs or theory needed. The rules are incredibly simple, and many of the concepts present in most RPGs (Traits, numarically rated Attributes, Hit Points...) are simply absent, oblivating the need to teach the players in text.

Fun Premise
Dr. Horrible's Sing-Along Blog was an internet phenomenon, and with good reason. It was fun. This game puts me in the same mood and intelectual space, e.g. ready to laugh and have fun.

Fun Mechanics
The mechanics are very simple, and they are presented in an entertaining manner. The option of wagering points provides a depth beyond simple roll-and-check. Despite this, I can only muster "meh" about the mechanics themselves.

Unity
The game has a single system that is used throughout all types of conflict. There is four different currencies to track, with different rules for each, which may distract from the overall unity.

Improvements Moving Forward
You may want to revisit the currencies each having different rules. Also, because an Evil Twin gains a point of Evil or Domination when they roll a success on a challenge with a difficulty greater than or equal to their current rating, and get a bonus equal to their current rating, it encourages players to take challenges 0-1 higher than their current rating where they have no chance of failure.
The text was fun to read, and the attitude should remain in any future draft of this game.
And, as always, if you move to publish, hire an editor.

Conclusion
Evil Twin is a good start on a fun pickup game. It is especially good for people who have no background in gaming. It was a fun read.

[John Evans]

Hey, thanks for the review, Justin! (I've been really busy so I haven't had much time to devote to this website...) Anyway, I'd say all your criticisms are valid. I feel like my basic idea is great, especially because I think non-gamers can understand it easily. And I'm pleased that you liked it too! The execution of the game, well...I don't have that much RPG design experience. I could definitely use more advice for when (if?) I revisit this.

One thing I want to mention; I did want slightly different rules for the currencies, otherwise it would seem too...I don't know, homogenous. That was an intuition I had, but maybe it's not actually useful.

Other than that, I'll keep your criticisms in mind. Thanks! (And hey, don't worry about playtesting, I'm not even sure how playable it is...)

[Jonathan "Buddha" Davis]

Fragarach Review

Summary:
In Fragarach, you play children or teenagers who discover that, because they still possess a sense of Wonder, they can see fantastic creatures and things. In fact, they become companions with a Fae being, who accompanies them on their adventures. Through their adventures and through their companion, the kids you play deal with real life issues and struggles.

The basic Mechanic is a die/coin pool, with odds or head being successes. Success are then used to narrate the outcome, with a basic fact per success. Interestingly, the facts are narrated round-robin style, providing what could be a very interesting narrative that keeps the players involved in the scene. I really liked this aspect of the conflict system.

Even more, I loved Character Creation! The player picks an issue, describing it by adding words to a simple sentence: Because I am ____, I ____, and I need to ____. This is really cool! It immediately focuses you on the central issues of the character, giving you their core problem, their coping mechanism and their desired transformation. All of this is perfect for the GM to turn into story material, and as a player, it gives you a focus for the character. You then choose 3 traits, representing something everyone knows about you, something only friends know and something you want to become. Finally, you get two “tools”, which are objects or skills that can become “damaged” during the game.

Play takes place over a number of scenes, with the GM getting opposition dice determined by what part of the story arc the character is in, with 2 of these conflicts being central to the character. I like the strong structure this gives the GM, as it works as a kind of pacing guide to ensure the character’s get to showboat a little, then face some serious conflict, and then either come out the other side changed, or fall. Good stuff!

Okay! Comments time!

Comments
What follows is a mishmash of critique and personal ideas thrown out! I liked the game a lot, that’s why I have so many questions/ideas about it!

• Okay, this is a me thing: I wanted to see some mechanical bite to the character’s issues. As it stands, they serve primarily as a story focus, which is totally cool, but I loved the character creation so much because of the issue thing, so I was thinking that it would figure in mechanically as well (note the lack of help about what to actually do mechanically…)

• I thought the section on Lines and Veils was really good! Getting out there and explicitly stating things as part of the social contract is a good idea, as few of us want to offend everyone else, but some of us are interested in very different things!

• Why Affinities? What purpose do they fill for Players/Companions? Do you get some kind of bonus vs. opposed Affinities? You choose them for your Companion and for your traits, but they don’t seem to do anything except be flavor… Not that there’s anything wrong with flavor, but since we pick them for our traits, it felt like they should mean something other than color…

• How do you resolve issue? What happens if you do? Can you keep playing, or do you “Grow up” and lose wonder?

• Okay, here’s a quick thought: Tie in traits to Issues. You’ve got 3 blanks to fill in and you get 3 traits: one for one! Each Trait could tie into an issue, with the need to ____ issue being directly tied to the 3rd “weak” trait. I need to ____ becomes part of the I want to become ____. This would give you a concrete way to measure progress toward resolving the character's issue w/ the third trait! The more it grows, the closer you are to resolving your issue!

• Can you gain more tools? But only keep two? Like ones that represent objects/advantages get destroyed/wear out? So if the magical hag blesses me, I get the tool “blessed”, but once it’s destroyed that’s it, I don’t get it again unless I’m re-blessed…

• You could totally represent your Fae companion as a To

[Justin Smith]

Buddha, thanks for the glowing review. I'm glad you liked the game, and the enthusiasm is encouraging. I have been working on a revision of the text for a couple of days now. I'm hoping to have a real playtest draft written soon.
One of the goals I had was to make a game where even novices could create kick-ass character dramas. Structure is key to this, both on the player side with the formulaic structure of the issues, and on the GM side with the scene checklist. If this is a game for beginners, why would we start them with an orc in a 10x10 room? Start with story and compelling drama. Stay for the senseless killing of orcs.
With your first point: one of the rules I missed in the draft I submitted was that the key conflicts have to use the second Trait (for the first key conflict) and third trait (for the final key conflict.) Those first few scenes with low GM dice can be rough if you're gunning for Growth checks.

Your idea about tying Traits to issues is one I had as well, but with all things loomingly deadline, it got left out not as a conscious cut, but a "freakout-didn't get the thing written." It will likely return in the revision.

Affinities serve a couple of purposes, the first is to give a sense of differentness to the "extra-normal." These words imply something different here. The second was a part that didn't get into the competition draft, it is useful when making the Fae Companion. The reason for opposition between elements was initially to help in creating mirror-type Fae.

Did your post get cut off? I think you intended to say Totem, and yes, that idea does indeed kick ass, and is entirely appropriate for the game.

[Jonathan "Buddha" Davis]

Yeah, my post got cut off...

Totem... cool! You could do a whole vision quest for kids with issues, replacing Fae with Totem spirits... An alternate setting! Anyway, here's what I meant to finish saying!

• You could totally represent your Fae companion as a Tool! They can help you out in a scene, but that means they might be hurt!

• Companions need to be represented mechanically in the game. They’re supposed to press on issues, but they don’t have any way to do it! Maybe the two different kinds; Caricature and Mirror could do two different but cool things? Like, for one contest per session, Caricatures let you add 3 dice to your 1st Trait , but Mirrors add 3 dice to your 3rd Trait? Anyway, just some thoughts! Clearly, you’ve got the gears turning, and that’s a very good thing!

• Can you replenish Wonder?

• Oooh, mechanic for backsliding? If you uncheck a Growth box, you get 2 dice, but must act appropriately, and cannot gain growth for that scene? Or as Tool, you risk Growth, if tool dice fail, uncheck that many Growth boxes?

• Shouldn’t the winning character describe their success in the conflict last? That way, no-one can undo their description of success by spending a success to state a contradictory fact…

Anyway, ignore those parts of my rambling review that don’t make any sense! I liked the game, and when I like a game, I try to tinker with it, so take my comments for what they’re worth!

[George Austin]

Hey everyone! The five manuscripts are off to the volunteer non-gamer judge.

Since Peer Review seems to be happening here, I'm going sign up to review Fragarach and Oh Crap!

[Jonathan "Buddha" Davis]

Excellent!

Enjoy GenCon, you lucky dog! If you've got some spare money, pick me up an ashcan of Darkpages from Jared... I swear I'll pay you Tuesday for a rpg today...

Oooohhh... and there's an ashcan of Rustbelt as well that you might wanna look at! So much cool stuff...

Sorry, more on topic; I'm glad you're reviewing Oh Crap, that's the one we don't have covered!

[George Austin]

Beasts of Burden isn't covered either, but I didn't want to do both of Ron's games.

I'll try to remember Darkpages. I think I'm carting a laptop with me, too, so that should help.