Post by sinopiasaur in A Visit To San Sibilia comments

Viewing post in A Visit To San Sibilia comments

I read your longer review and have a few comments.

1. I am a bit confused about the idea of repeated pairs of location and event being simply a copy of the same combination. I assumed if you get the same combination you add variation in what happens, not that the same event repeats moment for moment. If I have two stressful visits to a pawn shop I can shape that into two extremely different experiences, and I'm not exactly brilliant at storytelling. However I do appreciate that this is a Me approach that doesn't work for everyone.

2. Minor nitpick but safety tools aren't an extraneous addition for games like these. You can get into really dark places easily with the themes of San Sibilia, and it is extremely helpful to be reminded you can get outta there. It's actually kind of responsible but that is just my opinion. By contrast, a game that focuses on touristing without the specific thematic pull of San Sibilia doesn't need safety tools as much or perhaps even at all. (I think about Alone in the Ancient City here.)

3. I generally play journaling games with an additional inspiration tool like story cubes, but there are other methods (random word generators, grab a book and flip to random page and random line, I think the second is actually used in a particular game system somewhere on itch). RPGs often need an idea mill especially if you GM, and journaling games are no different (where the GM is effectively you).

4. Game length variation is not necessarily an issue in something like this but that is a pretty personal feel. I think the idea behind the particular mechanic here is to add tension by making it uncertain when exactly you get out of the weird city that shouldn't exist. However I think a warning on this might help set expectations and is lacking in the game doc. For myself, I break journaling games that end up long over a couple of days.

Apologies if you have already taken all this into account and have tons of journaling game experience, though! I don't always read that well so may have missed that. I myself bounced super hard off a decent journaling game myself for personal reasons, so I know that weird feeling. (I don't leave reviews in that case when I know it's deeply personal, but this can't be everyone's approach.)

As for advice on tuning the game, I have played a lot of journaling games so have some ideas for the game designer given what has troubled you.

A. Re advice on more consistent game lengths; I've played numerous journaling games and there are three approaches I would suggest:

i. Quick exit: allow the player to create the exit scenario on the fly. I think this is the easiest option with the most player agency but sacrifices the original tension.

ii. Tie progression to a specific sum of cards drawn, so for instance on a sum of 21 you mark the next box regardless of what happens. This strikes a middle ground by forcing progression without overburdened rules, yet keeping some of the original tension. This is an approach taken by Chill Out, which actually highly needs that mechanic even though it is an avowedly longish journaling experience.

iii. Add additional Changes on heart-diamond and clubs-spades draw conditions. This is the most complex alteration and would need a lot of fine tuning, and potentially keeps tension in.

B. Re: advice on more varied prompts, I recommend the Alone Among the Stars approach, which ties each suit to a theme and each rank to a more specific prompt (like location). As each suit-rank pair is unique in a single deck of playing cards, this generates unique prompts each time. Additional RNG in the form of one d6 can add contextual circumstances. I was surprised actually that this approach wasn't taken, so was prepared to use my story cubes for extra inspiration help.

Still, I'm neither a game designer nor a story teller so my advice is always grain of salty.

sinopiasaur3 years ago (1 edit) (+1)

Oh, forgot to add under B. advice, there's the "every card is a unique prompt" approach, which is used well in games like The Last Stop, games in the Descended from the Queen family, games in the Follow the Leads family, and games in the CARTA family, and they really hit themes *hard* at the expense of lots more writing.

JonSpencerReviews3 years ago (1 edit)

Before I address your comments I just want to say I appreciate you taking the time to read my longer review and providing a response asking for further clarity. I'll do my best to address each of your comments in full here.

1. Yes, of course, you are correct here. Even in my own game where I visited the museum, had I gone back the next journal day and had the exact same prompt, I would have been able to make this a unique encounter. I did not mean to imply otherwise. My main point was that there isn't always a reason for why I'd be having repeat encounters (strictly prompt, not content), or very similar encounters, sometimes multiple times in a row. It's one of those things that doesn't always make sense narratively or breaks pacing. After simulating 10 games, where I did everything but the journal component, I was finding it difficult to always justify why the events were occurring in the way they did.

To provide some additional context, when I play games like these for review purposes, something I think Peter is aware of, I tend to write up bigger stories that make selling the game easier. I write professionally, so for me, this is the easiest way for me to showcase how the game can create a fun experience. I don't think San Sibilia is dreadful at this or anything, but I was finding an issue with the general nature of how/when events are triggered. Which takes me back to the issue of pacing, my primary complaint.

2. Just want to clarify, I am cool with safety tools. I said in my review it was a nice inclusion, I just didn't think this game in particular needed explicit safety tools. As you mention, you don't always feel a game needs this kind of thing, so I would hope you understand that I'm not condemning the game for having them. It's the opposite; didn't think it needed them, but cool that they are there.

3. I have tools like this and am well versed in these sorts of games. However, my reviews and play reports that are public facing ALWAYS demand that the game stand on its own with no outside assistance if that's how it's advertised. In San Sibilia's case, this applies. I want my thoughts and opinions to be honest and reflective of the general experience someone might have if they just picked the game up right now and played. I'm an avid solo player with a ton of GM experience, so I don't think that was the issue in this case.

From the review, I do mention that I might have gone outside the game's intended method of playing, however, the game owns some responsibility for that. I shouldn't need to use anything beyond what the book tells me and if playing x or y way hurts the game in a meaningful fashion, I would hope the gamebook would make a recommendation to guide the player in the right direction. I do acknowledge that I might have hurt my initial experience by how I framed my first game, and of course, this is on me. It's why I also "played" 10 more games, to ensure that this first game wasn't the only issue. Perhaps it is not obvious in the way the review is presented, but it's not like I did all of this in one sitting.

4. I agree with your sentiment and the intent here. However, there's a big difference in building tension that feels good and huge swings in variability. In my initial game, the play report one, the game went on for an obscenely long time. Had I played all 27 turns, I would have far exceeded the expected playtime which I was already over at just 8 entries. I gave up at this point because I wasn't jiving with this run of the game, but after seeing how much was left (something I thought might motivate me to continue), I just called it there because it was too much. Any tension had long melted away at that point, and I struggled to see why the heck this guy would just lounge about in this city for months and months.

On the other end of things, a game ending after 5 turns, where all but turn 4 is a MAJOR event feels equally bad. At this point nothing has happened, and as a result, the game has failed to provide any clear direction to me the player. "You change the city" as your first event, followed by "You change the city", followed by "A Change of Heart" tells me nothing. I have no frame of reference to work off of, even if I really flesh out my character. It's awkward and feels frankly terrible as a player.

This issue extends into the average length games though since these big events can occur any time. Even in those, I would often have major events occur once, or even multiple times, within the first few turns. Pacing is important, building that beginning, middle, and end in a game like this matters. Since there really isn't a "game" here, it's strictly a writing exercise, I expect the game to provide a bit more structure and consistency in how it paces out events at the very least. I'm not saying every game needs to be a set length, but a swing of 5-27 turns is way too big, with the big events occurring in a way that's simply too random.

It's all good, I hope I was able to clarify my thoughts a bit better for you here. San Sibilia just didn't come together for me, and that's a bummer, but that does happen. Obviously a lot of people disagree! So I'm in the minority. However, sponsored or not, my review reflects my honest and genuine opinions across the whole experience. For my readers, that's what they come for, so I don't want to betray that, which I hope you can appreciate. As for leaving reviews, I tend to only leave positive ones on this website, I feel terrible when I leave a negative one. That said, Peter asked me to, and I thought it would be dishonest if I didn't follow through on it. Still, I gave a final rating of 3/5 stars. I think there's a good game in here, but it just isn't quite put together enough for me to genuinely recommend it.

I'm a game designer and writer so I'd love to look at your game advice, so let's just do that real fast since I'm here anyway.

A. This is something I think really needs to be addressed from a designer prospective. Your solutions:

i. Absolutely, this is an easy solution but I do agree it hurts the tension you mention. Still, it wouldn't be bad to let players have this kind of control as an options, a variant way to play.

ii. I like the idea of this solution, but think it would be burdensome to manage as you have laid it out anyway. Still, something like this, a "fixed" interval system would help the game immensely. It would allow the major events to come at more paced times, but not in an overly predictable way. This would solve the pacing problem.

iii. Great idea but this would fundamentally change the game from a mechanical perspective. I think they could just get away with having an additional/alternative chart. That way you can mix and match a little to customize your experience. This has the added benefit of not being that much extra work either, whereas your idea would be a lot of work in this game's case. Better solution for B.

B. Varity solutions. See previous. To address your primary comment though, I don't think the D6 context chart is a bad idea, though for this game a more universal chart with larger option selection (say a D12 or 2D6), would probably be better if implemented. Otherwise, again, I think that the game would be fundamentally different and Peter would have to undertake way too much work. In short, more than this and it would just be better for Peter to make a new game.

Anyway, thanks again for the comment and I hope this finds you well :)

sinopiasaur3 years ago

Ah, could you remove the

very long repeated dashes?

They make your comment so

wide I can't read without

copy/paste into a separate text app.

And it seems to wreck formatting

of comments here.

So my further thoughts are:

1. I don't think I understand why repeated prompts are bad still? I'm also not sure how you get a good enough sense of how jounaling would go without doing it at least a little. As for why anything should happen, isn't that something you create? The prompts guide you. At least that is my experience with all journaling games save for the CARTA system. There are other solo games with a huge array of tables and that guide the experience more, but the idea that randomly generated prompts need priors from the game to happen is weird. For myself I chained elements from previous entries I'd written, and that is a lot harder to do when you aren't doing journal entries.

Through that methodology I feel you missed some of the mark here, and it hurts the review.

2. I know you weren't condemning them, but I wondered indeed why you thought the game couldn't wander into deep wells of feelings. That was what struck me as strange.

3. I had a lot of experience with RPGs but journaling games tend to be very different beasts. My surprise was at how some of the things that felt pretty normal in journaling games that were present in San Sibilia elicted surprise from you, so I wasn't sure you had experience with journaling games specifically. That experience still doesn't come across to me.

4. This is where it gets weird because I had one extremely short run (6 days) and I don't run much character gen. And that was the session that made me fall in love with the game. I still had a great time and made a bunch of stuff happen with a follow-through storyline, so the idea that a short run results in nothing sounds strange to me.

Though this is where we differ the most, in that I end up feeling frustrated when more guidance is present, and you seem to feel more frustrated when there is less guidance in general. So that's likely why our views on the game are polar opposites, save that we both agree the game has a good core though I feel that part's just sense.

And yes, being honest about reviews is great but I feel like there was something missing in yours, and I'm trying to pin it down. It is obvious you do good reviews, I just wasn't sure why this one didn't feel up to par with your standard. However I shall have to chalk it up to my lack of reading comprehension.

On discussion of tweaks, A.ii isn't difficult. Add up the ranks of each card you pull, and when you hit blackjack (say, a sum of 21, but I think a larger sum would also make sense) mark a progress box. I'm sure I presented it incorrectly for you to have that impression.

Re B. I don't think I understand since I was mostly thinking about ways that prompt variety is achieved in other journaling games, and Alone Among the Stars is one of the core games of this nature that is amenable to hacking, which you're maybe familiar with. I don't think prompt variety makes the game a wholly different one. Then again, I'm no designer nor writer.

JonSpencerReviews3 years ago

Yeah, done. It messed up the formatting anyway on the page.

1. Just because I didn't physically write for all 10 games doesn't mean I wasn't playing along in my mind. Does that mean they aren't as strong of an experience as they could be? Probably. The additional games weren't meant to be play reports though, I was testing game length, content distribution, and overall feel. I understand that you chain events together and work to make sense of the prompts. Remember, I'm not new to this, I just don't think that the prompts always connected together well. This is subjective, my opinion, and reflected in my review. You are welcome to like the game and disagree with my review, again, a lot do.

2. I didn't? The game tells you it can. Everyone has different views on safety rules. I mentioned it for those who might care, I personally didn't think I needed them for this game, but again, it doesn't hurt that they are included. That's all I meant by it.

3. Sorry it didn't come across, I don't know what to tell you. I don't know what you want me to say. I've played a lot of journal games from English Eerie to Alone Among the Stars, some games hit better than others. I'm not trying to suck anyone's enjoyment out of this game, I even advocate that people try this one for themselves anyway because I didn't feel great about the negative review, I wanted to like it, I just didn't.

4. I don't think the game needs to add a ton of guidance, I'm being unclear here. I just think, as it currently stands, the moment-to-moment gameplay doesn't always necessarily help the player keep good forward momentum. This ties back into pacing. If nothing has happened to my character and a major event tells me that something dramatic has shifted in my character, it's hard to come up with and justify what that is. This is the core of the complaint here when I talk about "guidance". I'm saying that previous events, or lack there of, don't always help to inform the current situation, which I think hurts the game.

I appreciate your compliment on my general writing. If you think what's missing, let me know. I mean, feedback is always valuable.

In regards to tweaks. A. ii. No, I understood, from a player perspective, in a game like this you don't want the player to have too much "upkeep" and depending on how the numbers are adding up, this requires the player to keep track of a lot of things at once. It's not difficult, but too much of it can be a barrier to a more general audience, which in this game's case, would likely hurt it. The exact number would need a lot of playtesting too, I just think there's a more elegant solution, but the concept of your idea here is sound.

To point B I mean to convey that the level of work that would be required to switch formats as you suggest would mechanically influence the game a lot. In that way it becomes a new game. Additionally, some of what you suggested would be a lot of additional work for this title.

Hope that makes more sense.

sinopiasaur3 years ago(+2)

It does and doesn't but that's ok, I generally lack the ability to understand complexity and nuance, so I think it's just me at this point. I don't think further explaining would help as you've done a lot of it already and I'm pretty sure everyone else gets it even if I likely won't.

Re feedback, not all feedback is valuable. But you probably already know that! Plus, I don't think my feedback here for you is useful.

Thanks for the thread.

JonSpencerReviews3 years ago

No problem, give yourself some more credit though. Anyway, have a nice day :)

JimmyShelter3 years ago(+2)

Thank you both for the discussion.

I do like the randomness of the game, but I can imagine it's not for everyone. Some of both of your suggestions did spark some ideas. I might add a variant end game rule, which will land the game in a smaller range of turns.

JonSpencerReviews3 years ago

Sure thing, and thanks for being open to feedback! If you do update the game, like I said, I'm always happy to take another look and update my thoughts :)

itch.io

Viewing post in A Visit To San Sibilia comments