itch.io

I like the sound of that! Would be cool to add mechanics around avoiding Heat, or maybe a form of Help/Group Action that is more detrimental to the Rat than usual, but offers some extra benefit to the Crew. 

Haha these are great. It could be a fun character, especially for less-serious games. I think they could fit well in many of the gang types as well, which is a slight concern I have with the Vampire or Demon Hunter playbooks, which might drift or distract from Gang goals.

Thanks, me too! It might work as a special playbook you can take after encountering one in-game. Probably a higher-tier playbook as there are not any "weak" vampires in the default setting as far as I know. At this point I think I'll pick from that or The Seeker.

I'm planning to make a playbook that would fit in Duskvol. Some of these might work better as special playbooks, but I'll cross that bridge when I come to it. Any in particular you would like to see? I haven't explored existing custom playbooks yet, so if you see any overlap with existing work, I'd appreciate a link!

• The Soothsayer (fortune teller and divination expert, maybe some kind of flash forward mechanic, or just use of "I have forseen this" flashbacks) 
• The Hollower (soul manipulation, can create hollows as cohorts) 
• The Shaman (Dagger Isles witch, curses, tinctures, etc.) 
• The Insider (a crooked Bluecoat, or maybe a turncoat in any other faction)
• The Locksmith (specializes in travel through the Ghost Field via ghost doors)
• The Magister (academic, can use cohorts of students to research, investigate, experiment) 
• The Gutter (design and befriend urban critters, sort of an urban druid)
• The Seeker (Steampunk Indiana Jones, pulpy professor + adventurer)
• The Demon Hunter 
• The Vampire Hunter
• The Leviathan Hunter

Hi Lari! Thanks for the detailed review. I definitely plan on continuing to work on this with a revision from jam comments and some playtesting.

I agree the competitive nature and the Fabulist mechanic introduces some challenges. That was one of the main pieces of feedback I received during the one playtest I managed to schedule before submitting the game. One player was heavily motivated by mechanics and the board game elements, and I wanted a way to win without being the most popular player, but strictly through winning opposed rolls and manipulating the board. Another player brought up the point that shy or quiet players might be at an unfair disadvantage. I will definitely think about this for revisions and will consider including other win conditions or some sort of mechanic for "stealing" the Fabulist position rather than earning it democratically. If I don't find a satisfactory solution, I will probably just make it explicit in the rules that you have to A) be prepared to use the spotlight when you are in it (i.e. it might just not be a good game for new fiction-first gamers) and B) when someone has the spotlight, you have to let them use it without interrupting.

I agree the list of actions associated with faction statistics could be improved - I received this feedback from other reviewers also. I plan on updating that section to more clearly distinguish the statistics.

Thanks again for your feedback and the opportunity to read your game, Berlin '70 – Capital of Spies!

Ah, I see! The tree of life could definitely be considered a map. That hadn't occurred to me. 

I guess my only advice there is: can that map become a part of play rather than an artifact of it? This is a thing all the jam submissions have really made me think about. As far as I remember, you build your map as the game progresses, but there isn't really a mechanical use for the map after it is built. Maybe you are limited in the number of branches? I forget. But doing something like that, or allowing for some kind of evolutionary mechanic where you can steal past traits or steal traits from other trees could be cool. Or each level in the tree adds some mechanic - a progression or leveling up or something. You could thereby encourage or discourage diversification versus specialization. I don't remember seeing anything like that in the cards or mechanics, and it could make the tree more a part of play. Just a thought.

You are most welcome. I understand re: the theme. Still good to have seen your game. Great to hear you plan to revise it. I look forward to sending a letter out using the revised version!

Hi @scopperil! Thanks for the review, this is all very helpful.

I did not see i'm sorry did you say street magic! It looks really good, and I'm surprised at some of the similarities. I'll have to grab a copy.

I see now that plot and sow could have unproductive overlap. I'll reconsider the wording of the stat descriptions in revisions to see if I can add a bit of distinction. I definitely saw sow as being more directly related to the population of Antrum outside the faction - gaining the trust or spreading rumors among the community. Plot I see as more of a sneaky faction action, maybe sneaking into another faction's territory or HQ, or gathering intel on a person/place/thing, etc. I'll try to make that clearer.

I think opposed rolls being optional is for the case where the other players are ok with an action happening unopposed - they think it will lead to a more interesting outcome or they think it is boring or more of a setup action and don't want to linger. I can check that section to see if the optional nature could lead to problems.

The destroying Districts point is a really good catch. I missed this possibility. I will add a section saying if a District with a Haunt is destroyed, the player with the Haunt can relocate the Haunt as they wish. I suppose it could be an opportunity to revise the name of the Haunt also...

Two d66 lists could be good. I was trying to conserve paper and had uneven numbers of ideas for the different columns. I'll think on that.

Thanks again for your feedback! I appreciate it.

Hey, thanks for the submission. With the big caveat that I haven’t actually played the game, just read it, here’s my review. 

Theme

This design addresses the theme: instead of multiple maps, there is one map, but many views into it through the different routes of each player character's ship. That's a neat way to approach it.

Maps

It appears from my reading that the maps act as an artifact of play (recording what has happened), and tracking the route the heroes take. However, it doesn't seem that the map itself (its topology, layout, design, etc.) directly affects the mechanics. To me, that is an important part of a map game, but I understand that doesn't meet everyone's definition.

Tone and style

I personally found the all-caps font hard to read. I would personally use normal capitalization font. There were a few style language issues that I had to think about for a second, e.g. a “cross” instead of "tails" on a coin flip, but that's pretty small. I would say that some of the sections feel a bit redundant. A copy-editor could help with that. Other than that, I think the text does a good job setting the tone of Homeric myth. It has a fun and jovial tone that I like a lot.

Elegant

I wouldn't say throwing the coin is an elegant mechanic! It's sort of fun though. However, with most dexterity-based mechanics, it can be ableist. Perhaps you can put in an alternative rule for those who aren't able to throw a coin (or are bad at it), such as rolling a coin or rolling dice that determine an angle and distance, etc. 

Overall the mechanics sound fun, choosing which resources to draw down is a really nice mechanic that gives the player choice without being overwhelming.

Easy to understand

I did have a bit of trouble understanding the game. I think some of that might be the understandable fact that it wasn't written by a native English speaker. Thanks for sharing in English though! I certainly would have a lot of trouble reading it in Italian. Even after re-reading a few sections, there are still some mechanics I don’t understand, for example, Hubris. After reading and rereading some sections, I also don’t understand where the route map actually goes. I can see that is clarified a bit below - adding clarity there in a revision would be great. I can surmise there is one for each player (though that could be made more explicit). However, the end condition that isn't running out of Hubris was not super clear to me - how do you actually reach Ithake? I also don’t understand where the "Exile" sheet is located.

Thanks for sharing your submission! I enjoyed reading it.

Hey, thanks for the submission. With the big caveat that I haven’t actually played the game, just read it, here’s my review.

Theme / Maps

I liked how you approached the theme by using past and present maps. This is one idea I thought about exploring, but decided it would be too hard to implement! I think you tackled it well. I like the idea of simultaneously discovering past and present as you play. There is very clear use of maps in the mechanics.

Tone and style

I thought this game was clear and well-written, but it felt a bit dry? I feel like you have a solid theme and could go a bit further with it in the text. I suppose if you want it to be setting/genre neutral that makes it harder. That said, I really liked the character archetypes and questions. I would call attention to that content a bit earlier - I was having trouble thinking what kind of scenes and narrative would work well until I saw those questions. Those are central! Maybe introduce the actual text for them earlier on? Just an idea.

Elegant

The amount of rolling/discovery feels high, but I can see it opens up options. The one thing I'm not sure about is the Treasure or Tension rolls. It seems like mixed outcomes don’t make sense mechanically even if they do fictionally. The example on page 6 feels like it should increase tension because Carl isn’t happy, but it doesn’t. I feel like that limits the narrative. This is somewhat dealt with by the players by including it in the follow-up tension results, but still. That didn't feel quite right to me.

I also agree with @Saddy4 that some rules around scene-setting could help with that issue.

Easy to understand

I thought the game was pretty clear. 

Overall, I liked it! I would like to play it. Thanks for sharing.

Hey, thanks for the submission. With the big caveat that I haven’t actually played the game, just read it, here’s my review.

Theme

Right out of the gate I'd like to say - I love the idea here! I love the idea of the letter and map travelling. However, unfortunately I don't think it actually addresses the the theme of the jam, as there is just one map. It's true that different people will contribute to it, but in my reading the jam theme requires multiple maps of the same place/space, varying in scope and/or scale. This creates a map of one place.

Maps

The map is basically the product of the game. It is central to the game, but as I've mentioned in other jam submission comments, I think the map is mostly a product or artifact of play rather than the space of play itself.

Tone and style

I like that this is simple and to the point. The layout is great.

Elegant

I like the simple and light mechanics. I wouldn't feel intimidated opening the letter, but rather would want to participate immediately.

Easy to understand

Unfortunately as it says on the jam page, this still needs a few more instructions, particularly around getting started. That's too bad, because I feel like it's super close to a playable game! Please finish it! I'll probably start a letter even if you don't, but I'd love it if it were finished.

So, in conclusion, I really like this one, I just don’t think it addresses the theme of the jam very closely. But in the end it's still a map game, and I'd like to play it!

Hey, thanks for the submission. With the big caveat that I haven’t actually played the game, just read it, here’s my review. 

Theme / Maps

I didn't know you could find floor-plans on The Landmark Trust! That's a great source of maps, and a great way to kick off a game. I also like that you chose to have the players contribute to and play both sides in the conflict. That's a great way to hit the theme. Maps are pretty central to the mechanics. I liked the mechanic of the fae sigil.

Tone and style

I like the simple and fun, family-friendly vibe here. The layout is basic but serviceable.

Elegant

I feel that I can understand the mechanics, but I would have to play to figure out the strategy. I like the way it balances playing both sides. The end game in particular sounds fun.

Easy to understand

I had to reread a few points, but overall it was clear.

Thanks for the opportunity to review your game.

Hey, thanks for the submission. With the big caveat that I haven’t actually played the game, just read it, here’s my review.

Theme

I think the game hits the theme very well. It is interesting it takes a somewhat similar approach to The Hanging Room, with one "real world" map and one "operative" map. I think the mechanics connect the networks and city map well.

Maps

Maps are central to the mechanics, so I think the game works well there.

Tone and style

The tone fits the subject matter well. The layout, tokens, and map are all excellent - it is up there with Recallers in terms of being ready to play with a nice layout. I thought it was well-written and clear.

Elegant

The design seems straightforward. I would be curious to play. I’m not sure how the USSR will fare! Like with Lifetree, as this is a board game, I felt I would need to play to really understand the strategy and elegance.

Easy to understand

I like that the mechanics are easy to understand, but I don't immediately identify the best strategy. That makes me want to play!

Thanks for submitting and allowing me to review your game. I thought this was a strong submission.

Hey, thanks for the submission. With the big caveat that I haven’t actually played the game, just read it, here’s my review.

Theme

I thought you hit the theme very well. I like how the cards ensure there is overlap between the city and the paracosm, but they remain distinct. It reminded me of this recent story I read in Wired.

Maps

The maps don't play a super central role in terms of mechanics, more narrative. They exist more as a record of play than the space of play, I thought. That was a theme I have identified from the jam - games treat the map as central to mechanics to different degrees. But the map itself is amazing! I love how evocative the art is for the city map.

Tone and style

I thought the layout and art were very good - probably the most polished among games I read for the jam. The guidebook is well-written and conveys a strong sense that the game knows what it is about. I like that it is written to be read aloud. However, the character deck has some spelling mistakes and could use a copy-edit. Overall I think the tone creates a very cute and cozy game.

Elegant

I love how simple the mechanics are - basically just following some instructions, pulling a card, choosing a card, and narrating. That is great. I also think the prompts on the cards are evocative enough that the game would flow well in play.

Easy to understand

I found the rules and guide easy to follow. I like that a guide is included for the Facilitator.

Overall, I really liked it! This was one of my favorite games I read for the jam. I would definitely like to play it.

Hey, thanks for the submission. With the big caveat that I haven’t actually played the game, just read it, here’s my review.

Theme / Maps

The world map is central to the game, but I don't think it addressed the theme? As far as I can tell, there is one world map with multiple characters. But the "scale or scope" of the map is singular. The use of Sense8-style clusters is cool, but it didn't feel to me like the mechanics explore the differences enough to address the theme. That's a really challenging concept to design for though, so I think the way you went at it with Yin and Yang was an interesting approach. That challenge alone makes the game worth pursuing, in my mind.

Tone and style

I found it a bit hard to find a tone in the text, as it was a bit hard to understand. I also was a bit confused by some of the examples, e.g. "violent", "sad", "apathetic", "energetic", "sexy", "too much", "not enough", "lonely", "ronin": ronin seems like it doesn't fit?

Elegance

I had trouble picturing how the pull between Yin and Yang would affect the game. I got the theme and that the characters were meant to be challenged by Yin and Yang, but had trouble seeing how the mechanics reinforced that.

Easy to understand

My main issue was that I found it a bit hard to read and understand the rules. Perhaps if you revise the game after the jam, you can find someone willing to help copy-edit? There were a lot of run on sentences that made reading it challenging. A thorough copy-edit might make it easier to see the shape of the game within the text.

Thanks for the opportunity to review your game.

Hey, thanks for the submission. With the big caveat that I haven’t actually played the game, just read it, here’s my review. 

Theme / Map

This game stood out by being one of the full board game submissions I read. It reminded me a lot of Evolution / Evolution: Climate / Oceans. Which is good, as I love those games. The addition of a map to that kind of game adds a cool mechanic. However, I don't think the map mechanic here fully addressed the theme. It's really just one map with multiple species. Maybe the different levels of competition (herbivore, predator, etc.) creates multiple views of the map? In any case the map is very important to the design.

Elegance

Regarding design, overall I thought it seemed like it would be fun. I chuckled at "resolve the conflict through arm wrestling", but I do think that rule is ableist. Perhaps you could provide other options for resolving a tie. Compared to the RPG submissions, I really felt I would have to play this to see how well balanced it is and to discover the emergent strategies.

Tone and style

Overall the text was functional. I did notice a few spelling errors, e.g. “Planes” should be “Plains.” If you iterate, perhaps adding some layout would make the game a bit more attractive, but for a jam that’s no big deal. It’s great you added your own game art. I feel like writing and erasing species names on the map might get annoying? Maybe you can use tokens or slips of paper with the species name on it instead? I’m not sure.

Easy to understand

I thought the game was easy to understand. One point is that it appears to introduce creating a species and the tree of life without explaining them (#2 on page 1). If you do that, perhaps you should link to that section of the document so players know that explanation is coming? Or just say, “see section X.”

“Add their starting species”: does that mean write in the name? (#2 on page 1) Perhaps this could be clarified.

Thanks for the opportunity to review your game.

Hey, thanks for the submission. With the big caveat that I haven’t actually played the game, just read it, here’s my review.

Theme

I think the game addressed the theme well. It uses multiple maps. The maps are of the same place, but differentiated by scope, in this case, character perspective. The combination of maps when characters find each other is cool!

Maps

Maps are definitely central to the game. I like the mechanic for discovering other players. However, it feels like there is not a lot of room for description or creation built into the rules. It sounds like you simply observe the POI, have a reaction, and move on. I really like that you can ‘save the game’ using the final map. That’s something that didn’t exist in many other submissions.

Elegant

The dice mechanic is efficient. However, it seems that Mood doesn’t matter mechanically. If you are in danger, so what? You can’t be harmed. Also, the game text starts by discussing the Prime Directive. But I have no idea how this should play out in the game. How could you violate the Prime Directive? No mechanics seem to threaten it, or point towards it. If a game tells me, don't violate this thing, I see that as a challenge. I expect the game will challenge me to not violate it. Maybe I missed something, but that feels important to me. If you focus on it right at the start, it should be central to the mechanics, not just the theme. Otherwise, perhaps it is not needed?

Tone and style

The layout was good. I appreciated the brevity.

Easy to understand

This was pretty easy to understand. That said, I did find a few sections hard to figure out without playing, particularly the Research your teammates and Gather information sections. Hopefully, they would make more sense in play.

Hey, thanks for the submission. With the big caveat that I haven’t actually played the game, just read it, here’s my review. 

Theme

I think The Hanging Room hits the theme really well. The use of two maps that both offer a glimpse into the actual mission was a great way to address the theme of the jam. I also felt that it was a good amount of complexity: only two maps, but the fact that players can make true or false claims about what happened adds complexity.

Maps

It does seem like play is quite focused on the maps. The game did fall a bit in the category of the maps representing the fiction, rather than being the fiction.

Elegance

The design felt a bit like a more secret-focused Fiasco. I thought the design was pretty straightforward and understandable. However, even after reading some sections a few times, I still didn’t fully understand the use of the deck of cards. I really liked the modularity - it would be straightforward to add elements to many of the lists without breaking the game. Same with adding a new operation type. That is a great feature and leaves a lot of room to build on the game after the jam. It’s a great reminder to me to build modular systems when designing, especially for jams.

My main design question is: what motivates players? From my reading there is no winner, advancement, or principles to play to. That’s my main gripe: as a player, what am I supposed to do? Strictly play to my motivation? What mechanically motivates me to play to that? It goes back to Jared Sorensen’s third question: how does your game encourage or reward players enforcing the theme or goal.

Tone and style

The writing is great. It was clear and really made me imagine being a character in a high-tension spy movie or novel. The choice to evoke le Carré instead of Ian Fleming was smart!

Easy to understand

I thought the rules were relatively easy to follow. There were a few areas that I thought could be clearer. Part of that might be a cultural thing, but I prefer where games make clear, cut and dry rules, rather than leaving it up to the player. One example is “one single action or interaction” (pg 8): this rule could be interpreted differently. Maybe add a time suggestion? Under a minute? Additionally, I think I would need to play to understand how the creating and revealing of secrets really works. I got a bit confused trying to understand Traces.

Overall, I liked it! I would definitely like to play it.

Hi Daneile,

Thanks for the comments. It's great to get feedback. Your English is great! Sicuramente meglio del mio italiano... Look out for my comments on Daedalus soon.

1. Great point - I had only considered ties among a subset, not a 1-vote-per-player tie. I will clarify that during revisions. I think I would say you must decide turn and action order randomly until a Fabulist is chosen.

2. It's interesting that one of your takeaways was the game's nature as a hybrid board-game RPG. That is definitely true, but from the start I was aiming at a creating a narrative-driven map-game like The Quiet Year! I suppose the number of components and worker placement does move it towards a board game. However, the reward mechanism (being selected as Fabulist) is strictly narrative right now. The "board state" does affect your options for narration though. I'm not sure what direction I would go to try to harmonize those elements. I think I would have to play test more to see what emerged! For example, it is not clear to me right now how much the topology of the board will matter. You will be limited by where you can move your Goons or how many resources you can spend, for sure, but I imagine you might be able to subvert those limits and still find success.

3. Right now the rule state you must describe your Goon, but not their movements. I should add a required narration of movement to fit the other actions, all of which (I think!) require narration.

n1. noted, thank you!

n2. I started to run out of words for faction types (Organization, Group, Company, etc.). Some of the columns are therefore limited - you can still roll on them, but would have to reroll with certain results. It is also meant to be rolled one column at a time, rather than one row at a time. I didn't find a good way to include that instruction on the page, but would like to for revisions. I also found I could keep thinking of more and more nouns and adjectives - I suppose the total number available is pretty high haha. I would definitely want to expand the table in revisions where it make sense. A d66 is interesting - I haven't made many random tables and wasn't sure which approach was best. Because I had so many nouns and adjectives I sort of let those determine the total table size. I had more than 66 for those columns. Another option would be to restrict it a bit to tighten the implied setting, but I sort of like the wild results you can get on the table right now.

---

Ciao Daneile,

Grazie per i commenti È fantastico ricevere feedback. Il tuo inglese è fantastico! Sicuramente meglio del mio italiano ... Presto attenzione ai miei commenti su Daedalus.

1. Ottimo punto: avevo considerato solo i legami tra un sottoinsieme, non un pareggio da 1 voto per giocatore. Lo chiarirò durante le revisioni. Penso che direi che devi decidere a turno e in ordine casuale fino a quando non viene scelto un Fabulista.

2. È interessante che uno dei tuoi take-away fosse la natura del gioco come un gioco di ruolo ibrido da tavolo. Questo è sicuramente vero, ma fin dall'inizio miravo a creare un gioco di mappe basato sulla narrazione come The Quiet Year! Suppongo che il numero di componenti e il posizionamento dei lavoratori lo spostino verso un gioco da tavolo. Tuttavia, il meccanismo di ricompensa (selezionato come Fabulista) è strettamente narrativo in questo momento. Lo "stato di bordo" influisce comunque sulle opzioni di narrazione. Non sono sicuro in quale direzione vorrei andare per cercare di armonizzare quegli elementi. Penso che dovrei giocare di più per vedere cosa è emerso! Ad esempio, non mi è chiaro in questo momento quanto sarà importante la topologia del consiglio. Sarai limitato da dove puoi spostare i tuoi Goon o da quante risorse puoi spendere, sicuramente, ma immagino che potresti essere in grado di sovvertire quei limiti e trovare ancora successo.

3. In questo momento la regola afferma che devi descrivere il tuo Goon, ma non i loro movimenti. Dovrei aggiungere una narrazione richiesta del movimento per adattarsi alle altre azioni, tutte le quali (penso!) Richiedono una narrazione.

n1. Ne ho preso nota. Grazie!

n2. Ho iniziato a rimanere senza parole per i tipi di fazione (Organizzazione, Gruppo, Azienda, ecc.). Alcune delle colonne sono quindi limitate: puoi ancora scorrere su di esse, ma dovresti ripetere il test con determinati risultati. È anche pensato per essere arrotolato una colonna alla volta, anziché una riga alla volta. Non ho trovato un buon modo per includere queste istruzioni nella pagina, ma vorrei fare delle revisioni. Ho anche scoperto che potrei continuare a pensare a sempre più nomi e aggettivi - suppongo che il numero totale disponibile sia piuttosto alto ahah. Vorrei sicuramente espandere la tabella in revisioni dove ha senso. Un d66 è interessante - non ho fatto molti tavoli casuali e non ero sicuro di quale approccio fosse il migliore. Dato che avevo così tanti nomi e aggettivi, ho lasciato che quelli determinassero la dimensione totale della tabella. Ne avevo più di 66 per quelle colonne. Un'altra opzione sarebbe quella di restringerlo un po 'per restringere l'impostazione implicita, ma mi piacciono i risultati selvaggi che puoi ottenere sul tavolo in questo momento.

Thanks so much for your comments. These are great. Look out for my comments on Unexplored soon!

1. Good point - this could definitely be clearer. If you look at page 14-15 you can see the explanation as it exists:

"After establishing the bonuses, each player rolls two six-sided dice and adds their bonuses, as well as the modifier from an appropriate attribute matching their description (they choose). Ties go to the opposing Faction."

So, I'm trying to say each faction chooses their own attribute from their Faction Sheet, but it could be clearer. It would be interesting to playtest where the defender gets to choose. I am a bit worried people will just always pick their best stat, since they can try to justify it. However, the reward structure means it doesn't necessarily mean losing is bad - you can lose and still be the Fabulist, but it is probably less likely. Part of the strategy would be in the attacker trying to fictionally position a tough situation for the defending faction. For example, threatening the civilians of a district loyal to one faction might necessitate the defender use Sow or Plot rather than Beg or Mob.

2. Wow, what a rookie move! I'll have to fix that to be 2-12 after the jam.

3. Agreed. I can add in a full example round of play after the jam - that was a "stretch goal" that I didn't hit.

4. I recommended 3-5 players on the front cover. I only had time to playtest one game with 3. I imagine it could accommodate more, but I think it would begin to get quite slow with more than 5. I might explore an alternative 'simultaneous' play style for larger groups where each player basically 'does' their turn and then the descriptions all happen rapid fire around the table afterward. It would just break some of the existing order-dependent mechanics that the Fabulist benefits from.