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 :)